When is war justified, part duex?

[Arrian]

Fear not, Tigre. He never does.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


Vague generalizations and name-calling - the last resort of those who ran out of arguments.

No comment on the fact that Germany would have annexed Luxembourg although its government collaborated?

No comment on the fact that the Entente was generous enough to let Luxembourg remain independent after 1918?

Regarding your 'interpretation' of history in this post: Albert was a hero for being so farsighted to see that collaborating with Germany wouldn't save his country from being annexed, and for defending his country against a brutal aggressor.

I don't blame the Duchess of Luxembourg for giving her troops orders to not resist, I blame her for her actions after the invasion. By cooperating with the Germans, she gave moral support to an army that had occupied her country, and made it much easier for German propaganda to cover up the true nature of Germany's war, as this thread proves. Instead of collaborating, she should have publicly announced that Luxembourg was an occupied nation that was forced to yield to German demands, but she decided to cooperate voluntarily. Such a statement would not have cost the live of a single Luxembourger.



Germany was largely responsible for WW1, and solely responsible for WW2. Feel free to spin this into a century-spanning anti-German conspiracy theory. Don't let facts get in your way, though...

Whether Germany would have annexed either Luxembourg or Belgium is something we would never know. It did not happen.

As to Luxembourg, life in Luxembourg was normal througout the war, thanks largely to its government's cooperation. I suppose you would have the government resign and go into exile in Britain, and then have the people fight the Germans at every turn, to have the Germans retaliate as they did in Belgium and destroy every structure in a rebellious town.

That is what you would have wanted for Luxembourg?

Then, post war, the allies march their armies through without asking permission, tear up treaties Luxembourg had with Germany, force its monarch to abdicate and otherwise act in judgment of her affairs. In this you say Luxembourg was "independent?" Clearly not so.

As to who was responsible for WWI? The German people thought they were in a defensive war having been attacked by Russia and by France. But, you say, the Germans DOWed on Russia and France first. But, in reality, it was the Russian mobilization that set off the chain of events and was considered to be an act of war on Germany.

When Russia failed to respond to the German ultimatum to demobilize, the war began.

WWII the sole responsiblity of Germany?

Hogwash.

You still don't get it do you? Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Fear not, Tigre. He never does.

-Arrian

It is amazing, Arrian, how much people here really believe the propaganda the've been told is true. Let me give you a few "facts" from history (written to justify the acts of victors) and see if you see any patterns of deceit:

1) Mary Magdalene was a whore.

2) Cleapatra was a prostitute.

3) Messilina (Claudius's executed wife) was a prostitute.

4) Theodora (Justinian's wife) was a prostitute.

5) St. Joan de Arc was a heretic.

The pattern of calumny is consistent, is it not? Every time we see a pattern such as this we have to suspect that we are being lied to by the writers of history.

"Germany is the archvillain of the twentieth century and was responsible for all its crimes!"

But who wrote this?

The victors of course.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


It is amazing, Arrian, how much people here really believe the propaganda the've been told is true. Let me give you a few "facts" from history (written to justify the acts of victors) and see if you see any patterns of deceit:

1) Mary Magdalene was a whore.

2) Cleapatra was a prostitute.

3) Messilina (Claudius's executed wife) was a prostitute.

4) Theodora (Justinian's wife) was a prostitute.

5) St. Joan de Arc was a heretic.

The pattern of calumny is consistent, is it not? Every time we see a pattern such as this we have to suspect that we are being lied to by the writers of history.

"Germany is the archvillain of the twentieth century and was responsible for all its crimes!"

But who wrote this?

The victors of course.

And all of these accusations has of course been verified by research in the events, so that is of course the truth.

Strangely you have chosen accusations that are very hard to verify and that obviously has the purpose to smear without evidence.

Why don't you mention an incident where it can be documented that the accusations is false ? (not that that I in any way consider any of your examples proven in just a "maybe guity" way).

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

Whether Germany would have annexed either Luxembourg or Belgium is something we would never know. It did not happen.

Very interesting. Apparently what "we" (meaning you, and you alone) do know is that

a) Germany would have treated Belgium well if it had not resisted
b) Germany would have treated Luxembourg incredibly bad if it had resisted
c) the Nazis would have never gained power in Germany without the Treaty of Versailles

All these things did not happen, yet you are convinced that this is the truth - without any factual proof. Not surprisingly, all your assumptions favor Germany. But as soon as I present you a historic source - AN OFFICIAL GERMAN DOCUMENT - that contradicts your statements, all this becomes a "what-if" scenario without relevance to the discussion.

It doesn't really matter if we present you with sources and documents, does it, Ned? Every source that contradicts your world-view is propaganda. Every historian who disagreed with you is brainwashed. Facts are ignored if they don't fit your argumentation.

As to Luxembourg, life in Luxembourg was normal througout the war, thanks largely to its government's cooperation. I suppose you would have the government resign and go into exile in Britain, and then have the people fight the Germans at every turn, to have the Germans retaliate as they did in Belgium and destroy every structure in a rebellious town.

That is what you would have wanted for Luxembourg?

I told you what I wanted for Luxembourg, it's in my last post. HINT: It's the paragraph that started with "I don't blame..."

And even if this is what I wanted for Luxembourg, I would STILL blame the Germans for shooting civilians, and not the civilians for being shot. Silly me...

Then, post war, the allies march their armies through without asking permission, tear up treaties Luxembourg had with Germany, force its monarch to abdicate and otherwise act in judgment of her affairs.

I retract what I said yesterday ("Vague generalizations and name-calling - the last resort of those who ran out of arguments"). The true last resort of those people is mindless repetition. So here we go again:

1. So it's OK for German troops to march for 4 years through Luxembourg, but not for Allied troops when Germany retreats?
2. The American troops were welcomed by the population. Why, Ned?
3. Luxembourg tore up much older treaties when its government started to collaborate, mainly the obligation to remain neutral. They voided their own treaties with Germany by taking side.
4. The Duchess resigned because her own population despised her.

As to who was responsible for WWI? The German people thought they were in a defensive war having been attacked by Russia and by France. But, you say, the Germans DOWed on Russia and France first. But, in reality, it was the Russian mobilization that set off the chain of events and was considered to be an act of war on Germany.

And the Russians mobilized why? Maybe they had a reason?!

When Russia failed to respond to the German ultimatum to demobilize, the war began.

Refusing an ultimatum does not make you a warmonger.

WWII the sole responsiblity of Germany?

Hogwash.

You still don't get it do you? Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

So in case of WW1 we have to consider the context of the German DOWs, but regarding WW2 the only fact that matters is that Britain and France declared war first, and not what happened immediately before?! I see your point: context only matters if it can excuse German war crimes.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

"Germany is the archvillain of the twentieth century and was responsible for all its crimes!"

"Britain is the archvillain of the twentieth century and was responsible for all its crimes!" - Ned

There! Now I've misrepresented your position, too (did I?). Now can we go back to replying to each other (as painful as it is)?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned


It is amazing, Arrian, how much people here really believe the propaganda the've been told is true. Let me give you a few "facts" from history (written to justify the acts of victors) and see if you see any patterns of deceit:

1) Mary Magdalene was a whore.

2) Cleapatra was a prostitute.

3) Messilina (Claudius's executed wife) was a prostitute.

4) Theodora (Justinian's wife) was a prostitute.

5) St. Joan de Arc was a heretic.

The pattern of calumny is consistent, is it not? Every time we see a pattern such as this we have to suspect that we are being lied to by the writers of history.

Arguing in favor of the underdog, as noble as it is, does not mean that you don't have to back up your opinion with facts.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


Very interesting. Apparently what "we" (meaning you, and you alone) do know is that

a) Germany would have treated Belgium well if it had not resisted
b) Germany would have treated Luxembourg incredibly bad if it had resisted
c) the Nazis would have never gained power in Germany without the Treaty of Versailles

All these things did not happen, yet you are convinced that this is the truth - without any factual proof. Not surprisingly, all your assumptions favor Germany. But as soon as I present you a historic source - AN OFFICIAL GERMAN DOCUMENT - that contradicts your statements, all this becomes a "what-if" scenario without relevance to the discussion.

It doesn't really matter if we present you with sources and documents, does it, Ned? Every source that contradicts your world-view is propaganda. Every historian who disagreed with you is brainwashed. Facts are ignored if they don't fit your argumentation.

I will concede some Germans were thinking of annexing Luxembourg and Belgium for strategic reasons. At one time, it was the policy of both major US parties to annex Cuba.

Didn't happen.

As to the pattern of denial in face of facts, I suggest the people in denial are the people mainly on the other side of this argument who deny the obvious.

The worldview that Germany was at fault in all these matters is the British POV. In fact, Britain was a empire that was being challenged by the Germans. She did her best to keep Germany in her place, in part, by smearing her with mountains of vile propaganda. There is no doubt the Germans were guilty of much during WWI. But the allies were too, equally so. Ditto WWII.

The only major crime the Germans were guilty of that the allies generally were not was the deliberate mass murder during WWII of whole peoples with a view of exterminating them. The allies were guilty of mass murder of civilians, of ethnic cleansing, of aggressive war, of everything the Germans were accused of. In general, the allies had no right to sit in judgment of the Germans in either war because of their co-equal guilt. The one exception was what we now know as the Holocaust.

But what we are taught in history is completely one-sided. It is so one sided as to amount to propaganda.

AFAIK, I am the only poster here on Apolyton who condemns equally the crimes of both sides, not just the crimes of the Germans. I abhore the deliberate bombing of German cities (not factories) by the Brits and the Americans. I abhore the same thing about our use of the A-bomb on the Japanese. I condemn the USSR for its aggression against the Baltic states, Poland , Finland and Romania. I condemn the USSR for its ethnic cleansing of Germans from East Prussia. I condemn the USSR for mass slaughter of prisoners of war, such as the 10,000 polish officers who surrendered to them in 1939.

We, who are guilty of these vile crimes sat in judgment at Nuremberg? To say the least, this took enormous gaul.

[Barnabas]

Britain is the archvillain of the XIX century, not of the XX

Germany is the arch villain of the first half of the XX century, the soviet union of the second half

[Ned]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Britain is the archvillain of the XIX century, not of the XX

Germany is the arch villain of the first half of the XX century, the soviet union of the second half

That's the template.

You learned your template quite well.

[Ned]

BTW, if you are not reading all the related threads on this, check this:

August 1, 1914, Churchill siezes two Turkish battleships.

August 2, 1914, the Ottoman Empires signs an alliance with Germany.

Contemporaneously, the Brits also try to prevent two other ships of German manufacture from being delivered to the Ottomans. They get through.

Clearly, Britain was at war with Turkey before she formally declared war on Nov. 4.

On Nov. 14, just days after her DOW, the Brits siezed Basra. She tries to take the whole of Iraq during the war with mixed success. But her plans are revealed in full when she takes Mosul a week after the armistice is signed ending the war.


Why all this?

Oil.

Britain wanted to control Iraqi (then Ottoman) oil on an "exclusive" basis. She saw WWI as a opportunity for conquering Iraq and taking it from the Turks.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0425byzantine.htm

"Discovery of oil in 1908 at Masjid-i Suleiman in Iran – an event that changed the fate of the Middle East – gave impetus to quest for oil in Mesopotamia. Oil pursuits in Mesopotamia were concentrated in Mosul, one of three provinces or “vilayets” constituting Iraq under the Ottoman rule. Mosul was the northern province, the other two being Baghdad (in the middle) and Basra (in the south) provinces. Foreign geologists visited the area under the disguise of archeologists.

For a good part of the last century, interests of national governments were closely linked with the interests of oil companies, so much so that oil companies were de facto extensions of foreign-office establishments of the governments. The latter actively lobbied on behalf of the oil companies owned by their respective nationals. The oil companies, in return, would guarantee oil supply to respective governments – preferably at a substantial discount.

This symbiotic relationship manifested itself superbly when Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC), founded in 1911 and named as such in 1912 to exploit Mosul oil, was reorganized in March 1914 at a meeting held in Foreign Office in London where British and German diplomats sat next to executives of British and German banks and British and Dutch oil companies. Notwithstanding its name, TPC did not have Turkish participation. At that time World War I had not broken out yet, and Germans were welcome at TPC.

The British and Dutch were attracted to German participation because German banks had obtained a concession from the Ottomans in 1904 – a concession that in fact had been allowed to lapse. Calouste Gulbenkian, the consummate deal-maker of Armenian origin that helped found TPC, was not present at the meeting, but his interests were well looked after. He ended up with 5 percent share in TPC, though with no voting rights.

Dogged British Determination

Among the foreign powers the British, seeing Iraq as a gateway to their Indian colony and oil as lifeblood for their Imperial Navy, were most aggressive in their pursuits in Mesopotamia, aspiring to gain physical control of the oil region. Winston Churchill, soon after he became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, declared oil to be of paramount importance for the supremacy of the Imperial Navy. Churchill was educated about the virtues of oil by none other than Marcus Samuel, the founder of Shell.

During the war, Sir Maurice Hankey, secretary of the War Cabinet, advised Foreign Secretary Arthur Belfour in writing that control of the Persian and Mesopotamian oil was a “first-class British war aim.” Britain captured the towns of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, capitals of the provinces bearing the same names, in November 1914, March 1917 and November 1918, respectively. Mosul was captured 15 days after Britain and Turkey signed the Mudros Armistice ending hostilities at the end of the war, an event that drew protests from the Turkish delegation at the Lausanne Peace Conference four years later.

In 1913 Churchill sent an expeditionary team to the Persian Gulf headed by Admiral Slade to investigate oil possibilities in the region. More or less coincident with Admiral Slade expedition, Britain signed a secret agreement with the sheikh of Kuwait who, while ostensibly pledging allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul, promised exclusive oil rights to the British. Kuwait became a British protectorate in November 1914.

The British were so concerned about the security of their oil supply prior to the war that they wanted to have guaranteed British dominance in any oil company exploiting Mesopotamian oil. The government favored Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC, predecessor of BP) over Royal Dutch/Shell (RDS) in TPC. APOC, already holding oil concession in Iran but not one of the original participants in TPC, was 100 percent British while RDS, an original participant, was 40 percent British.

When the government indirectly asked RDS to drop out of IPC to give way to APOC, Henri Deterding, head of RDS, was infuriated. In 1914 the government acquired majority (51 percent) share in APOC, in part over concerns (unfounded) that RDS may take over APOC.

With government backing, APOC eventually made its way into IPC. Before the war, TPC shareholding stood at: APOC: 47.5 percent, RDS: 22.5 percent, Deutsche Bank: 22.5 percent, and Gulbenkian (with no voting rights) 5 percent. The British had a clear dominance.

Sharing the Oil Trophy

Political dimensions of oil interests in Mesopotamia reached a new height during World War I in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement signed between Britain, France and later Russia during April-October 1916. Designed to partition the Ottoman Asia after the war, the agreement, among others, assigned the Baghdad and Basra provinces to British control and “zone of influence” and the Mosul region and a good portion of what is now Syria to French “zone of influence.” Some in the British government were enraged that Mosul had been “surrendered” to the French.

After the war, with the German and Ottoman Empires defeated and German interests in TPC confiscated by the British, the partition plans changed. At the Paris Peace Conference in June 1919, Iraq, under the League of Nations Covenant, was made a mandate entrusted to Britain. This award was completed in a treaty signed between Britain and France in San Remo, Italy, in April 1920. France accepted Britain’s mandatory control on Iraq in return for receiving recognition to an enlarged French mandate on Syria. A few months later, in August 1920, the mandatory arrangement received further recognition at the Treaty of Sèvres.

In a supplemental oil agreement in San Remo, France was granted 25 percent share in Mesopotamian oil (effectively pre-war German share in TPC). It was stipulated that any company formed to develop Mesopotamian oil fields would be under permanent British control. A “native company” would have the right to 20 percent participation in such company. The agreement called for close cooperation between Britain and France on oil exploitation in Persia and Mesopotamia. "

See also:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/iraq-m29.shtml

"At the same time, numerous other international groups had begun to seek oil concessions around Baghdad and Mosul. These commercial tensions played a crucial role in precipitating World War I at whose heart lay the division of Turkey’s eastern lands. As far as Britain was concerned, the fact that new sources of oil, a resource so vital to the Empire, lay outside its boundaries led to the inevitable conclusion that the Empire must be expanded."

[Arrian]

AFAIK, I am the only poster here on Apolyton who condemns equally the crimes of both sides, not just the crimes of the Germans.

You are not, you silly man. Plenty of posters here agree that both sides did bad things, and condemn the bad things done by the Allies. Myself included. That whole paragraph is a giant (self-congratulatory) strawman.

But what we are taught in history is completely one-sided.

I certainly don't recall that being the case when I was in school. Maybe I paid attention...

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, well bully for you. There are a lot of people here, though, who only repeat back the most superficial propaganda about WWI and WWII. I assume that is what they were taught in schools.

As for your condemning the bad acts of the allies, I welcome that as well.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
Arrian, well bully for you. There are a lot of people here, though, who only repeat back the most superficial propaganda about WWI and WWII. I assume that is what they were taught in schools.

As for your condemning the bad acts of the allies, I welcome that as well.

And then there are those that supports conspiracy theroies they can't prove and whom ignores any evidence against such theories.

[ElTigre]

I only have time to reply to one of your posts today.

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, if you are not reading all the related threads on this, check this:

August 1, 1914, Churchill siezes two Turkish battleships.

August 2, 1914, the Ottoman Empires signs an alliance with Germany.

Contemporaneously, the Brits also try to prevent two other ships of German manufacture from being delivered to the Ottomans. They get through.

Clearly, Britain was at war with Turkey before she formally declared war on Nov. 4.

I like the way you use the word "clearly". It's a clear-cut indicator that all following statements are based on dubious facts and a questionable reasoning. This one is a perfect example.

1. Regarding the two German "battleships" that were "delivered to Turkey", the 'Goeben' and the 'Breslau': First of all, the Goeben was a Battlecruiser, the Breslau was a Light Cruiser. Second, and much more important, they were still German ships when they were attacked in the Mediterranean. On August 3rd they had already shelled French ports in Algeria. Only on August 16th, when the ships arrived at Istanbul, it was decided that they would become Turkish. Before that, they were completely legitimate targets for the Royal Navy.

2. The seizure of 2 Turkish ships being build in England by Churchill - the Sultan Osman I (then HMS Agincourt) and the Reshadiy (then HMS Erin). Again your superficial knowledge shows. At that time Britain had already build and delivered 40 (in words: FORTY) warships to Turkey:

However, the naval arms race of the early 20th century prompted the Ottoman government to embark upon a programme of re-armament by purchasing ships from the best shipbuilders in the world: at that time, in the United Kingdom. By 1914 this programme had purchased forty ships from British yards.

Only on the verge of WW1, when Austria had already declared war on Serbia, the British government decided that these 2 modern ships were too important for the Royal Navy to leave England. But even better, the Admiralty had the right to seize these 2 ships in wartime!

The war broke out before delivery during the trials. Even though the Turkish crew had arrived to collect her, the British Government took over the vessel for incorporation into the Royal Navy. At the same time the British also took over a second Turkish battleship, also being built by Armstrongs - The Reshadieh which was renamed HMS Erin. Such an action was allowed for in the contracts but it had consequences. The takeover caused considerable ill-feeling in Turkey, where public subscriptions had partially funded the ships. This proved an important factor in turning Turkish public opinion against Britain, especially as the Turkish Navy had been pro-Britain - the Army having been pro-German. It helped put Turkey (and its Ottoman Empire) into the war on the side of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire against the Triple Entente of Britain, France and Russia (29 October 1914). As an act of generosity to secure their allies, Germany made a gift to Turkey of the battlecruiser SMS Goeben and of the light cruiser SMS Breslau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Agincourt_%281913%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Erin

A provocation? No doubt. An act of war? Of course not!


3. Why did Turkey really enter the war? Here's some food for thought, Ned:

Admiral Souchon, the German commander of the Goeben and the Breslau, who latter used the two ships to shell Russia while Turkey was still at peace, said this about the Turkish declaration of war:

‘I have thrown the Turks into the powder-keg and kindled war between Russia and Turkey.’ [Souchon to his wife, 29 October 1914, quoted in, Halpern, A Naval History of World War I, p. 64.]

Straight from the horse's mouth, Ned!

‘From very certain information one could definitely say that the entry of Turkey into the war was forced by the guns of Goeben, by Goeben actually arriving there – that the entry of Turkey was by no means a unanimous opinion of the Young Turk party itself.’ [Captain Reginald Hall, the Director of the Intelligence Department at the Admiralty from October 1914]

The two ships that were so kindly "delivered" by the German government to Istanbul used their guns to pressure the Turkish government into WW1.

Here's the Internet source for these two citations:

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

Go to Chapter 15, "Letting the Goeben Escape".

Want some more quotes? Here you go:

It has subsequently been argued that the escape of Goeben had ‘no effect on anything very much’ as the Turks had already signed an alliance with Germany.[3] This ignores the developments which occurred in September and October 1914 and which made it feasible that, without the presence of the German ships, Turkey could, if so inclined, have kept out of the war indefinitely. It should be obvious that, despite the fact of the Turco-German alliance on 2 August, little had happened since. On the day after the signing a British Admiral still remained in charge of the Turkish fleet and would continue to do so for another month.

August 1914, and a British Admiral is in charge of the Turkish fleet! Didn't you just tell us that at that time Britain had already declared war on Turkey?

By September, German hopes that Turkey would participate actively in the war rested with Enver Pasha, the Minister for War, whose position was not strong enough to allow for his taking unilateral action. Enver’s first attempt to force the issue – his authorization to Souchon on 14 September to patrol in the Black Sea in an endeavour to manufacture an incident – soon fell foul of the waverers in the Turkish Cabinet.

Enver Pascha, mark that name.

As a direct result of this political defeat Souchon, on 20 September, felt able to send only Breslau into the Black Sea and then for a matter of a few scant hours. This merely succeeded in spurring Enver on; the following day, realizing that Turkish authorization of Souchon’s provocative cruises would be unobtainable in the near future, Enver declared that Souchon had a right to maintain German interests, even if these conflicted with Turkish.

By now, the Goeben and the Breslau were in theory Turkish ships, and Souchon a Turkish commander. And now Enver Pascha, the Turkish minister of war, sends them on a mission that is in blatant violation of Turkish interests?! I think 'traitor' is the appropriate word here...

Further pressure was applied by the Germans early in October when Richard von Kühlmann was dispatched from Berlin with a brief to ensure Turkey’s speedy entry into the war.

Can you explain this to me, Ned? I thought Turkey and Britain were already at war at that time?

Enver therefore had little choice but to force the issue before news was received of a setback to German arms.

To accomplish this task his method of attack was two-pronged: a demand for German gold which, when forthcoming, at least invoked a moral debt for Turkey to enter the lists and second, if all else failed, a direct order to Souchon to attack Russian ships. The Turkish demand for T£2 million on 11 October was quickly met by the Germans: all the gold had arrived in Constantinople by 21 October.

Apparently 2 million pounds is the price for a middle-sized power to declare war on Britain.

This was not as conclusive as it might have seemed however, as previous shipments had been sent to little effect. Mallet, the British Ambassador, had already surmised that the Turks might be playing with the Germans, ‘and having obtained from them soldiers, sailors, cannons, supplies, money and promises they are now showing great and increased reluctance to pay the bill.’[5] Similarly, when on 23 October Mallet became aware of the latest shipment of gold, he maintained that this ‘need not indicate immediate declaration of war’.[6]

Huh? Still no war? By now the Entente had dozens of reasons to declare war on Turkey, not the other way around.

The only sure means by which Enver could force his country into the war rested solely with the command of Admiral Souchon. Enver had little choice — on 25 October 1914 he issued the following order to Souchon:

The entire fleet should manoeuvre in Black Sea. When you find a favourable opportunity, attack the Russian fleet. Before initiating hostilities, open my secret order personally given you this morning. To prevent transport of material to Serbia, act as already agreed upon. Enver Pasha.

[Secret order] The Turkish fleet should gain mastery of Black Sea by force. Seek out the Russian fleet and attack her wherever you find her without declaration of war. Enver Pasha.[7]

Looking forward to your reply, Ned.