History Hub permalink
The King and the Cowboy!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011
I was just reading a book with the above title, and watched a TV episode of the building of the Panama Canal. The book says on the back cover:
As two human beings the two men could hardly have been more different. A lover of fine food, drink, beautiful women,and the pleasure-seeking culture of Paris......Yet Edward would surprise the world with his leadership, and his canny understanding of the fragility of the British Empire at the apex of its global power.Â
On Theodore Roosevelt:
.....Theodore Roosevelt, the aristocrat of Manhattan, fashioned his own legend, going west to become a Cowboy. A Deputy Sheriff in the Montana Badlands who tracked down horse thieves with a rifle in his arms and a Tolstoy novel in his saddle bags, he succeeded to the Presidency after President McKinley's assassination in 1901.Â
Henry Adams said of Roosevelt, "acts by the instinct of a school-boy at a second rate boarding school.
The book describes how these two men worked together to create the big picture in the heyday of the British Empire, when Britain was Number 1 and America was beginning to assert itself. One Empire was at its Zenith, the other was just beginning to emerge, with the huge amount of focus on creating the Panama Canal, joining the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This was the beginning of the great age of Imperialism. If America wanted a Canal and Colombia did not want to grant it, then a whole new country, Panama, would be created. It would take America over a decade to create the Canal, which would be a monument to American engineering, organization and persistence. In 1914 the first ships would be traversing the isthmus of Panama, climbing up a mountain range, with a series of gigantic locks and climbing down. Digging through thick jungle. In the process the worlds largest artificial lake would be created.
You in Britain let that huge undertaken of your ancestors, the British Empire disappear in the post WW2 years and handed over most of your hegemony to the Empire of the United States. Well all Empires must eventually come to an end.
We too are in the process of handing over our Empire; how rapidly, will depend on how wise are the presidents we vote into office.
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011
You in Britain let that huge undertaken of your ancestors, the British Empire disappear in the post WW2 years and handed over most of your hegemony to the Empire of the United States. Well all Empires must eventually come to an end.Â
---------------------------------------------------
Some would say that the political handover took place even before the US entered the war and was effectively signalled by the Atlantic Charter in 1941. In real terms, however, the shift can be said to have taken place in 1943. The historian Andrew Roberts, for example, points out that in 1942 King George VI had more men under arms throughout his domains than did President Franklin Roosevelt, while in 1944 the number of US forces was greater than that of the British Empire and Commonwealth.
Financially, however, the change had taken place well before then. During the First World War the war loans which the UK government had raised in America were extensive and 1917 tends to be the year which economic historians point to as being when London was overtaken by New York as a financial centre. Although the UK finally paid off its Second World War debts to America in 2006 those First World War debts still remain unpaid. And contrary to popular belief neither are those First World War debts 'written off' but remain simply 'unserviced'. In other words America could still call them in.
Tas - with regard to Edward VII and the Panama Canal then is the booksaying that he was personally involved and interested in the project? And did Theodore Roosevelt seek finance from London? It would stand to reason considering that London was still the leading financial centre at the time. What is striking about the building of the Panama Canal, however, is how non-British the enterprise seemed to be. It's generally portrayed as being basically an all-American affair. Is the book challenging this popular perception? -
Message 3
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011
Hi Vizzer,
Sorry, I think I did not explain myself properly. My String is based on the Book and a TV documentary on the Panama Canal I started watching in midstream.
It seems, the construction of the Canal was a totally American thing and so I doubt if they sought funds from Britain for that. Since the French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps had built the Suez Canal, the French made the first stab at trying to build a canal at the isthmus of Panama and failed, although I missed that part of the documentary. America had finished its Civil War and had created what we now call the United States. It had gotten to California and taken Texas and a lot more from Mexico, so America was ready for the new age of Imperialism.
Theodore Roosevelt was the man of the hour and in his mind the Panama Canal was the first great step towards an American Empire. According to the documentary, the Canal was a purely American undertaking, and it showed the best things about America; its organization for huge enterprises, its innovation, its persistence. It took a lot of Engineering to build the Canal and a lot of people came from the British West Indies to work at it. They went home after it was finished in 1911 or so, not much richer for all the years they gave to its construction, not to speak of all the lives lost.
However, in 1914 the first ships were traversing the Canal, going form the Ocean over those gigantic locks, through the dense jungle to a huge artificial lake; tremendous endeavor, which gave America a lot of confidence in its Imperial destiny. After the Spanish-American war the U.S. got Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and gave independence to Cuba, so the American Empire was on its way.
The book talks about an almost forgotten conference at Algeciras, where King Edward VII, Theodore Roosevelt created some kind of friendship that helped out manoevre the young Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and set the pattern for the Europe that was to follow. It appears to have been the beginning of the Anglo- American alliance, that was transformed by Winston Churchill to a special relationship.
It seems King Edwards VII's relationships typically flowered into major alliances; The Algeciras conference into the long enduring Anglo-American Alliance, his visit to Paris into the Entente Cordiale, etc.
Although what I am going to say is nearly a cliché, I think the relationship of the British Empire to the American Empire is like the relationship of the Greek Empire to the Roman Empire. You are a mature country, full of mature ideas, institutions and traditions; we, on the other hand are a brash young country, good at great feats of Engineering and certain big things. You have largely handed over the keys to your Empire to us. For the sake of the Special Relationship, you follow us in every endeavor, except very wisely, not in Vietnam. You sometimes even enable us in our stupidities, like the last Iraq war, in order to preserve the Special Relationship.
There is a general feeling of mild bonhomie towards Britain here, to an extent due to your Royal Family. May our Alliance long endure!
Tas -
Message 4
Posted by Patrick Wallace (U196685) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011
Your concept is not new, Tas: it was Harold Macmillan's (self-deceptive?) way of consoling himself (and more importantly, perhaps, his party) in the long period of supposed decline management. Whether American politicians took the same view is another matter - Suez would suggest otherwise, which is why I said "self-deceptive". And now, of course, that we ar, in the modern, so to speak, Byzantine Empire of the EU, things are different again.
As for Algeciras, if Edward VII was personally so active in doing down the Kaiser, that might explain a lot - though not why Wilhelm persisted in the face of such apparent "encirclement". -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011
Hi Patrick,
I lived in Britain during the Suez Crisis. Sir Anthony Eden made the mistake of thinking Britain was still the Great Power that it had been and did not consult America at all, with all the adverse consequences. Harold Macmillan came to power and restored the Anglo-American Alliance, with you guys being the junior partner.
The real crisis came during the Vietnam War, when we were clearly in the wrong war, with little support in Europe and even Canada. Your PM, Harold Wilson was able to pussyfoot his way around it, by sending guerrilla experts to give a report on the war.
However, in every other endeavor, Iran during the Shah, Iraq the first war under George H. Bush, the second war under George W. Bush, you have been with us. We gave you tacit support in the Falklands War, although Margaret Thatcher had a very strong relationship with Ronald Reagan.
From here, it seems we are the Center of the Universe and some of our politicians keep mentioning American Exceptionalism, (code for America being the greatest country of all time, without any faults).
That is the danger of Imperialism, one starts believing in one's own publicity. I suspect you were also arrogant during your period of grandeur. In the early 20th century you were a lot more jingoistic. However, WW2 came to you and all of Europe as it never came to America and that experience has really made you very mature, as it has the Europeans.
I hope our alliance will long endure and that you will use your small influence with us, to keep us out of unnecessary wars, as in Iraq and Afghanistan; that you will try to give us the wisdom from your maturity, as Canada some times tries to do.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by chefone (U14431437) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011
How you doing tas...?
Hope you had a decent time over the festive season and enjoyed a few budds...
No doubts after the second world war your hybred peoples had definately earned enough dollars to demote us old english bloods to a definate material second......
When you admit that you folk were in the wrong war do you mean it was wrong morally , spiritualy or financially.....? Why did the johnson administration so pusue such a blunder....And with your hand on your hart tas.....What do the unexceptional general public of america...believe... in relation as to why that war was started...?
With respect tas.....Not sure that i am included in that spiel about "us" standing by you throughout these mentioned wars........ but you can be sure that it was all a done deal and not something that the true exceptional people of this world had the ability to change....
Thacther and Reagan were seen by the majority as crack heads and there are still a lot of humanists and unexceptional peoples who disliked thier representations... even today....
I agree with you that your mob are certainly the centre of a universe....... as paine always said you could be......But please dont make the mistake of thinking, that that universe is shared by the souls who truely belong on this planet
We share real friendships tas and these mainly of a human kind....But these friendships through blood and tears tas not through unadulterated flatulence....You are as i said before a 300 year old nation who still have many things to learn....
I am sure that the earth will endure your shnanagans as well as it will endure others like yourselves so what do i care that you are a doomed nation..... as were those that come before you.....
Take care tas and lets pray that your multi-national corporation allow your exceptionally real people a bit of a break......
-
Message 7
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 27th January 2011
Hi Chefone,
Our entry into the Vietnam War was extremely counterproductive because it was based on a wrong premise and a wrong policy. The intervention was designed to contain China and was based on the 'Domino theory.' Both ideas were completely wrong as was shown by the fact that China, soon after attacked Vietnam. And as we saw after Nixon's rapprochement with China, China did not need containing. if we get the basic premise of our policies right we can avoid all kinds of wars, which bring little joy with them except a very big hole even in our vast treasury, and a lot of lives.
About Iraq our premise was that Saddam Hussian was a thoroughly bad guy (true), who had these weapons of mass destruction that he was going to use, either on us or Israel (false).
We were encouraged in this faulty analysis by the fact that our very wise partners across the Atlantic, the U.K., having the much vaunted MI-6, told us that Saddam could initiate a strike on the West in "45 minutes". If the Brits believed that, then why could we not sell the concept to our own people; If the canny Brits were prepared to go to war with us, then we must be right.
We never expected that the war would cost us 1 trillion dollars and we (both you and us) would still be in the mire of Iraq. When we wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East, we failed to analyze that we were enabling a take over of Iraq by Iran. Because the majority in Iraq belong to the Shia faction of Islam, as do the Iranians.
Although we have a huge State Department, with experts in almost every field, if the top man is rather dense, the experts can try their best. No one will listen to them.
When Mr. Bush got into office by the skin of his teeth, he had no big ideas and his administration was just floundering and rapidly losing popularity. In came that nutcase Osama to bomb the World Trade Center, a truly asinine thing to do from every perspective, even his own.
If we wanted to teach that SOB a lesson, there were cheaper, more efficient ways to do so then invading Afghanistan. We had him almost in our cross-hairs in the mountains of Tora Bora; we let him get away. After that we had nothing to do to keep Mr. Bushes popularity ratings up, so we conceived of this truly unnecessary war in Iraq, on unsubstantiated rumors of him acquiring Uranium from the Niger. Our CIA sent our former ambassador Wilson, to the Niger to investigate and he said categorically that the whole thing was false; the minister who had purportedly signed the forged agreement between Iraq and the Niger had retired at least 10 years previously.
However, we claimed to our public that we learnt about that deal from the Brits, and the Brits with their much vaunted MI-6 can not have been deceived; ergo our own ambassador Wilson was mistaken.
Now, no one is disputing that Saddam was a truly bad man, in fact he was almost a monster; but he was Iraq's monster and at least he was a counterweight to Iran in the region. However, once a President is convinced of his cause there is nothing to stop him, not even our Constitution, since he is the Commander-in-Chief.
In these circumstances Canada tried to take the U.S. from the wrong path, as did Germany and even France. however, since you were with us all the way, the administration was able to convince he American people that this was the right war.
This is the kind of situation where your wise counsel was very much needed in deterring us from a very bad course of action. However, because Mr. Blair believed in not harming the "Special Relationship" he not only backed us full tilt, but to an extent, enabled our administration.
I hope next time around, you will use your maturity and thoughtfulness to try to deter us from such unfortunate courses of action, like a true friend. Of course it is unlikely that an administration like the previous one will act on your advice ( they ignored Canada's) however, they will at least listen.
The whole thing must be undertaken like an "intervention" with an alcoholic, collectively by all our great friends, Canada, U.K., Germany, France, perhaps other countries.
Tas -
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 27th January 2011
Tas,
I hope next time around, you will use your maturity and thoughtfulness to try to deter us from such unfortunate courses of action, like a true friend. Of course it is unlikely that an administration like the previous one will act on your advice ( they ignored Canada's) however, they will at least listen.Â
Or, at any rate, have the good sense to publicly wash Britain's hands from any involvement in such an idiotic undertaking as they did with Vietnam. -
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 27th January 2011
Let us get back to the 19th and early 20th century. Your situation was as follows: Your Hanoverian German monarchy was brought in because you needed a protestant monarch. You had had four Georges I , II, III, IV and George IV's daughter, the popular Princess Charlotte had died in childbirth as well as her baby.
At that period, every monarchy looking for protestant heir, went to Germany which had over one hundred German principalities, looking for a Royal spouse. Queen Victoria, of purely German parents, (she was taught to speak English at the age of three) was brought to the throne at the age of 18 in 1837.
This was fortunate for your country and for your Constitutional monarchy, because when she came to the throne, there were no rules for a Constitutional monarch. Lord Melbourne, a very charming and wise man was the Prime Minister, although the title of Prime minister came later.
Queen Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Cobourg Gotha, a German prince of a small German principality, in 1840.
In 1848 all Europe was in turmoil because there were Liberal revolutions all over, although there were many philosophies that were prevailing in Europe, Nationalism, Socialism of several varieties, even Monarchism.
Prince Albert turned out to be just what Britain needed; he was a European Liberal and promoted the constitutional monarchy with Queen Victoria.
When their first child, Vicky was born Prince Albert became very fond of the child and as she grew up, he gave her his ideas of Liberalism. Vicky was eventually married to the heir to the throne of Prussia, and this was thought by Victoria, and particularly Albert as a very good thing, because Prussia was the biggest of the German Principalities. If it would tend towards Liberalism, then the future of all of Europe was secure, or so thought Prince Albert.
Thus far Britain had had a very good relationship with Prussia; together they had defeated Napoleon I in 1815, then considered to be the greatest danger to Britain and its Empire.
I would like your comments on all this. I am trying to understand what happened in the reign of Edward VII and Theodore Roosevelt. However, we must understand those times. More later!
Tas -
Message 10
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 27th January 2011
When she came to the throne, Victoria was so young that after the coronation she went up to give a bath to her puppy. It is hardly likely that she understood the rules of Constitutional Monarchy, especially because no rules existed at the time.
Tas -
Message 11
Posted by chefone (U14431437) on Sunday, 30th January 2011
For one thing Tas......
They both came to power in the same year and share a love of Navy....
Thier relationship would of been built around the new times and technologies of the new century and commerse...
No doubt they got together when "bertie" visited Washington......And discussed even more ways of keeping the lot for thier own vested interests......
chef -
Message 12
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 30th January 2011
Hi Chefone,
I have been reading some more of the book. The first part deals with Edward. It seems his father was so earnest, he put a lot of pressure on him and Edward was a failure at almost every thing he tried.
At age 14, after the Crimean war, Napoleon III paid a State visit to Britain. His Empress Eugenie took a real interest in the Royal Children and they all responded. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert paid a return State visit the next year to Paris. Napoleon III had modernized Paris with beautiful boulevards. I t was a city of real glitter. Edward then fell in love with Paris, a love that was to endure all his life. He and the children asked Empress Eugenie if they could remain with them. She said they would be welcome but their parents will miss them in London. Edward said they have a whole bunch of other children in London.
He went to both Oxford and Cambridge and was a failure at both. He was then put in a regiment of Irish Guards. He was still quite innocent about Sex. His regiment buddies organized a big drinking party and lured a girl, supposedly an actress, but really a call girl, and put her in his bed. When the young prince, now aged about 20, got into his bed he found a woman in there. Wags started calling her the Princess of Wales. From then on he acquired a taste for women.
His father found out and gave Bertie, as he was called, a thorough scolding. What would happen if the girl conceived someone's child and claimed that it was his?
Canada had long invited Queen Victoria on a visit; In 1860, Edward proposed if he could go instead of her. It was agreed. he started from the British port of Plymouth for obvious reasons. He arrived in Newfoundland to tremendous welcome. He visited all of Eastern Canada. He shook so many hands, several thousand. He danced the waltz with many Canadian women. During one dance, he fell down with the girl. However, he picked himself up as well as the lady and continued the dance. He was traveling by train and was so tired he fell asleep; however, many people wanted to shake his hand, so they shook his foot instead.
He arrived in the United States, a Republic that had not that long ago shaken off the British monarchy, so he came as a simple Baron; something like an English Gentleman. There was very little protocol and the Americans loved him. President Buchanan liked him so much, there two State dinners given for him in the White House. A few months later, Abraham Lincoln was elected and the American Civil War started.
However, it seems this very successful visit by the British heir to the throne planted the seed, in some sense, of the special relationship between the two countries.
More later!
Tas -
Message 13
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 31st January 2011
chef,
For one thing Tas......
They both came to power in the same year and share a love of Navy....
Thier relationship would of been built around the new times and technologies of the new century and commerse...
No doubt they got together when "bertie" visited Washington......And discussed even more ways of keeping the lot for thier own vested interests......Â
Assuming you're talking about King Edward VII & Theodore Roosevelt instead of replying to Tas' remarks about the young Queen Victoria, the one time KE7 visited Washington, DC, was as Prince of Wales, at age 18 in 1860 on a three-day stay-over with President James Buchanan. At that time Theodore Roosevelt was a sickly 1year old child in his parents' townhouse in the Gramercy neighborhood of New York. -
Message 14
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 1st February 2011
Hi White Camry,
I have read some more of the book, "The King and the Cowboy." And a have learned a lot. A lot of my preconceived ideas have been altered.
Edward VII: Although his father, Prince Albert wanted him to acquire a lot of book learning, he was not very good at it. However, during his long period as Prince of Wales, he talked to almost all the important people, not only in Britain but all over Europe and some of them were very able indeed; one became the head of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. So by the time he became King Emperor, he had become a very wise man.
Wilhem II: In Germany there were a number of parties: Liberal, Nationalist. The First Kaiser Wilhelm I was a strong nationalist and his chief man was Bismarck. His son Frederick and his Daughter- in-law, daughter of Queen Victoria, under the tutelage of her father, were a Liberal, inclined towards Constitutional Democracy, English style.
Unfortunately, her Son Willy, for some deep psychological reasons, was against his parents. For motherly affection he went to his grand mother, Queen Victoria.
Wilhelm I dies in 1898 at the age of 90 years, and his son Frederick, who was liberally inclined, and wanted to be a constitutional monarch, lived only 91 days. He had cancer. This brought the nutcase Willy to the throne, and he sent the able Bismarck to pasture. Willy wanted to be like the English, but was never accepted as such. He was quite unstable.
The more I read this book, the more I am charmed by British Constitutional Monarchy, which is one of the best systems invented by man.
Tas -
Message 15
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011
One of the great advantages of Constitutional monarchy is that the monarch does not have to be a super bright fellow, and many of them are not. Th big advantage is that all affairs of running the show are in the hands of the Prime Minister; even the choice of PM is in the hands of Parliament. Another advantage compared to our Presidential system with checks and balances, is that after an election the policy of the new government are implemented immediately. In our system, it takes ages to get all the factions to come together, and they keep adding amendments in committees to water down the policy.
If Emperor Frederick of Germany had lived even ten years, the German problem would have been solved and with that the problems of all of Europe, as Prince Albert, and under his tutelage Queen Victoria, imagined. Unfortunately we got Willy instead, and he was a bit of a psychological case, trying to prove his independence of his mom and dad. That is why he put the canny old man, Bismarck to pasture. Bismarck had some premonition of what was to follow and said, "I fear for the future of my Grand Children," or words to that effect.
Bismarck had in effect created the German Reich, of which Wilhelm II was the Emperor. The Brash young Kaiser was incapable of keeping it together, with elegant dexterity, as Bismarck had done, playing on German Nationalism and the shifting alliances. His most important alliance with Britain, he always kept in tact.
Unfortunately, in that period, British Statesmen also did not have a clear vision of where they were going; were they engaging with the World primarily, where their Empire lay, or with Europe? They did not have a clear policy of whether they should accede to Germany and France in Europe or in the rest of the world. And both Germany, France and other countries of Europe were seeking Empires all over just as Britain had done much earlier.
More later, as I read more of the book.
Tas -
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011
The new kaiser Wilhelm was so jealous of his uncle Bertie, that he was visiting Vienna when Bertie was also in Vienna and he decreed that while he was in Vienna, Bertie must leave the city. This created a near scandal so the Kaiser lied, that he did no such thing.
The young Kaiser was an embarrassment to both his army and his administration and would sometimes rescind orders that he had given.
Under Bismarck, the policy was to keep France isolated, so they had a treaty of reinsurance with Russia to come to its aid if attacked by any power. The Kaiser did not renew that treaty, so Russia formed an alliance with France. Germany was left isolated in its alliance with Austria.
Now the whole picture prior to WW1 is becoming clear. Bismarck was badly needed and it was the absolute monarchy of Germany that brought about its downfall in 1914.
Tas -
Message 17
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
Tas:
Now the whole picture prior to WW1 is becoming clear. Bismarck was badly needed and it was the absolute monarchy of Germany that brought about its downfall in 1914.Â
That WW1 wouldn't have happened if Bismarck had been at the helm in Berlin is a fair assessment but his own policies set them in motion; without his juggling everything would fall down. And so they did.
But Wilhelm II an absolute monarch? He was as absolute as his British cousins. Yes, he ultimately sent Bismarck packing but Bizzy was 75 years old and was losing control of everything which he'd set up, like Dr. Frankenstein.
Willi, OTOH, did nothing to take over direction of the German state, administration or policies. Indeed, whenever he spoke up about something it was always to put his jackbooted foot in his mouth, and the German government had to cover for him. Indeed, the one time he should have taken over or, at least, spoken out in public, was in 1914. But that would have set him against his own generals who had by that time become Bismarck's heirs, with Willi merely the figurehead. -
Message 18
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
Hi White Camry,
That is why I admire your Constitutional Monarchy so much, although it may seem like a cliché. You say of the young Kaiser,quite rightly:
Indeed, whenever he spoke up about something it was always to put his jackbooted foot in his mouth, and the German government had to cover for him. Â
I do not think anyone in a Republic would have elected an idiot like Willy, unleas it was about 25% of the American public, the ones who subscribe to the Tea Party and are the admirers of Mrs. Palin.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the European countries were playing diplomatic games, without any real experts like Talleyrand or Bismarck. They were forming alliances willy-nilly, and their main interests were to acquire an Empire in Africa or Asia.
Bismark's policy had been to keep France isolated, after it had walked into the trap of the Franco-Prussian War and lost Alsace and Lorraine. Under Napoleon I, it had written the book on land battles; it had of its own volition, walked into the FP War and been soundly beaten by the Prussian army.
During the Crimean War, it had succeeded in forming an alliance with Britain and the two had beaten back Russia, and the Franco-English friendship had been augmented by Napoleon III visit to London and the return visit to Paris by Queen Victoria and prince Albert; however, France felt it needed an alliance which was not forthcoming.
Russia also felt exposed, and was quite content with its treaty of Reinsurance with Germany, and also the many good wishes and backing offered privately by the Kaiser. Suddenly this treaty was not renewed and Russia felt exposed, so it formed its alliance with France, which was desperately looking for an ally.
I know I keep repeating this but if only Germany had a Constitutional monarchy as Kaiser Frederick and Empress Vicky wanted, all these alliances and bad blood between Germany, the U.K. would have been avoided and we would not have had the Great War of 1914.
In another string, I have been arguing that WW1 was the wrong war for Britain to get into. It brought about the end of your very successful Empire, which you had so painstakingly created. However, on second thoughts, perhaps this long war with its many sacrifices and the subsequent WW2, Hitler's War, were necessary to make you and the other Europeans more mature; for Europe to start functioning economically and diplomatically, in the light of maturity.
However, what tremendous losses you folks suffered in Europe and in the U.K. as well as in the Commonwealth. Every one went down in that war (WW2); the only one left standing were the U.S. able to pick up the pieces of Europe, Asia and put everyone back on their feet. Now the American century is over and we are in the new century. I wonder how long will American influence survive. If we are wise, probably beyond the middle of this century; however, if we are childish, probably just for a very few decades.
Tas -
Message 19
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 4th February 2011
Not only was the Kaiser an airhead, almost all the great powers of Europe, Germany, Austria-Hungry, Russia,Britain, Italy were Monarchies in the hand of rank amateurs, who wanted to be absolute monarchs. Small me with huge responsibilities. Some of them trying to run the affairs of a country as if it was a family business.
Czar Nicholas II, the cousin of Wilhelm II, came to the throne at the age of 26, in 1896, six years after the young Willy came to the throne. His father thought him singularly unfit to rule and had remarked, "He is nothing but a boy, whose judgments are childish." He did not even have a private secretary, and he was to be the czar of all the Russias. Willy undertook to guide his cousin. The letters he wrote to the Czar have been published and are full of the most infantile and wrong advice.
In the Russian-Japanese war of 1905, the Japanese had defeated the Russian fleet; the Kaiser wrote to the czar to send a second fleet; on the way they encountered some British vessels, which they thought to be Japanese. they sank the British vessels and did not pick up any survivors. They were lucky that the Brits did no send any warships to sink the Russian fleet, which was eventually sunk by the Japanese.
The Kaiser suddenly got this idea that he could personally persuade the Czar to sign a treaty with the Germans. Against the advice of his Chancellor, Von Bülow.
He undertook a trip to Russia in his Royal Yatch Polar Star. The Czar met him in his Yatch. The Kaiser thought that Russia was in a weak position and would readily agree to an alliance with Germany, disregarding the fact that Russia was by now tied to French French financing. happily Wilhelm collected his cousin signature on the treaty. Soon the Russian and German governments disavowed the treaties. Wilhelm abjectly apologized to his Chancellor. Wilhelm pleaded with von Bülow not resign; he was "100,000 times more valuable to me than all the treaties in the world." Threatening suicide, the Kaiser used a light touch, "Think of my poor wife and children."
Such were the so-called absolute monarchies of the period, like children playing games. Just like many of the recent non-European monarchies, Iran, Iraq,Thailand, Nepal, Jordon, etc.
None of them realize that the only solution is Constitutional monarchy, as brought about in Britain by Prince Albert and Queen Victoria, and the British people.
Under these idiots, WW1 became slowly inevitable. And they did not even realize what a Calamity they were bringing about.
Tas -
Message 20
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 4th February 2011
However, can we depend on modern democracy?
Leaders these days seem to get elected these days for
a) looking good on TV
b) being too bland to offend anybody
c) looking good on TV
d) being able to deliver meaningless soundbites convinvingly
e) looking good on TV -
Message 21
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 4th February 2011
Hi Giraffe,
Yes, at its worst, it can be pretty bad. As Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst system, except for all the others."
In all the huffing and puffing, we hope the public will be wise enough to elect some one with a sound mind. Of course there will always be persuaders, whether visible or hidden, who will try to tilt the election in their man's favor. In America, an election is like "war", with defined rules. Each side tries its best to circumvent these rules; however, at least there are still some rules.
Tas -
Message 22
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 5th February 2011
One of the Kaiser's best friends, in discussing the causes of WW1, said that there were two important factors: The conflict between Wilhelm II and Edward VII and Britain's attempted encirclement of Germany.
The feud was something the Kaiser had brought on himself. The encirclement was brought about by the German government when it refused to renew the Reinsurance treaty with Russia.
The underlying cause of the feud between the Kaiser and his uncle was the hatred Willy had for his mother Vicky, Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, who was the favorite sister of Bertie.
In February 1901, after the burial of of Queen Victoria, The Kaiser delivered a speech in which he said Germany and Britain should form an alliance: "With such an alliance not a mouse could stir in Europe without our permission," being carried away by his own rhetoric.
However it was typical of Willy to make a large proposal in a fit of enthusiasm, and then provide no follow-through.
The British Constitutional Monarchy had not been completely fashioned when Victoria came to power and the extent of the power of the Crown vis à vis the Cabinet was still the subject of negotiation, however, after the death of Prince Albert, Victoria withdrew from all public life and the balance was tipped strongly towards the Cabinet.
I am try to see in this message how the British constitutional monarchy came about and what were the causes of WW1, which I still think was the unnecessary war.
Tas -
Message 23
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 7th February 2011
Let us look at the other 'Cowboy' half of this duo, Theodore Roosevelt. 'Teedy' was the scion of a patrician Dutch-American New York family. He was heavily influenced by his father. His first girlfriend was the proverbial girl next door, who also belonged to a rich Patrician New York family, but her father, from the influence of excessive drinking, had brought the family to a bad situation. Teddy in his early twenties married a very attractive girl from a very rich family. Teddy's father had long died and he was away from his wife and his mother, when the mother fell seriously ill and the wife was in childbirth. Both asked Teddy to come home because they needed him; instead Teddy did not realize the gravity of the situation. By the time he returned, they had both died. His wife had left behind a little girl. After a very few years, Teddy married his original girl next door.
Teddy had gotten degrees from Harvard. He decided to enter New York Republican politics and was elected to the State Assembly twice. He met Cabot-Lodge, another young Republican from Massachusetts, and the two became fast friends. Cabot-Lodge was always trying to promote the career of young Roosevelt, especially after he became a Senator.
The two of them had a then new philosophy of American Nationalism. They had also been sent the book the preached the use of the naval power in promoting National interests abroad..
Hitherto America's expansion had been confined to the West. Now we are starting to see how America, for the first time, was wading into the pool and is climbing the Imperialist band wagon of the other European Great Powers.
More later...
Tas -
Message 24
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 7th February 2011
Tas,
The British Constitutional Monarchy had not been completely fashioned when Victoria came to power and the extent of the power of the Crown vis à vis the Cabinet was still the subject of negotiation, however, after the death of Prince Albert, Victoria withdrew from all public life and the balance was tipped strongly towards the Cabinet.
I am try to see in this message how the British constitutional monarchy came about ... Â
You'll have to go further back than KE7's day, or even QV's. Say, to 1603, to KJ6&1 and how his idea of 'the Divine Right of Kings" earned him history's epithet as "the Wisest Fool in Christendom." Learn how his cockeyed notions set the stage for the alienation of Parliament from the Crown, the English Civil War, his son Charles I's execution, Cromwell's Commonwealth, the Stuart Restoration, the Glorious Revolution, the Hanover Succession and how all these led to the transfer of executive power from the Crown to Parliament.
... and what were the causes of WW1, which I still think was the unnecessary war.Â
Unnecessary but unavoidable. Europe was like that in those days - once a century a continent-wide war would break out and last a generation or so. -
Message 25
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 7th February 2011
Tas,
Teddy had gotten degrees from Harvard. He decided to enter New York Republican politics and was elected to the State Assembly twice. He met Cabot-Lodge, another young Republican from Massachusetts, and the two became fast friends. Cabot-Lodge was always trying to promote the career of young Roosevelt, especially after he became a Senator.
The two of them had a then new philosophy of American Nationalism. They had also been sent the book the preached the use of the naval power in promoting National interests abroad..Â
Which book was that? -
Message 26
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 7th February 2011
Hi White Camry,
I am still reading it: "The King and the Cowboy". it is indeed a very interesting read. Next time I am going to talk about how and why Teddy Roosevelt went to the Wild West. The book gives an intimate account of the goings on the late 19th Century. From 1860 on to 1914. It gives you a real feel for that period both in Europe and in America.
Regards,
Tas -
Message 27
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 7th February 2011
Hi White Camry,
You'll have to go further back than KE7's day, or even QV's. Say, to 1603, to KJ6&1 and how his idea of 'the Divine Right of Kings" earned him history's epithet as "the Wisest Fool in Christendom." Learn how his cockeyed notions set the stage for the alienation of Parliament from the Crown, the English Civil War, his son Charles I's execution, Cromwell's Commonwealth, the Stuart Restoration, the Glorious Revolution, the Hanover Succession and how all these led to the transfer of executive power from the Crown to Parliament.Â
That is indeed all correct. Cromwell put an end to the divine right of Kings in Britain. However, throughout the 19th Century, there were monarchies all over Europe, many of them still believing in absolute monarchy, such as Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungry, Turkey, etc. Even in Britain, the unwritten rules of Constitutional Monarchy had not yet been written, so it was anyone's guess who had the real power, the Queen-Empress or her council of ministers. It was only during this period of Queen Victoria, when she withdrew from public life, that the final rules of Constitutional monarchy came to be understood.
It is a great system; However, it came about in Britain largely by fluke, because since Elizabeth I, you always chose foreigners as your monarchs and so your monarch remained relatively weak vis à vis the ruling classes. From the Hanoverians on, your monarchy was essentially German. It was only when George V changed the name of his House from 'Saxe-Coburg-Gotha' to 'Windsor,' that your monarchy essentially became British.
Tas -
Message 28
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 8th February 2011
Tas,
I am still reading it: "The King and the Cowboy". it is indeed a very interesting read. Next time I am going to talk about how and why Teddy Roosevelt went to the Wild West. The book gives an intimate account of the goings on the late 19th Century. From 1860 on to 1914. It gives you a real feel for that period both in Europe and in America.Â
I meant which book had TR & HCL themselves been sent, as you mention in Message #22 above? -
Message 29
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 8th February 2011
Hi White Camry,
It is the same book. It describes the close friendship of Teddy with CL.
Here in America, most people regard Teddy Roosevelt as a man who went to the Wild West and became a Sheriff and tracked outlaws toting a rifle and a Tolstoy novel in his saddle bag. The truth turns out to be a little different, nevertheless just as interesting.
In his investments Teddy had bought a ranch in North Dakota, where there was still some unrest by the Indian tribes after the Indian wars. Teddy always wanted to prove himself, because since childhood he had been a victim of asthma. He thought the only way he could overcome his disease was by being more manly than anyone else.
When he arrived in the West he was taken as an Eastern Tenderfoot by the locals. One day in a saloon he found the local bully at the bar. When Teddy arrived, that man ordered him to order drinks for every one or else deal with him. He moved his hand towards his revolver. Teddy walked up to him slowly; when he arrived he gave the man one of his best punches. The man fell to the ground. Teddy asked the man if he wanted more, however he never got up and eventually slink away out of the saloon.
Teddy describes how he went on cattle roundups with his cowhands, and says he was not very good, specially at roping. He was also not good at hunting, but by sheer persistence he became a good cowboy and the good hunter. He used to go for a few months to the West for several years.
Unfortunately North Dakota has very severe winters and they had a particularly sever one in 1885-86. Most of his cattle died and he left Dakota, with his ranch pretty nearly bankrupt, but his legend as a man's man, established.
Tas -
Message 30
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 10th February 2011
Let us get back to the story of America and Britain in the very late 19th Century and the very early days of the 20th.
In the late 19th Century America was looking to assert herself as a Colonial power, except that the American people, bred on democracy, did not believe in Colonialism. Strong feelings were created by the Hearst and the Pulitzer presses against Spain. Then an American battleship blew up in Havana harbor, Cuba at that period being Spanish territory.
War broke out between Spain and America. In the meanwhile Cabot Lodge had got Roosevelt into the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy. His boss and the President wanted to avoid war and Spain was apologizing profusely, but Roosevelt and Hurst were bent on war, so a naval mini-fleet was dispatched from Hong Kong to the Philippines to deal with Spain. The fleet was small and the British were just beginning to laugh at it when it met the Spanish fleet and was Victorious.
Soon an interesting situation arose in the Philippines; the locals were fighting for the independence of the islands and the US were fighting them, to protect the Philippines for Democracy.
In 1901, Roosevelt was selected as the Vice President of the United States for President McKinley. Every one in New york State thought this was a good way to put this 'reformer' to pasture so they could continue their merry way. Unfortunately President McKinley was shot and Roosevelt became President in 1901.
He very soon started promoting the Panama Canal, which became a feat of great American engineering, with all its locks and complex engineering, as explained in one of my messages above.
Many years later, TR met Kitchener, who had won in India against the Viceroy Lord Curzon, and had a high opinion of himself. He said to TR, "You should have opted for a sea-level Canal." TR said the American Engineers said that was impossible. Kitchener, "I would have said,' I want a sea-level canal! Now go and do it!'" TR replied that in Shakespeare, there are two characters: one says to the other, 'I can ask all the souls from hell to come forth!' The other character, ' I can do that also and so can many other people, but will they come?'"
Meanwhile, on the Isle of Wight in Britain, in her Osborne House, Queen Victoria was severely ill. Bertie was summoned, and the Queen said to her doctor, " I have completed most transactions, however, there a few things still left unfinished. I want to stay alive until I have completed them. Bertie spent some time alone with his mother and then left but remained in London. His nephew the Kaiser was visiting. He came to see his Grand Mama and was allowed 5 minutes alone with her. The Queen passed away in January 1901. Thus with the new century Britain had a new ruler Edward VII.
What a period had been that of Queen Victoria, likely the greatest period o British history. It encompassed the Industrial Revolution, Napoleon I had been defeated, India had seen a Mutiny with almost made the Brits pack their bags in that subcontinent, the Great Exhibition, the advent of the railways, of the automobile, the telegraph, the telephone. The great English physicist, Lord Kelvin said " All physics will soon come to an end, because we know everything."
Tas -
Message 31
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 11th February 2011
Little did Lord Kelvin and the other old fogies of Classical physics know that a German scientist, Max Planck would be trying to explain a classical physics anomaly, that would lead to a whole new kind of physics; quantum physics and that two German chemists, Hahn and Strassman would bombard Uranium with neutrons, recently discovered by an English physicist, Chadwick at Cambridge to create fission, which they them selves could not understand; they thought they had created a mysterious trans-uranic element; however, a lady scientist from Berlin, Lise Meitner would explain that they had in fact split the atom, creating fission. This would open a completely new era and provide the world with a new form of energy, of which we would be afraid.
All this is also part of history and should be thought about.
Tas -
Message 32
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 11th February 2011
One aspect of Roosevelt, before he became President, was his formation of the Rough Riders. When America went to war with Spain, the American army was puny, so the then secretary of Defense asked for volunteers. Roosevelt left his post as Assistant secretary of the Navy and created a small force of volunteers organized as the so-called Rough Riders. Roosevelt always thought a real man should fight in a battle so he became Colonel of the Rough Riders and fought in battle. The Rough Riders fought well, for example in the battles of San Juan Heights, Kettle Hill and Las Guásimas
Roosevelt was very young when he became President and most of the intellectuals of the Right scoffed at him. Some of their comments:
"Here is America run by a schoolboy barely out of college...." wrote Henry Adams. He claimed that TR "acts by instinct of a schoolboy at a second rate boarding school." or "Mind, in a technical sense, he has not...."
Mark Twain wrote that "the President is insane".
With Edward VII as King and Theodore Roosevelt as President at the start of the 20th Century, thinking people in the English-speaking world found themselves between dismay and despair.
Little did they know that these two supposed pygmies would turnout to be giants.
Tas -
Message 33
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 12th February 2011
In the very beginning of the 20th Century, British policy had been isolationist as had been that of America. Another thing was that on the American political scene Britain was seen as the enemy: after all the revolution of 1776 and the War of 1812 had been fought with Britain. America's very National Anthem glorified an event of this war. Despite the successful visit by the Prince of Wales to the White House of President Buchanan, and the good feelings created in 1860 the American public still regarded Britain as the main enemy.
During the war of 1812, both sides had burned down the others Parliament buildings; not Westminster by America , rather in Ontario, Canada. And the Brits, to return the complement, had burnt down the US Congress and had thrown in the White House for good measure. It was easy to get a lot of votes in an American election against Britain, because a lot of the American population was of German and of Irish origin.
Fortunately Teddy Roosevelt was an Anglophile and several of his cabinet were. Britain had had some difficulty in wining the Boer war and America had just gotten over its war with Spain. Both sides realized that they needed some allies. Britain's first alliance, with Japan, had gone well. Japan had defeated the Russian navy in 1905.
Lord Salisbury, the British PM thought the best alliance would be of Britain Germany and America, since Britain was the World's foremost naval power, Germany was the greatest land power and America was the rising power and their peoples were cousins. Unfortunately Germany missed the boat. It made no attempt to accept these offers and it did not agree to stop or reduce its program of Naval development.
However, the Anglo-American alliance proceeded despite the difficulties. First, some problems had to be sorted out. Britain agreed to allow America to fortify the Panama Canal Zone, to keep out of Venezuela and also a dispute on the border between Alaska and British Columbia was solved. Britain more or less agreed to abide by the Monroe Doctrine.
All this was through backdoor diplomacy, because at that time the US President was expected to remain on US soil throughout his tenure. Therefore, there could be little personal bonding. In the written diplomatic documents, they had to be complimentary to the Kaiser, in case the document should fall into the wrong hands. However, we see the the framework of the Special Relationship between Britain and America already beginning to emerge.
Tas -
Message 34
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 12th February 2011
But Wilhelm II an absolute monarch? He was as absolute as his British cousins.Â
------------
Good point.
It's always amusing to listen to some UK types decrying Imperial Germany before 1914 as some kind of 'absolutist', 'authoritarian' and 'militarist' state - as though the UK at that time was any different.
And those same types also exclaim with hypocritical indignation and outrage that Germany had sovereignty over overseas territories in Africa, Asia and the Pacific equivalent in area to 'more than 4 times that of Germany itself'. A classic example of this would be the Â鶹ԼÅÄ very own 'The Great War' series from 1964. -
Message 35
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 12th February 2011
In the 18th Century, Britain had beaten back Portugal, France and Holland in the game of Empire and had gained an immense empire. The Victors were largely because the British upper classes thought the colonies were too far away for them to be concerned with so they were left in the hands of "upstarts' like Robert Clive and Warren Hastings, Captain Cook and General Wolfe. However, these so -called upstarts proved to be extremely good a the game of Empire, because they had emerged because of their on merit, not because of their birth. They had created a huge empire from India to America, Canada and Australia.
The rest of Europe stood in some kind of awe of the Brits, not only because of their industrial revolution but especially their Empire and wanted as far as possible, Empires of their own. The few places left were the African continent and in Eastern Asia, Indochina, Indonesia, the Philippines and so on. The Germans laid claim to Tanganyika and South West Africa, the Belgians to the Congo, the French to the other part of the Congo, in West Africa and North West Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia.
Thus the great race for Imperialism was on and all the Great and middle powers of Europe were vying for Colonies and through them, their place in the sun.
Tas -
Message 36
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 13th February 2011
Now let us look again at what was going on in Europe at that period: The new Foreign Secretary was Lord Lansdowne. He realized that Britain was over extended. He sought to reduce these commitments. With the United States, Britain signed the Hay-Pauncefote treaty by which Britain recognized America's exclusive right to build a Panama Canal. Essentially it was a treaty in recognition of the supremacy of America in Western Waters.
With the passing of Lord Salisbury, there were a whole bunch of new diplomats at the Foreign Office, like Charles Hardinge, later Viceroy of India, and a friend of the Prince of Wales. These people believed in an end to British isolationism. They recognized that to meet threats from Great Powers, they would have to join other Great Powers. King Edward looked in the direction of France, although he was the scion of a German dynasty an the son of a German Prince; France had been England's enemy for a thousand years. To back France against Germany would mean a dizzying reversal in World Politics. However, it looked like the logical course to follow.
However, there were impediments: Edward encountered anti-British crowds shouting slogans on the occasion of a visit to France. Someone in his party remarked, "The French don't like us." He replied, "Why should they?"
Landsdowne in Britain and Declassé in France were both engaged in removing disputes between the two countries. The English had a great interest in Egypt, as well as the French. It was agreed to allow the British to have the predominant influence in Egypt and the French in Morocco. While Lansdowne was intent on reducing British commitments, Declassé sensed danger from the Germans.
In March 1903, King Edward was planning a Mediterranean cruise and had a thought to include France as well. At that time so passionately Anglophobe had the French become, that for Edward to schedule a visit to France, was a bold, and some thought reckless decision. The British cabinet were opposed.
In the meanwhile Emile Loubet, the French president was visiting Algeria, which France had taken in 1880. Edward dispatched four battleships to salute the President. Loubet cabled his thanks and urged Edward to visit France.
Edward's State visit to Paris began in 1903. He told the French he was one of their own, and they believed him. The French President caught the popular mood, "We shall always think of him as the Prince of Wales" The joyousness that was associated with France at that period was embodied in the Prince of Wales. The crowds shouted and the opinion of the country was carried. A return visit by the French President to London took place amid British enthusiasm; and thus came about the 'Entente Cordiale' between the two countries.
The Entente was not a treaty but a loose arrangement, an arrangement settling a wide range of issues between the tow countries. It did not pledge the two countries to go to war together. The words 'Entente Cordiale' can be roughly translated as "friendly undertanding." In the then European alliances, it seems to have left Britain some freedom of action. However, the German government and the Kaiser had missed the boat. They talked about encirclement of Germany, but hey had themselves to blame; they had brought it about after the Kaiser's bombastic speech about "an alliance of Germany with Britain" at Queen Victoria's funeral.
So it seems it was bad diplomacy and bad direction by the German government on the one hand and the Kaiser on the other, that got them into the position. In a similar manner was the declaration of War on the U.S. by Germany in both World Wars, impulsive policies, without much thought.
So it appears the events are moving inexorably towards a 'Great War.'
Tas -
Message 37
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 13th February 2011
Britain was seen as the enemy: after all the revolution of 1776 and the War of 1812 had been fought with Britain. America's very National Anthem glorified an event of this war. Despite the successful visit by the Prince of Wales to the White House of President Buchanan, and the good feelings created in 1860 the American public still regarded Britain as the main enemy.Â
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point Tas.
Let's not forget that the US had also been fearful of a potential British invervention (against the US) during the Civil War of the 1860s. In fact (Mexican wars, Civil wars, Indian wars, Spanish wars and First World wars notwithstanding) as late as the 1920s and 1930s, the primary strategic focus of the US Army still lay in countering a possible British invasion from Canada and down the Hudson River valley. And this defence contingency was only finally officially downgraded following the signing of the Atlantic Charter in 1941. -
Message 38
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 13th February 2011
Hi Vizzer,
One marvels at the near infantile behavior of some of our forefathers, as one marvels at their bravery and example during the two World Wars.
How silly of the US to fear an invasion from Canada.
Let me tell you about the infantile behavior of the German Kaiser and his government after the Entente Cordiale of Britain and France came about. Having by their idiocy almost steered Britain towards this policy, they now decided to bully France, first by turning their guns on Delclassé the French Foreign minister who brought it about, but then claiming the the Entente Cordiale was invalid and declaring it must be proclaimed null and void.
This was a most extraordinary demand. Britain and France had completed an agreement; Germany now claimed it would cancel the agreement. By what right would it do so? How could a pact be rescinded by someone who was not a party to it? Edward stepped off in Paris, during a cruise, and met an informal envoy from Berlin who reassured the King that it was just that Germany felt 'left out.'
The Kaiser complained to the French, "The way things are now, you act as if we did not exist. You talk to everybody, but never to us. In Paris you receive world leaders except for Kaiser Wilhelm. This has got to stop. And we want to have with you not only relaxed relations but 'intimacy.'
Wilhelm demanded that he be awarded France's most prestigious medal, the Grand Cross of the Légion d'honneur.
What a strange behavior from a country? Is it not absolutely infantile? And bizarre. It is almost like when we were kids, playing cricket, if for some reason the game was not going our way, we would walk away with our bat and ball.
Tas -
Message 39
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 14th February 2011
Now folks, such a loose screw as the Kaiser had no business on the throne of a great and highly successful nation as Germany was then. All diplomacy, the questions of War and Peace were in his infantile hands. Much the same was the case in other countries, like Turkey, where the Ottoman monarchy had been almost abolished by the so-called 'Young Turks,' and in Russia, where all the Russias, the huge army, actually larger than the German army, was in the infantile hands of the Czar; the same with the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Some of these people realized their inadequacy, but were loath to part with their power in absolute monarchy; their decisions were made on the impulse of the moment without much thought of the consequences.
In Turkey, Enver Pasha, of the young Turks, was a thorough idiot with thoughts of grandeur, without realizing the reality on the ground. Turkey had long had a close relationship with Britain; it had long been the sick man of Europe. Enver Pasha gave up this alliance and chose to go with Germany, a thoroughly idiotic scheme, which eventually ended what ever Turkey had left. If it was not Kemal Attaturk emerging during the war, an extremely able man, Turkey would have disappeared from the Map of Europe.
That is why I thoroughly admire your gradually crafted system of Constitutional Monarchy. Many Monarchs are not very bright; in fact many of them are, as it turns out, a bit dim. In an absolute monarchy, they run things very badly. Even their Prime Minister or Chancellor is chosen by them. And that is a matter of likability. If they like someone or someone wins them over, they appoint him their first minster. Absolute monarchy is due to birth; merit never enters into it and also the appointment of the government is by the monarch's choice. So we never see real merit in such a system. Those are some of the big problems with absolute monarchy. Even in expenditures, no one is guarding the treasure; it is typically spent on the whims of the monarch. I suspect the French Revolution may have been avoided if they had a Constitutional Monarchy at the period in France; and Marie Antoinette had a good publicist,
I think the Constitutional Monarchy is even better than our American Presidential system. Your Constitution is unwritten and so in theory, whatever the Queen agrees to, to a large extent, is the law of the land. If her government says there will be government financing of election campaigns, that becomes the law of the land, if she nixes such things as PACs and lobbyist, it is immediately accepted.
Once when I lived in Canada, I was walking on one of the important streets of Toronto and a gentleman approached me in a poor-looking suit; I thought it was a seedy character asking for a quarter, for a drink. The man said to me, "Sir, I am the Liberal candidate for the provincial assembly. I hope you will remember me during the forthcoming election." In America, candidates are full with lobbyists money, they travel in lobbyists planes. Election meetings and $1,000 a plate dinners are organized for them by their lobbyists. In Canada there was this simple fellow, asking me, himself for my vote!
I was watching a Hockey ( Ice Hockey) game on TV in Canada and the then Prime Minister, the Nobel laureate, Mr. Lester Pearson was also at the game. The Camera turned to him for an instant, as if in passing and went back to the game.
Lester Pearson brought about the Canadian Health care system. And it is an excellent system and provides services to every Canadian as good as the country can afford. Some times there may be a 'wait' but you do get what ever is required to live on and prosper. In the US, health care has been sought since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. The pursuit was continued by FDR, then by Harry Trueman, LBJ did succeed, fortunately, in getting us Medicare. If he had not decided for Vietnam, he would likely have gone down as one of our greatest presidents. Then Bill Clinton tried for it under Hillary. No luck! Finally after at least two years of debate, when even I, got turned off it, we finally did get a bill through, so we have some kind of health-care. And now the Republicans wish to rescind it. What a horrible joke!
In Britain, Clement Attlee was able to bring about the British National Health Service with just a single vote in Parliament, nobody challenging it in the courts of Law as taking peoples rights away. No wonder I am firmly convinced having lived in several Constitutional monarchies and Republics, and very good Republics at that, not of the Banana type, that your constitutional monarchy is a lot better. It makes your government work. Never throw it over for a Republic; you will live to regret it.
Tas -
Message 40
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 14th February 2011
The German Kaiser was quite concerned about the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France. France at that time was deeply involved in North Africa, in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco and for the price of British interests in Egypt, Britain had given France the green light in Morocco. However, the French had previously agreed to leave Morocco open for all Western Powers. With Britain's Green light it was apparently reneging on that agreement.
The Germans pounced upon this. Under the guise of protecting Morocco, they wanted to take a forceful position. The real objective was to fracture the Entente Cordiale. A conference was set up to occur in Algeciras, Spain and the Kaiser wanted to ensure that Theodore Roosevelt would side with Germany at this conference.
Kaiser Wilhelm II hero worshiped Teddy. According to his chancellor von Bülow, " Theodore Roosevelt .....exercised a particular fascination over the Kaiser. 'That's my man!' he used to say, as soon as the name of Roosevelt was mentioned. He read in dispatches from our ambassador that Roosevelt performed feats of riding equal to those of a cowboy, that like Buffalo Bill, he could hit just hit the bulls-eye with deadly marksmanship.... that his spirit was unquenchable, fearless and ready for anything."
Had the crisis really been about Morocco, President Roosevelt and King Edward might have reacted differently. But it was not about Morocco, it was about the Entente Cordiale.
Roosevelt replied, assuring Germany of America's warmest friendship and hopes for World Peace, but saying that the United States did not have significant interests in Morocco as would justify becoming involved in the country's affairs.
He told the German ambassador, America is an isolationist country and Congress had given him many difficulties even with regard to the Western hemisphere; "If I engage..... I would expose myself to the bitterest attacks."
Tas -
Message 41
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 15th February 2011
Hi Tas,
Although I have not contributed to this thread, I have followed it with great interest.
Tas, I know you love a good DVD - may I recommend the Granada production of "Edward VII"? I'm sure you would really enjoy and appreciate the absolutely superb acting. The series stars Timothy West, Annette Crosby and Robert Hardy - all quite brilliant as Edward, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. I know you are in the US, but I'm sure you can get it through Amazon.
Best Wishes,
SST.
PS There is a wonderful moment when Edward watches in amazement as Cousin Willy struts about wearing a helmet upon which is set an absolutely huge and ridiculous eagle. Edward simply says, "I've just realised something - he's barking mad." -
Message 42
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 15th February 2011
Hi Temperance,
So nice to hear from you and that you are following my thread. I am trying to understand what brought about the "Great War" as it used to be called; the diplomacy that lead to it. And the times that proceeded it.
When I was a little boy growing up in New Delhi during WW2, we often used to go to the so-called India Gate, constructed by the Brits to commemorate the losses of Indian servicemen for Britain. Every year there used to be a ceremony in the Viceregal Lodge, when the Viceroy used to award George Crosses and Victoria crosses, many posthumously for deeds of bravery by Indians, who fought and died for Britain.
When in the intense heat of summer in Indian Plains, we used to go to the Hill Stations for relief, I used to look at the bands of the Various regiments of the British Indian army. There were Sikh regiments, Punjabi regiments, Dogra regiments; most had great bands. They would march to the band stand regale the crowds with their brass bands. The best to me were the highland regiments in their kilts and tartans, playing the tunes of glory, on their bagpipes.
Two of my uncles fought for the Brits in North Africa and another one in Burma. There were folk songs created for the recruitment of Indian troops from the villages of Punjab and U.P. Tunes difficult to translate: "Get a job as a recruit; here you will get stale bread, there you will get a suit": "nokari karle re rangroot; yehan milagi sookhi roti wahan milega suit, etc."
There was a lot of people joining the British Indian army also for WW1. I have read about "Flanders field, about Verdun, Somme, nerve gas attacks, heavy artillery, machine guns, trenches. Attacks by hundreds of thousands of soldiers, trying to gain a few hundred yards on the Western Front. I have also read the book "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque.
It all seems to have been such a futile war, which such huge unforeseen consequences. All the Great powers seem to have been dissolved in the fury of that war. Austria-Hungry gone, Russia gone to the Bolsheviks, Germany gone, and Britain, which had such a huge and prosperous Empire, having lost that Empire and become from a country with its treasury full, to one that became a debtor of the United States. After WW2, it had lost most of its independent power of action as seen during the Suez Crisis of 1956.
I wanted to understand how this war came about and what kind of governments were they who allowed this destruction to occur. I saw a great Hollywood film called "Paths of Glory" In which some French Generals ask their own artillery to fire on their own shell-shocked soldiers. What a horrible crime! The Generals treated their soldiers like cannon fodder.
Young men came from all over the Empire, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India came to protect the Empire, and fought extremely bravely for King and Country, for the Union Jack.
Why did all this happen and why was it allowed to occur? That is my quest, and sometimes I may sound like a broken record.
I am beginning to understand the atmosphere of those times and the various governments, and what they were trying to achieve.
Wars are an extremely costly way to settle disputes, even small wars which you may think are easily manageable, like the Iraq war and the one in Afghanistan, because you never know where it will all end. What changes will be brought about by war. And wars are very, very costly. Iraq cost us 1 trillion dollar. How much did WW1 cost and WW2? who knows?
Did anyone understand that by Britain standing tall against Germany, Edward VII against the Kaiser in a kind of family quarrel, the entire British Empire would be lost and the horrible consequences that would follow. The Statesmen, British and French, who crafted the Treaty of Versailles, did they know the consequences that would emerge. An insignificant Corporal of Austrian origin, would become the Great Fuhrer of Germany and almost swallow the civilized world. We would beat him back, but it was almost by the skin of our teeth.
It would be fascinating if it was not so horrible and sometimes bizarre!
I think I have already said too much. I will try to find that DVD. Thanks again!
Tas -
Message 43
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 16th February 2011
As I have said, the Kaiser seems to have greatly admired Teddy Roosevelt (TR). TR found the best way to deal with him was to flatter him, praise him profoundly. Thus the Kaiser thought TR was ready to help him fracture the Entente Cordiale. In the discussion prior to the Conference, Roosevelt opined that the Kaiser should accept any outcome, even if it was slightly favorable to France. The Kaiser wrote back that, " I will accept any outcome that you propose, since you are the honest broker." However, as I have said, TR was promoting Britain and France in the wings.
After two days of the conference, things were at an impasse and in deadlock, so TRs representative made a new proposal that gave France most of what it wanted. The conference ended with the Entente in tact and France with a small win.
After the conference Britain and France agreed to have their military men talking to set up a mechanism for the immediate transfer of 100,000 troops to France in the event of War with Germany. So you see it was not to protect Belgium that Britain went into WW1; the matter already was in a prior preparation.
Up to the time of Lord Salisbury as the Prime Minister, British policy had been one of isolation and perhaps that may have been the best policy. However, it was decided to give up this isolation under Lord Lansdowne and seek alliances with appropriate Great Powers. The first alliance with Japan had gone well.
Ever since the time of Napoleon I, British policy had been to confront Napoleon with Prussia and Russia as allies; the new policy was the opposite; to confront Germany with France and Russia. This was a complete turn around and could only be achieved gradually, like turning a battleship around in the opposite direction. A lot of problems with Russia had to be overcome.
In around 1901, Chamberlain had offered Germany an Alliance which had been ignored and Germany had continued its program of naval expansion rapid shipbuilding. That was a bad mistake by Germany. In 1905 Edward VII had eventually brought French opinion to accept an agreement with Britain and the Entente Cordiale followed. It still did not bind Britain to go to war on the side of France; however, it made Germany feel it was encircled. Shortly after the Algeciras conference, British and French military personnel developed ways by which Britain could provide 100,000 troops to France in case of an attack by Germany. So inexorably we are moving towards WW1. The clear British understanding with America is also beginning to bring about the Anglo-American alliance which has lasted to this day. So we are beginning to see all the players arriving at the starting mark for the "Great War".
I think none of them realized how devastating that war would be for the European powers and especially for Turkey. Although Turkey, under Kemal, drove out the Brits and the ANZACs from Gallipoli, it would lose all its empire in the Middle East.
The question for me is, was the entente cordiale a good idea? On the one hand, if Britain had stood away from any alliances, in the Salisbury tradition, then if the war had been fought with the intensity that it was, Britain, with its Empire in tact and its treasury full, could have been the sole winner without firing a shot. It could have set the tone for the Europeans to continue. It could have created Constitutional monarchies all around and created an order favorable to itself. All this assuming the war had been long and as devastating as it eventually turned out to be. Your Empire would have remained in tact; your treasury full.
However, what would have happened if France and Russia had lost to Germany in short order, Ã la the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. Then Germany would have become the strongest power in Europe, leaving Britain as a junior partner, if partner at all.
Admittedly the Kaiser made many mistakes, but was there room for good British diplomacy to create some kind of partnership with Germany to allay their ears of encirclement, to use that to create an agreement on Naval expansion with Germany. After all Edward VII and Kaiser Wilhelm II were uncle and nephew. And there was the link to Queen Victoria between the two. Perhaps with good mediation by a third party, trusted by both, this essentially family quarrel may have been resolved. Unfortunately TR did not realize the intricacy of this quarrel.
This is going to be my last entry in this thread, unless some one wants to discuss some aspect. it grieves me that so many of our forefathers died on Flanders Field, from so many mistakes made by the various monarchs and their governments and their diplomats; mistakes which could have been avoided.
Tas -
Message 44
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 17th February 2011
Tas,
The clear British understanding with America is also beginning to bring about the Anglo-American alliance which has lasted to this day.Â
How "clear" was British understanding with America before 1914? There were no treaties nor conferences at the ambassador level. The only act resembling military co-operation was in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion in China. -
Message 45
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 17th February 2011
Hi White Camry,
Alliances take a long time to create, especially between powers that have been enemies for so long. Britain and the US had been enemies since 1776. Similalry France and Britain had been enemies since 1789, subsequent to the French Revolution. Russia and Britain had been enemies during the Great Game in Afghanistan, etc. and the Russo-Japanese war of 1905.
To create alliances with these countries, it was like turning a battleship around, i.e. very slowly and step by step. The hardest part was changing public opinion.
In forming the Anglo-American alliance, the first step was the trip of the Prince of Wales to America, as Baron something, so he could lay down all protocol. He was loved by the American public. He stayed with President Buchanan at the White and no less than two State dinners were given for him during his stay.
Then there was a step back, because you had a huge stake in our Southern cotton, so it was uncertain for a while whether you would enter our Civil War on the side of the Confederacy.
Then in 1901 came Teddy Roosevelt and from the beginning he seemed to have been Anglophile, and several people who influenced his career as well like Cabot Lodge. Roosevelt got along well with Edward VII through correspondence, and through their diplomats. One ambassador, I forget whether British or American had to be got rid off because he was so strongly against the other side.
Prior to the Conference in Algeciras, TR had been cultivating Kaiser Wilhelm II by excessive flattery which the Kaiser lapped up; Wilhelm was a fan of TR, so despite the hatred of the Kaiser for his uncle Bertie, TR could still manage the conference in the favor of Britain and France. Germany's objective during the conference were put to naught and the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale was left in tact.
This was not the legal beginning of the Anglo-American alliance, like the Entente Cordiale was not the beginning of a formal treaty between the UK and France to come to the aid of France in case of war with Germany. However, shortly after the conference at Algeciras, the UK and France's military were formulating plans for the incursion of 100,000 British soldiers to French soil.
In the same way although there was no commitment to side with the UK, with the UK accepting our Monroe Doctrine, and there being no outstanding issues between the two countries, the two sides had created the atmosphere for President Wilson to intervene on behalf of the allies during WW1.
Although this intervention formally occurred in 1918 towards the end of WW1, I was for thirty years at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, Long Island, New York. The Laboratory started as Camp Upton in 1915 and there are many photographs in the laboratory's museum about Camp Upton, with the old army trucks and the old uniforms. There is also an old poster of Uncle Sam saying to Americans "Your Country needs you!" Just like the old poster of Lord Kitchener in the UK.
So America was already planning intervention on the side of the Brits and the French long before Germany declared war on the US. Germany's woeful diplomacy just made it that much easier.
Tas -
Message 46
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 17th February 2011
The fact that the US opened its treasury to the UK long before they actually intervened in the war, also indicates that the work of TR for the UK had been successful.
Why was TR anglophile? Partly because he liked Edward and partly it was the influence of a common language, I imagine. Also America was looking, for the first time for a role outside the Western hemisphere and there was no opposition from Britain; UK had agreed to US hegemony over the Panama Canal Zone.
Britain's difficulties in the Boer War also convinced the US that Britain was not a rival in the area of overseas Imperialism.
Tas -
Message 47
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 17th February 2011
Edward VII died suddenly in the spring of 1910. It marked the end of an era. The Royalty of seventy nations gathered at his funeral. They came to say farewell to Edward; but, as it turned out, they said farewell to themselves. Most of their monarchies were gone by 1918. It was the greatest assemblage of Royalty and rank ever assembled,
Heading the procession was Edward's riderless charger. On that bright May day, nine kings rode on horseback through the palace gates, three by three, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes and jeweled orders. They were followed by five heirs apparent, forty Imperial or Royal Highness's, seven Queens.
Eyes focused on Kaiser Wilhelm II, wearing the uniform of a British Field Marshall and mounted on a Gray charger.
Tas -
Message 48
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 17th February 2011
Theodore Roosevelt, who represented the United States a the funeral, dressed in Khaki and boots with a Buffalo Bill Hat and armed with a saber and pistols.
If there is an after life, Edward looking down must have burst into laughter.
Tas
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.