BooNZ
Banned
Also in the reference which I kindly provided, if you would have directed your eyeballs a page down.
Refer to the paragraph directly above it.
There is nothing in Balfour's letter to his sister to suggest Britain would enter the war without provacation or valid CB. As previously explained, the Conservatives and the hawks were working on the correct assumption the Germans were intent on a wider invasion of Belgium, which in this scenario is no longer valid. There are multiple communications received from the Conservatives stating the importance of Belgium in their calculations.
The actual players are not the opposition, nor are the actual players the functionaries in the British military or foreign office. The actual players are the ministers of the British Cabinet, Asquith was the Prime Minister and Grey the Foreign secretary. The fact Churchill felt compelled to plot with Tories highlights the weak position of the hawks among those in power.You fail to cite the first letter, but choose to mention the second. Context is relevant, you know. Also of extreme note, since you don't seem to know of all the actual players involved in those busy days.
Again, the Conservatives were not in Government. Churchill's concept of a coalition government was to remedy the Liberal Goverment being held hostage by the doves in power. If Asquith remains in place, the Liberal Cabinet can well afford the loss of a couple of hawks.Why exactly is the 1911 crisis any different, in your mind? In 1911, Unionist leaders were more than willing to go to war over the interior of Morocco, but now they don't want to go to war over Serbia three years later?
No. There was an 'understanding on naval matters', which argubly created a moral obigation. There was nothing in respect of a formal alliance. Black or White = no Grey.Bit of a contradiction when the Cabinet decided to uphold its naval obligations with the French then, dont you think? If you're going to base an argument on that policy statement, don't you think its worth mentioning that the British upheld their agreements all the same?
Both Grey and Asquith were on record as believing Belgium was a big deal to the Conservatives - even war mongers need a plausible CB.So Asquith said that the Unionists strongly supported France, but Belgium was also on their mind. In what way does that reinforce the point that the Unionist would abandon France while she is fighting for her life? Would it not be wise, in their strong support of France, to enter the war before the Russian bear in the East dies and France is left on its own against the might of Germany?
A coup? Because the neither the Hawks nor the Conservatives had the numbers to overthrow the Government in pursuit of a war of aggression? Again, your reference refers to a coalition goverment being formed in a scenario where ministers resign enmass - the hawks only really had two.If Churchill and Grey "rage-quit" the liberal war-hawks in parliament will form a coalition with the Conservatives and go to war.
See, this is why you are so adamant on making the Unionists appear to have been non-supportive orf entrance into the war. If they want the British to support France and join them in a war against Germany, which they did, the doves in the liberal party have no position with which to bargain, and they either accede to the liberal war-hawks, or destroy the liberal party. The doves didn't care if Belgium was invaded or not, they just didn't want to join the war. The only reason the liberal party stayed together, and again I will refer to the final paragraph of that article, is because
The Conservatives were not in government - it is not their call to make. The Liberal war-hawks (both of them) without Asquith have no means to destroy the Liberal Party - those Cabinet positions can be simply filled from within the Party. From memory, there were about five fanatical doves aligned with 3 neutralists lead by Lloyd George. In respect of the Liberal war-hawks, Haldane appeared to also favour of intervention, but in the absence of any sign of fanaticalism, I assume he would return to the flock.
The reference you provided was interesting, but the focus was on the Conservative/Unionist support for the war. The article does not contemplate Belgium being spared, although it hints Unionist belligerence might have been independent of Belgium, but then states there is no evidence anywhere to support this. So even an article that goes out of its way to highlight Conservative support for the war, assumes Belgium was a big deal.If you're going to be a condescending asshole, at least be right when you do it.