When is war justified, part duex?

[BlackCat]

Unless I'm wrong, then it was nessecary to plan on "what if's" in 1914 simply because it could take days for information to spread. This means that it make sense to move troops in advance even if there are no need.

What could look like some evil scheme could simply be intelligent people prepare for eventualities.

As I see it much of Ned's arguments typically is based on todays instant knowledge instead of the capabilty back then.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
Just a few date to help this discussion:

Oct. 3, orders are cut for the British troops to move from India to Persia to confront the Ottoman Empire (i.e., defend the Brit oil fields in Persia) and threaten invasion. Why?

Why not? Britain sent troops to secure its territory and the territory of its Allies shortly after a major war had broken out in Europe. Sounds completely reasonable to me.

British policy at the time still wanted Turkey neutral, but Churchill wanted Turkey to expel the two German cruisers and/or their crew which the Turks had by now purchased. He sent an August 19 message, quoted above by ElTigre, conditioning the return of the two siezed battleships on expelling the German warships' German crew from Turkey, saying in no unmistakable terms that Turkey's sheltering of the two warships with their German crew still on board was hostile to Britain and was not consistent with being a neutral.

Another blatant lie: Churchill never said that he wanted Turkey to return the two ships. He acknowledged that they were now Turkish. The crew, however, was German, and it wasn't "bought" when the ships became part of the Turkish Navy.

The Brits reconsidered landing the Indian force on the borders of the Ottoman Empire, as they wanted the Turks to make the first hostile act.

So? Did Turkey make the first move or not? Remember this happened several days after Turkey had already attacked Russia.

"The eventual destination of Goeben and Breslau (a mystery to the British until the ships actually reached the Dardanelles)

Are you actually reading what you are quoting? This paragraph clearly states that Churchill didn't even know the destination of the 2 German ships! So how can he have arranged their escape to Turkey if he didn't even know that they were heading for Istanbul?

Clearly his Nov. 2 order to bombard the Ottoman forts was intended to force the issue. That order was issued prior to the British decision to declare war.

But after Turkey had attacked Russia.

The orders given to Brig-General W.S.Delamain - commanding the Force - were to protect the oil refineries, tanks and pipeline at Abadan and cover the landing of reinforcements if these should be required. Only if hostilities with Turkey were to become fact should he try to occupy Basra too, and to do this the rest of the 6th (Poona) Division of the Indian Army would arrive. News came through that Turkey had attacked Russia on the Black Sea coast, and war was declared on this day.

What part of this quote do you not understand, Ned?

[Ned]

"The fact that Churchill might have been forced to accept a share of the blame also explains his hostility to Mallet after the Ambassador had reported to the Foreign Office that ‘There is already an impression that, by manner of detaining Turkish men-of-war, and by letting the Goeben escape we are largely responsible for the present difficulties’.[11] Churchill took this almost as a personal affront. In its simplest terms, by October 1914 Churchill bore the Turks a heavy grudge and, as such, his action in launching the fatuous premature naval bombardment at the Dardanelles on 3 November was no more than the reaction of a spoiled child striking out blindly after being forced to face up to the consequences of its actions. Similarly, Mallet’s intemperate outburst also could be ascribed to pique, as Souchon’s arrival had made the Ambassador’s mission of attempting to keep Turkey neutral that much more difficult if not – as, perhaps, he came to realize – impossible. Clearly Mallet blamed the Admiralty for this unwarranted complication, but could he have also meant that the ships had been allowed to escape as a matter of policy?
In September 1914 the able Commander of the German Naval Base (Etappenkommando) at the Porte, Hans Humann, picked up a whisper from the Swedish Minister to the effect that, in an unguarded moment, Mallet had confessed that Britain had conspired to let in Goeben and Breslau ‘because she had a “lively interest” in not allowing the Straits to fall into Russian hands.’[12] This theory was based upon the fact that the presence of the two modern ships would forestall a Russian seaward descent upon Constantinople. Before making too much of this it should, of course, be pointed out that this ‘excuse’ conveniently saved Mallet the embarrassment of having to admit that the ships had escaped by virtue of superior German strategic awareness and British bungling on a massive scale, all of which, additionally, occurred while Mallet was away from his post on leave in the belief that nothing would happen on the international scene. On the other hand, it is not difficult to find other references, all implying that the escape was not a blunder but a deliberate act of policy. On 10 August – the day Souchon finally reached the Dardanelles – a discussion took place in the Quai d’Orsay between Ponceau and the Russian Ambassador Isvolsky at which mention was made of Turkish fears concerning Russian designs on the Straits. In that case, Ponceau mused, ‘it might be advantageous for us to draw Turkey to the number of our enemies in order to make an end of her.’ The plan thus envisaged was that the presence of the German ships would give the Turks no option other than to join the Central Powers so that, when eventually defeated, there would be, as Doumerge confirmed, ‘nothing to prevent us in the liquidation of the war, in settling the question of the Straits conforming to our views.’[13] Whatever the French might have said to Isvolsky, these views might not necessarily have encompassed a Russian occupation of Constantinople."

from the summary chapter attached as a Word document above.

[Ned]

"While strength and preparedness were on Britain’s side, morality was not — at least as far as the French were concerned. All the glorious talk of ‘freedom of action’ would shortly be replaced by accusations as the French Ambassador, Paul Cambon, was made aware that he could not automatically count on British support: in the coming struggle his main weapon would be a humble piece of paper — the November 1912 letter from Grey.[50] But it was not the only weapon in his armoury. On the afternoon of Friday 31 July Grey had had a ‘rather painful’ interview with Cambon at which, in Asquith’s words, he ‘had of course to tell Cambon (for we are under no obligation) that we could give no pledges, and that our action must depend upon the course of events’.[51] That evening, Cambon informed George Lloyd, a Conservative M.P. who had spent some time as an honorary attaché at Constantinople, that:

‘I have just been to see Sir Edward Grey and he says that under no conditions will you fight.’ Cambon’s voice almost trembled as he went on to say: ‘That is what he said. He seems to forget that it was on your advice and under your guarantee that we moved all our ships to the south and our ammunition to Toulon. Si vous restez inertes, nos côtes sont livrés aux Allemands.[52]

While this argument by itself was spurious, Cambon then made a far more serious accusation: that Grey had said his hands were tied because the Conservatives would not support the Government. Despite the hour, Lloyd went to see General Sir Henry Wilson, no friend of the incumbent Liberal administration, who apparently confirmed the charge.[53] Cambon’s allegation set in motion a series of events, orchestrated by Lloyd and Wilson, which culminated in the delivery of an Opposition pledge of support for the Government on Sunday, 2 August.[54]"

http://www.superiorforce.co.uk/

Chapter 2

There follows a long discussion of subsequent events that lead to the British DOW. But central to them all was the obligation Britain had to France of defending her channel ports from the Germans because of the prior dispostion of the French navy to the Mediterranean at the behest of Churchill. While that happened in 1912, it still limited England's ability to stay out of a war between France and Germany because of the British naval guarantee.

[Ecthy]

U 2 R gay

[Krill]

Neds' posts have no real content and should be deleted as spam.

[Ecthy]

What I don't like is he receives the same replies even if he says something normal.

It takes me 7 minutes to write a post now.

[Krill]

Ned says something normal?

I don;t bother reading his posts anymore because even if he says something normal odds are he won;t have in that particular post. Why should I waste my time doing that? I'd rather rack up +1s, or getting paid doing my job.

[Ned]

Krill and Etchy, the last two posts were posted in response to challenges from molly and ElTigre to support my arguments. I had summarized the points made by the "Superior Force" work, but only cited the work as a whole and attached its summary chapter. While there is a lot more in support of my arguments in the documents, I quoted enough for the reader to get the point.

1) There was a conspiracy to let the two German ships reach Constantinople.

2) Mallet blamed Churchill for Turkey's attitude, citing the seisure of the two battleships and letting the German battlecruiser get through to Constantinople.

3) Mallet said it was intentional.

4) The French said it was intentional -- for the purpose of carving up the Ottoman Empire.

5) Historians cited Admiral Kerr's deliberate withholding of the destination of the two German ships as evidence of the conspiracy.

6) Crewe, a pro-war cabinent memember, ordered the Indian army to Iraqi long before war broke out.

7) Churchill's attacked the Dardenelles before England had made a decision to go to war with the Ottoman Empire. While everyone cites the attacks of the German warships under Turkish flag on Russia as justification for the DOW, the Brits knew the attack was by the German admiral and may not have been authorized by the government. Peace or war was still in doubt.

8) I also supported my point that the fleet arrangements per Churchill to put the entire French fleet in Mediterranean and guaranteeing that Brits would protect the French channel points, was the decisive reason the British government reversed itself from a neutral stance to war stance. Earlier cabinent meetings had already decided that a German invasion of Belgium would not force England to go to war.

In all this we see elements in the British goverment pushing for war and making arrangements or issuing orders that forced England into the war against Germany and Turkey to side with Germany, justifying a British DOW.

This all started some time ago when I said that it was Churchill, a warmonger, who had a great deal to do with the start of WWI and who also contributed stongly to England's decisions not to discuss peace with Germany after the fall of Poland and later after the fall of France.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion ended at this point, as it always does when I have proved my point.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Krill
Ned says something normal?

I don;t bother reading his posts anymore because even if he says something normal odds are he won;t have in that particular post. Why should I waste my time doing that? I'd rather rack up +1s, or getting paid doing my job.

I'm actually surprised to see that people besides those participating in the discussion are still reading this thread at all. But maybe the absurdity makes it worthwhile...

[Ned]

ElTigre, you may be surprised, but many people here actually seem to enjoy all the controversy I create and really miss me when I fail to post for some time. Ask Che, for example, who has been around for a few years.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
ElTigre, you may be surprised, but many people here actually seem to enjoy all the controversy I create and really miss me when I fail to post for some time. Ask Che, for example, who has been around for a few years.

I know this, I'm a long time lurker. It's the entertainment factor they miss, Ned.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion ended at this point, as it always does when I have proved my point.

The entire forum will be delighted to hear that our little discussion is far from over, but it is Saturday night, so I will reply tomorrow.

[ElTigre]

Ned says:

1) There was a conspiracy to let the two German ships reach Constantinople.

If you are talking about a conspiracy by Churchill, this is NOT the opinion of Geoffrey Miller, author of Superior Force. As a good historian, Miller lists arguments both in favor and against the case of a conspiracy in London. Of course you only quote his arguments in favor such a conspiracy, and neither the arguments against it nor his summary, since this would be detrimental to your argument. This is called selective quoting, Ned. Here is Mr. Miller's conclusion:

"While it is unlikely in the extreme that there existed an organized conspiracy to allow the German ships to escape involving any or all of the Foreign Office, Admiralty, Milne or Troubridge, there is a strong case for believing that factions in Athens, knowing of the Turco-German alliance and the destination of the ships, actively conspired to ensure their escape"

And another quote, note the bolded part:

"The theory that the escape of the German ships was deliberate is not new: it was broached, for example, in 1957 by W. W. Gottlieb in his Studies in Secret Diplomacy during the First World War. Gottlieb argued that fundamental British and French opposition to seeing the Russians in Constantinople explained why Goeben and Breslau were ‘allowed to reach’ the Golden Horn, there to augment Turkish arms.[16] This hypothesis was investigated again in 1971 by Ulrich Trumpener in his article The Escape of Goeben and Breslau: A Reassessment. Although Trumpener could find no evidence to support this conclusion he stated ‘it is now beyond doubt that the Greek Government played an important (and highly ambivalent) role in the entire affair.’[17] As the evidence produced herein indicates, if there were a conspiracy afoot to see the German ships in Constantinople it originated not in London or Paris, but in Athens."

What Ned doesn't realize is that the 'Greek conspiracy' that Mr. Miller keeps talking about IS NOT THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY BY CHURCHILL, but a CONSPIRACY AGAINST CHURCHILL and the British. More about this later. For now lets summarize that Mr. Miller thinks that Churchill did not let the Goeben and Breslau escape on purpose.

[ElTigre]

Ned says:

2) Mallet blamed Churchill for Turkey's attitude, citing the seisure of the two battleships and letting the German battlecruiser get through to Constantinople.

3) Mallet said it was intentional.

The relevant paragraph in Superior Force:

"In September 1914 the able Commander of the German Naval Base (Etappenkommando) at the Porte, Hans Humann, picked up a whisper from the Swedish Minister to the effect that, in an unguarded moment, Mallet had confessed that Britain had conspired to let in Goeben and Breslau ‘because she had a “lively interest” in not allowing the Straits to fall into Russian hands.’[12] This theory was based upon the fact that the presence of the two modern ships would forestall a Russian seaward descent upon Constantinople. Before making too much of this it should, of course, be pointed out that this ‘excuse’ conveniently saved Mallet the embarrassment of having to admit that the ships had escaped by virtue of superior German strategic awareness and British bungling on a massive scale, all of which, additionally, occurred while Mallet was away from his post on leave in the belief that nothing would happen on the international scene."

Mr. Miller thinks that Mallet's statement was done in order to shift the blame from himself to Churchill. Of course Ned is free to believe that Mallet's conspiracy theory this is nevertheless true, but I tend to believe Mr. Miller, not Ned.

[ElTigre]

4) The French said it was intentional -- for the purpose of carving up the Ottoman Empire.

Again here is the relevant paragraph in Superior Force:

"On 10 August – the day Souchon finally reached the Dardanelles – a discussion took place in the Quai d’Orsay between Ponceau and the Russian Ambassador Isvolsky at which mention was made of Turkish fears concerning Russian designs on the Straits. In that case, Ponceau mused, ‘it might be advantageous for us to draw Turkey to the number of our enemies in order to make an end of her.’ The plan thus envisaged was that the presence of the German ships would give the Turks no option other than to join the Central Powers so that, when eventually defeated, there would be, as Doumerge confirmed, ‘nothing to prevent us in the liquidation of the war, in settling the question of the Straits conforming to our views.’[13] Whatever the French might have said to Isvolsky, these views might not necessarily have encompassed a Russian occupation of Constantinople."

This discussion took place AFTER the unsuccessful hunt for the Goeben and Breslau. They said that the PRESENCE of the German ships might bring Turkey into the war, and no one mentions a conspiracy to get them there. If this discussion, and I'd like to point out that this is a French subordinate in the Foreign Ministry "musing" with the Russian ambassador, proves anything at all then that they were not aware of such a conspiracy.