right.i thought he liked canadians,enough of them died.

__________________

Was Churchill over-rated ?

I think not.

Martin Gilbert is generally acknowledged as being one of the world's finest biographers and in his preface to "Churchill-A Life" by Martin Gilbert he says:
This was the Churchill I knew during WW2.

He was the Hon.Colonel of my old Regiment, the IVth Queen's Own Hussars

I was amongst those who kept vigil when his life was ebbing away.

As one of the crowds in Trafalgar Square I attended his funeral.

Despite all this I was still one of those who voted him out of the Post-War Government because, as someone with a working class background, I wanted to give Labour a chance.

But was "Was Churchill over-rated ?"

I think not.

Ron

__________________
During the period October 1942 to January 1947 my wartime "Cook's Tour" took me to the following places:
North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Austria, Egypt & Germany.
My units were the: 49th Light Ack Ack Rgt.RA and
The 4th Queen's Own Hussars.

Is this a serious post ???????
Churchill's mother, who he adored, was American.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Have you any idea how foolish this makes you look.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

German friendship. by Winston S. Churchill.

An article posted in the London Evening Standard on the September 17, 1937

I find myself pilloried, by Dr. Goebbels's Press as an enemy of Germany. That description is quite untrue. Before the war, I proposed to Von Tirpitz a naval holiday. If this had been accepted, it would enormously have eased the European tension, and possibly have averted the catastrophe. At the moment of the Armistice, as is well known, I proposed filling a dozen great liners with food, and rushing them into hamburg as a gesture of humanity. As Secretary of State for War in 1919, I pressed upon the Supreme Council the need of lifting the blockade, and laid before them the reports from our generals of the Rhine which eventually procured that step. I took a great deal of personal responsibility in sending home, months before they would otherwise have been liberated, about one hundred thousand German prisoners, who were caged up in the Pas de Calais. I was vehemently opposed to the French invasion of the Ruhr. In order to prevent a repetition of it, I exerted myself in Mr. Baldwin's Cabinet to have the Treaty of Locarno made to cut both ways, so that Germany as well as France had British protection against aggression. Therefore no one has a right to describe me as the enemy of Germany except in Wartime.

But my duty lies to my own country. As an independent Conservative member I felt bound to give the alarm when, five years ago, the vast secret process of German re-armament, contrary to the Treaty, began to be apparent. I also felt bound to point out to the Government in 1934 that Germany had already created a powerful military air force which would soon be stronger than the British Air Force. My only regret is that I was not believed. I can quite understand that this action of mine would not be popular in Germany. Indeed, it was not popular anywhere. I was told I was making ill will between the two countries. I am sure that if Herr Hitler had been in my position, and had believed what I believed, he would have acted in the same way. In times like these the safety of one's own country must count for more than saying smooth things about other countries. At any rate, I did not feel at all penitent when, six months later, I heard Mr. Baldwin admit that the Government had been wrong in their figures and information. And ever since ministers have been bewailing "the years that the locusts have eaten."

Similarly, for the last few months, in Parliament and in these letters, I drew attention to a serious danger to Anglo-German relations which arises out of the organization of German residents in Britain into a closely knit, strictly disciplined body. I wonder what Dr. Goebbels would think if we had fifteen or twenty thousand Englishmen in Berlin, all strong anti-Nazis, who, while they kept within the law, were none the less all bound together, attending meetings at frequent intervals, and putting pressure on any British refugees, if such there were, to toe the line of some British party or other. Moreover, this process of Nazi organization abroad is undoubtedly becoming an obstacle in the way of British and German cordiality. Sir Walter Citrine, at the Trade Union Congress, has protested in the name of British Labor against he persecution of German refugees in England by other German visitors to our shores.

We have always been an asylum for refugees. It was only the other day that I was reading how in 1709 we gave refuge and shelter to a very large number of Germans from the Palatinate, which had been overrun by Marshal Villars with fire and sword. We could never allow foreign visitors to pursue their national feuds in the bosom of our country, still less to be organized in such a way as to affect our military security. The Germans would not tolerate it for a moment in their country, nor should they take it amiss that we do not like it in ours. I see Herr Bohle has expressed a wish to talk this over with me. I should be delighted to do so in the most friendly manner, and do anything in the power of a private member to remove this new embarrassment to Anglo-German goodwill.

I have had from time to time conversations with eminent German supporters of the present regime. When they say, as they so often do, "Will not England grasp the extended friendly hand of Germany?" nearly everyone in England will reply, "Certainly, yes. We cannot pretend to like your new institutions, and we have long freed ourselves from racial and religious intolerance. We cannot say that we admire your treatment of the Jew or of the Protestants and Catholics of Germany. We even think our methods of dealing with Communism are better than yours. But after all, these matters, so long as they are confined inside Germany, are not our business. It is our duty and our sincere desire to live in a good and neighborly fashion with so great a nation united to us by many ties of history and of race. Indeed, we will grasp the outstretched German hand."

"But," we must ask, "what happens next? Are we expected to do anything special to prove our friendship, and if so, what?" We cannot be expected to help Germany financially while she is spending nearly a thousand millions sterling a year upon her tremendous rearmament. That would be unfair to our own people. We cannot hand over colonies irrespective of the wishes of their inhabitants and of a great many other considerations. We should be very wrong if we were to give Germany a guarantee that so long as she left Britain and France alone in the West, she could do what she likes to the peoples of the center and southeast of Europe. To give such an assurance at other people's expense would not only be callous and cynical, but it might actually lead to a war the end of which no man can foresee.

To hold these opinions is not to be hostile to the German Government, and still less to the Germans as a nation. To feel deep concern about the armed power of Germany is in no way derogatory to Germany. On the contrary, it is a tribute to the wonderful and terrible strength which Germany exerted in the Great War, when almost single-handed she fought nearly all the world and nearly beat them. Naturally, when a people who have shown such magnificent military qualities are arming night and day, its neighbors, who bear the scars of previous conflicts, must be anxious and ought to be vigilant. One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.

I have on more than one occasion made my appeal in public that the Fuhrer of Germany should now become the Hitler of peace. When a man is fighting in a desperate conflict he may have to grind his teeth and flash his eyes. Anger and hatred nerve the arm of strife. But success should bring a mellow, genial air and, by altering the mood to suit the new circumstances, preserve and consolidate in tolerance and goodwill what has been gained by conflict.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

The only one that looks foolish is your country itsself - any sucess at the soccer world cup is already hindered due to the issue of your country eliminating each other already in the qualification matches

Please read your own posted article below, in regards to Hitler and Churchills terms for your country:

"Will not England grasp the extended friendly hand of Germany?" nearly everyone in England will reply, "Certainly, yes.

So Scotland, Wales and N-Ireland were exluded from this??

What does this article actually proof or for what reason did you post it?

To show that Churchill was a very smart and intelligent person?? I never put that in question - in contra.
That Churchill tried to send humane guestures to a Country that got ravaged due to the diplomatic entanglements of pre WWI were England and Germany were the two main culprits??
That he logically feared that Hitler will try to retrive the 30% of its lost territory that was used to create "new" countries, or was given to others??
That therefore Hitler will build up the army?? That due to the French breaking the armistice treaty by occupying the Ruhr thus giving Hitler a chance to break the treaty in order to build up the army??

All this is known to anyone with a certain knowledge in history

As I posted before:

Churchill anticipated the expansion policy of Hitler

The only very interesting part indeed of this article September 17, 1937 is:

"We cannot say that we admire your treatment of the Jew or of the Protestants and Catholics of Germany. We even think our methods of dealing with Communism are better than yours. But after all, these matters, so long as they are confined inside Germany, are not our business"

So it comes back to simple logic:
Churchill was a patriot and Hitler regarded himself as one - as such the signals for war were set on both sides. Churchills position towards going into war was that of placing and securing England above Germany - thus preserving the interests of his beloved country, and not a war in regards to preserving the worlds humanity towards the Nazis.

And I have no problem with this logic at all - but with those people who until today believe that the begining and causes of WWII were in order to rid the world of the Nazi idiology and restore humanity - since as I mentioned before besides the inner circle of the Nazi leadership no one was aware of things to come in regards to humanity at the time of Hitlers attack on Poland.

That much later this war against the Nazis turned out to be the right thing in order to preserve humanity is an entirely differnt topic.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Diplomatic entanglements ????
Britain and Prussia the two main culprits ?????

What treaty did Britain sign that forced Prussia to attack a neutral nation ????

In fact, name a treaty that Britain signed that committed them to side with any of the main powers in the event of a major conflict ???

What role, if any, did Britain play in the signing of the alliance between France and Russia, or the alliance between Prussia and A-H. ????




ps; Seeing you like to refer to Britain as England, I think it only fair that in any replies to your posts I should refer to Germany as Prussia.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Hello redcoat- you English?

Quote:
ps; Seeing you like to refer to Britain as England, I think it only fair that in any replies to your posts I should refer to Germany as Prussia.

Up to you, be my guest, but try to keep in mind that Germany has progressed and there is no more Prussia.

Besides I couldn't give a ratsass since I am BAVARIAN

Quote:
What treaty did Britain sign that forced Prussia to attack a neutral nation?

I never mentioned that - or did I anywere??

And for your information - just to keep to the right words before this thing escalates - the first one to "attack" was Russia.

Come on redcoat anyone with a good historic knowledge (I consider you as such a person) knows due to what factors of national pride and national dominance this unavoidable WWI got kicked of.

Maybe we just quit this whole thread after your next post ?

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

British.


But you mentioned the 'diplomatic entanglements' of which Britain was a main culprit. I'm just trying to figure out what they were ???

Where did I say anything about the 'first one' to attack, which, by the way, was not Russia, but Austria-Hungary on Serbia, .

I was merely pointing out that it was Prussia's attack on the neutral nation of Belgium, which which brought Britain into the war, not any treaties with either Russia or France.

You made a claim that Britain was a main culprit in the pre-war diplomatic entanglements, I'm just waiting for you to provide the evidence for this claim Its just starting to get fun

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

No, it was sarcasm (or a brief satire of macker33's post, if you wish).

But I really don't think, despite his mother being an American, he had much respect for Americans, in general. I know he believed he could manipulate Roosevelt, and was surly on those occasions when it didn't work.

I'll go with Devils last post. Seems about right. Pity he couldnt maniplate him or even convince him on Stalin though...

Not been here a while, and not reading all the posts...suffice to say, first poster says lots...all or most true...and I was never a fan of Winni....too much knowledge of General strike attitude to make me a fan of his....Gallipoli, anything....but sorry....all is forgiven by us over here, and he will be always treated kindly by history...as first poster said, he stood up in 1940....Its enough...a few months are enough to salvage any other wrongs he may have done before...so to be honest...any critisisms mean nothing....Without him...Many of us would not be here now to critisize the great man.

Hello redcoat,

I don't believe that it is starting to become fun - in contra I judge it to become meaningless and absurd.

I deliberatly apply the designation ENGLISH since I come across these habits frequently amongst my English friends but never amongst my Scottish friends.
From my point of view - because a lot of you ENGLISH have this tendency to revert discussions into mockeries of using words, turning words and pointing out on minor issues that have absolutely no impact on the core of the presiding discussion. - besides loving to use wordings such as "nonsense" (which you have now replaced with "claim" or foolish etc.

I wouldn't know about the English or British common or uncommon or most likely interpretation of those words, but in German they imply that the person to who those terms are forwarded to is STUPID.

In that case why should one or you wish to discuss with a stupid person?

Now one example of what? English Humour? or English posting interpretations and argumentation style ?

Quote redcoat:
What treaty did Britain sign that forced Prussia to attack a neutral nation?
Quote Kruska:
I never mentioned that - or did I anywhere??
Quote redcoat:
But you mentioned the 'diplomatic entanglements' of which Britain was a main culprit.
I was merely pointing out that it was Prussia's attack on the neutral nation of Belgium, which which brought Britain into the war, not any treaties with either Russia or France.

First you bring up a "treaty" that Britain signed - which I never mentioned
Upon my protest you revert the term "treaty" into "diplomatic entaglements" - Furthermore you bring up the term "neutral nation" implying maybe Belgium or Holland, why?? because you believe me to believe that I wouldn't know that sooner or later you will try to bring up Belgium as the sole cause??

And now the best part, you actually do try to forward that the acctual/ only reason for Great Britain to enter the war was because of Prussia attacking a neutral country such as e.g. Belgium

Why should GB because solely of Belgium get themseves into something which Sir Edward Grey comments as: „The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.“

Are you aware that in GB towards the end of 1916 the British public demanded to be informed why and about what their soldiers were fighting and dying for?

This means that you are defing deliberatly (because I do not believe that you might be that unknowledgable in history) the existance of the Entente cordiale / Splendid isolation (classic example for diplomatic entanglements)and its follow up and revised Triple Entente (treaty of Saint Pertersburg) the cause for GB to abandon Japan and as such avoiding themselves being dragged into a war with France and Russia.

You would certainly advice Churchill in September 1939 to wait until Hitler attacks GB one day right? definatly you would have adviced Churchill not to intervene because of Poland right?

Come on, to try and push the cause for WWI only onto one nation is blind, the diplomatic failure between GB and Germany, the inability of both sides to give in and respect each other caused the creation of the Entente cordiale in the first place. After that the direction into a WWI was anavoidable.

You sure that a further discussion will turn into fun?

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Hey guys, to make it easier to follow, please bracket your quotes when typing out your response, like so:

{quote] quoted passage [/quote] (replace the "{" at the front with a "[" and it will make the quoted passage appear like this
Do that for each quoted passage and it will make it far easier to for us to follow, plus it will make me happy. Your replies will look very much like Redcoat's in post 84 above.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Hello Slipdigit,

thanks, I will try my best

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

I think everyone here agrees that the Germans made mistakes in WWII more often than not. For starters, they begun the whole thing. For finishers, they lost. Now, that's a bloody mistake.
As for Churchill being overrated, I disagree. As most posters said, he was the right man for the job at that particular time. I don't think he is overrated. He has the value of his actions to speak for him. I think maybe he overdid on breakfasts but every man has it's weaknesses.





Cheers...

__________________
Battles don't win wars, Logistics do!

: ?

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Happily you are not the sole judge on what is, or isn't, meaningless or absurd

I suppose you never thought of the offense it might cause the non-English members of the United Kingdom

You would be surprised how much relevance the so-called minor points often have on the core of the discussion

In English the meaning is quite clear. I consider your claim to be totally wrong. It has no bearing on your level of intelligence.

Be careful when you get on a high horse, you might fall off


Where did I say it was the only reason that Britain sided with France and Russia ???
But it was the only diplomatic entanglement which committed Britain to come to the aid of another nation at the start of WW1

"Belgium get themselves into" ?????
Belgium is attacked by Prussia without any provocation, and you claim they 'get themselves into' it
LoL that disproves the British stereotype of Prussians not having a sense of humour.


Of course there were questions asked, and thanks to German atrocities in Belgium ( it wasn't all propaganda ) they were given an answer.

The Entente Cordiale, and Triple Entente were merely treaties of friendship, they didn't commit Britain to come to their aid if they were attacked by another nation.
If Prussia hadn't attacked Belgium it is entirely possible that the British government might not have got enough support in parliament or amongst the British public to declare war on Germany.
As for Japan, they allied themselves with Britain, France, and Russia against the Central Powers in WW1, so I'm unsure how Britain 'abandoned' Japan ?

Why would I have had advised this ???
I'm trying to figure out what these diplomatic entanglements are. At no point have I made any comment on the rights or wrongs of the responses of the British government in 1914

Again, I have never claimed that WW1 was the fault of just one nation. The point I am trying to clarify is your claim that Britain was a main culprit in the diplomatic entanglements which lead to the war.
I'm having fun

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Churchill apologists? Aren't they related to the World War II denial crowd? You know the one's who insist Germany didn't win?

This is sub standard trolling, no matter how important you try to make yourself appear from it.

__________________

Hello redcoat,

like I said, this posting is getting meaningless and absurd.

A fine example of English argumentation skills
Did I anywere mention that I express myself on behalf of all the others??
Is it forbidden to express my opinion towards yours?
Then why do you implement that I am a sole judge?

A fine example of English logic and double standard
Sorry for Churchill to insult the inhabitants of your Island by terming them English - see your posted newspaper article from 1937.

A fine example for the English and their tendency to exegarate
So far your - minor points haven't proven to be relevant in any way
A fine example for English contradictions

A fine example of English witt and mockery
I don't ride horses so don't worry

A fine example of English who think that they found a mistake that they can use to lead the topic or the poster into absurdom.
Maybe you try to read my argumentation once more before you place an opinion??
Don't you think the "themselves" applies to GB?

A fine example of English tendency to divert from the original question to another absurdom by means of irrational contributions

If the reason for GB's entry into the war was so obious (supposedly only Belgium) according to you, then why did the British public have to ask for the reason two years later?

A fine example of English trying to show knowledge by forwarding history irrelevant facts that any child is aware about, in order to build up their onesided case on it and to provide proof as such to their argument

Why don't you start to read about the treaties and causes for WWI?? - obviously you miss some vital facts - see Japan or which diplomatic encounters between which parties failed in 1902.

A fine example of English discussion leading nowere since now the action of blurdom is initiated

For the Kaiser to take a pre emtive strike positon is wrong and leads to war, but for Churchill it seems the right thing to do??

A fine example of English reversion of their previous argumentation strategy - and sequential demonstration of unwanted confusion

So far your argumentation strategy was based on trying to lure me into forwarding that Britain got involved in WWI due to treaties -which however I never said. Then you tried to push the Belgium argument as being the cause for GB sole entry into war - trying to insinuate that WWI was all the Kaisers fault since he attacked a neutral country.

From the beginning I have tried to point out to you that WWI was caused mainly by two culprits - namely GB and Germany due to the reasons that they were too arrogant and selfminded as to compromise in 1902 and as such avoiding the Entente cordiale which automatically had to lead into disaster or as we call mit now WWI.

You are right in the middle of things to give a fine example of this typical English argmentation style of a specific breed of English persons.

Are you aware that in your entire post you haven't contributed anything meaningfull to the topic ??

Hey I am starting to have fun , acctually I love this English argumentation style - since it is so obvious

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Hi Redcoat, I am glad you have the stamina to carry on the debate. I lost the thread to Kruska's augument long ago ,it has become quite convuluted. I just dont get the point being made.
It seems to me that Great Britain is at fault for stopping Germany's aggresive , expansionist policies twice in 25 years and Churchill was behind it all. I dont think the rest of Europe were keen on being German colonies but I may be wrong. Perhaps the millions of dead from both wars are immaterial in this thread but they paid the price for Germanys aggression.Well I care and I think they are one of the most important facts in this thread. The Kaiser wanted an Empire, Hitler wanted more or less the same.However they did not get it and its all the Brits fault. Sad innit.

I couldn't resist posting this again

Apart from attending Churchill's funeral, I also had the pleasure of dining with him, well me and 359 other chaps !

BBC - WW2 People's War - Churchill and Ron enjoy a meal together

That's the great man, standing 4th from the end, top left.
and that's me seated, top right and marked with an "o" for "Oh! what a lucky bloke I was"!

Ron

Attached Images

1946-074 Regimental Reunion .JPG (193.2 KB, 6 views)

__________________
During the period October 1942 to January 1947 my wartime "Cook's Tour" took me to the following places:
North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Austria, Egypt & Germany.
My units were the: 49th Light Ack Ack Rgt.RA and
The 4th Queen's Own Hussars.

No, I don't think it refers to GB, because you wrote "Belgium get themselves",


Apart from attempting to put all the blame on Belgium for the Prussian invasion what have you contributed ?


Good.
Now, while you are having fun, can you get around to telling us what these diplomatic entanglements were.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Yes, Churchill was dead on about Stalin....Roosevelt certainly wasn't.

Hello redcoat, hmm.. redcoat sound English to me not British

My friend I think you are somewhat overslept, I didn't write "Belgium get themselves", but: Why should GB because solely of Belgium get themseves

Why should GB "just because of Belgium"- therefore Belgium being the "sole" reason - So, why should GB because solely of Belgium get themselves..... It is obvious that the themselves applies to GB and not to Belgium.

I think you really need some sleep, now were did I ever say that or even try to point that out???
New English tactics to totally bring up confusion?

But then the fun would be over, wouldn't it?

Allright redcoat since you are English upps.. sorry British I will help you on that one.

Believe it or not, a very good old friend of mine is from Bristol, even though he demonstrates the upper lip of the Toris he is actually a Scottsman well educated even though he sometimes shows up in his Kilt.

Now we and some other British friends of us had many many memorable discussions next to his lovely open fireplace about the causes for WWI.

One day he presented us a book published in 1900 (unfortunatly I honest to god, do not happen to remember the name of the British author).

Now the author of this book presents his views that in the cause of Britains decision to step out of the "Splendid Isolation" it needs to arrange an alliance. The two countries that are obvious to him to dominate Europe are GB and Germany. He leaves no room for doubt that due to the familial ties of their monarchies and their common enemy "FRANCE" that these two are by birth, logic and foresight natural allies. The impending colonial issues and territorial demands in Europe are by far easier to be resolved by these two as well then by GB or Germany singulary towards France and Russia.
It is understood to him that GB and Germany must work out a diplomatic agreement to proceed in this matter so as to avoid the impending danger of a war that is going to involve the greater half of the European monarchies, thus creating a new napoleonic war of biblical proportions as it has never occured before in Europe's history.
To the author only the alliance of GB, Germany and other minor European monarchies would secure a future stability or reduce a future war in its geograhpical and numerical dimensions.

In the later parts of his book he is giving detailed accounts in regards to cassualties due to the development of weaponary in the artilleristic and infantry weapons field in the event of future wars within the next decade.
The author also points out the unpleasant situation between Russia and GB.

Now after having read this book I was baffeld and had to agree with my friends that indeed this "alliance" would have been the solution.

Now what happened in real history?

As early as 1887 GB tries to undermine Germany's chance of rise by enabeling the Merchandise marks act - yes Gentlemen - Made in Germany is an idea Made in England. Goods from Germany need to be marked so as to be boycotted or taxed in order to rid exportchances for Germany.

Between 1900 and 1901 several diplomatic meetings between GB and G were held. None of them managed to reach an agreement. Due to the stubbornness on both sides in regards to naval and colonial issues. Furthermore Germany was convinced that it could handlle future issues with France or Russia singlehandedly, whilst GB was taking into cosideration that a mutual alliance with either France or Russia could solve its problem.
However neither France nor Russia were willing to agree with GB on terms. GB then looked towards Japan and decided to sign a fleet-pact with Japan - this agreement however set the basis for the Japanese-Russian war and enabled Japan to defeat Russia.

GB now being aware of getting dragged into a war with Russia's ally France agreed to conceed on terms in regards to Egypt and Marocco, as such in order to solve the colonial conflict and thus getting a closer relationship to France the Entente cordiale was signed in 1904.

Now the Marocco crisis is an interesting account. Despite breaking an agreement from 1880 with GB, France occupies Marocco. GB however does not take any actions. German interests in regards to trade and mining consessions are threatend.
Germany sends a small vessel to Agadir and GB threatens Germany if necessary to go to war together with France against Germany.

In order to solve GB's open issues with Russia in regards to Persia and Afghanistan the Treaty of Saint Petersburg was signed in August 1907.
At the same time GB also advises Russia to strengthen their military along the German border. Despite Germany having no interest or never shown interest of a territorial expansion at the time.

Germany in the meantime signed an alliance treaty with Austro-Hungaria.

Russia having been outed from expanding its influence in the Far-East after the Russian-Japanese war and who had conceeded to GB in regards to Central Asia now focused its intension towards the Balkan.

In January 1907 Sir Eyre Crowe -Foreign department notes: Now the only potent power against GB is Germany. Germany is consequently aiming with energetic power to dominate Europe and in the end they will break GB so as to inherit its position.
Despite Germany having no interest or never shown interest of a territorial expansion in the time.

In 1911 the British Chief of Staff promises towards the French CoS that in the event of a war between Germany and France, GB is going to commit six infantry divisions. So already in 1911 GB positions itsself towards Germany without any evidence of a threat from Germany towards GB. At the same time France feels more free to play ball with Germany in the event of disagreements.

The rest is history as we know it, so who are the culprits and who are the main culprits who led to WWI??

IMO GB is definatly one of the main culprits.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white