Origins of The First World War and ramifications

[michaelmaltby]

"... Revolutionary War - a direct result of British colonial policy"

Yep. Can't have an American revolution without British colonies in America.

"... War of 1812 - direct result of British policy on the high seas and an invasion of the US: What invasion would that be, Mike?

And as for slavery - your comments are supported by the record - but long, long before the Civil War, Americans wrote a declaration of independence and a constitution and bill of rights that all failed to recognize slaves as human beings (men) - so whatever shortcomings British slavers may have had, many Americans more than matched them on their own.

"... The former Yugoslavia and its "problems" directly relate to British propping up the disintegrating Ottoman Turkish Empire." Imalko ...do you agree with that assessment? I'd say - if anything - that championing Tito (James Fitzroy MacLean's mission to Yugoslavian partisans) had more of a British "stamp" on it than collusion with the Turks 75 years earlier.

You're stretching, Mike.

MM

 

[parsifal]

saying that britain supported enslavement of even native peoples at the turn of the century is just plain wrong. Sure, there were double standards when it came to treatment of whites and coloured races....but is that any different to any of the other colonial powers of the age? And it is particularly hypocritical to say the Brits supported enslavement, from a person whose country nearly tore itself apart over that very issue, many years after Britain had moved to outlaw such practices, and long after most other western nations had named as the abomination that it was.

British imperial rule was not a holiday, but compared to its peers, the british burden was light, which is a big reason why, relative to countries like Holland, Spain and France, the transition from colonial rule to self rule was relatively painless. Even in problem areas, such as Malaya, the extent of malcontent was tame compared to that experienced in places like Algeria or Indonesia. The only place where i can think things went horribly wrong was in Palestine, where i will grant you there was a right royal stuff up, and we live with that consequence even today.

As for saying britain had the excuse it needed, it was not an excuse, it was a legitimate reason. The germans, in their avaricious pursuit of dominance of europe, had invaded a neutral country, that since the time of Napoleon had been an unspoken and unwritten ally of britain. Elements of the Belgian nation had fought under the british flag at waterloo, and ever since, Britain had seen fit to act as protector of the young nation. More to the point, the German action to invade the low countres was done, only to get at France, which the British saw as th main countervailing power to German aggression. The British were not going to stand idly by whilst Germany dismembered the only continental nation in the west with the ability to balance them.

In short, the outbreak of hostilities on the western front was purely the result of German aggression. Britain was only reacting as they said they would, and this was in DEFENCE of allies and friends. Thank god the british are as good as the words they speak. They stood by the friends they had made promises to. As they would again 30 years later.

 

[mikewint]

Michael, off this topic a bit but the War of 1812 was started by the US after being pushed, prodded, and backed into a corner by British (and French) policys on the High seas, beginning with an attack on Canada which failed which is why you aren't a USA citizen followed by: On the Mid-Atlantic Coast, British troops landed in the Chesapeake Bay area in 1814, and marched towards Washington. US General William Winder made an attempt to stop the British forces, commanded by General Robert Ross, at Bladensburg. The US troops were badly routed. The city of Washington was evacuated, and the British burned the Capitol and the White House, along with most of nonresidential Washington.

The British pressed onward, and Admiral Cochrane sought to invade Baltimore. General Ross was killed as his forces advanced towards the city, and their movement stalled. Cochrane's forces bombarded Fort McHenry, which guarded Baltimore's harbor, but were unable to take it. This event inspired Francis Scott Key, an American lawyer detained on one of Cochrane's ships, to write the Star-Spangled Banner. Unsuccessful at Baltimore, Cochrane's damaged fleet limped to Jamaica for repairs, and made preparations for an invasion of New Orleans, hoping to cut off American use of the Mississippi River.

By mid 1814, the War of 1812 was turning out to be tougher fighting than either side expected. Britain, caught up in the costly Napoleonic Wars, began to look for a way to extricate itself from its American commitment. In the Belgian city of Ghent, American negotiators (including John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay) met with British diplomats. After considerable bickering, the negotiators signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814, officially ending the war. The treaty returned US-Britain relations to the same status as they had been before the war. The US neither gained nor lost any territory. Impressment went unaddressed.

The war was officially over, but news traveled slowly across the Atlantic Ocean. In New Orleans, Cochrane landed the British troops, who were still waiting for their replacement commander for Ross, General Packenham, to arrive from Britain. On January 8, 1815, Andrew Jackson's ragtag army soundly defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans. Even though this battle had been fought unnecessarily (the treaty was already signed) the US celebrated wildly, manifesting an upsurge in American nationalism.

 

[imalko]

In short, the outbreak of hostilities on the western front was purely the result of German aggression. Britain was only reacting as they said they would, and this was in DEFENCE of allies and friends. Thank god the british are as good as the words they speak. They stood by the friends they had made promises to. As they would again 30 years later.

I bet the Poles in 1939 thought otherwise...

"... The former Yugoslavia and its "problems" directly relate to British propping up the disintegrating Ottoman Turkish Empire." Imalko ...do you agree with that assessment? I'd say - if anything - that championing Tito (James Fitzroy MacLean's mission to Yugoslavian partisans) had more of a British "stamp" on it than collusion with the Turks 75 years earlier.

I'm not quite sure what do mean by this. The British acknowledgment of Tito over other "movements" existing in Yugoslavia at that time was guided by purely military reasons. Yes, Tito had his agenda same as others (chetnik's leader Mihailović for example), but partisans were inflicting the greatest damage to the Germans so Churchill supported him despite him being a communist. As simple as that.
Did British "championing" Tito foreshadowed the disintegration of Yugoslavia we witnessed in the nineties? Don't think so. If anything Tito is the one who kept the country together for so long. Without him I doubt that Yugoslavia as a country would exist after WW2. Would that have been better? Honestly don't know. There are some historians in my country which are of the opinion that unique historical chance for permanent solution of "Serbian question" was missed in 1918. Being on the side of the victors in the Great War Serbia had the chance to unite all territories with ethnic Serbian majority into one strong national state leaving the other southern Slavic nations alone. But royal dynasty of Karađorđevićs opted for the creation of greater state of all southern Slavic nations. This resulted in unstable multiethnic state as the Slovenes and Croats were never enthusiastic about it from the outset.

One more note... The British were involved in Yugoslavia long before MacLean's mission in 1943. The coup which overthrow the government in March 1941 after the Kingdom of Yugoslavia signed Tripartite pact with the Axis was inspired and encouraged by the British secret service which was very active in Yugoslavia at that time.

 

[michaelmaltby]

I don't disagree with what you state, Igor, but there were competing partisan groups in Yugoslavia ( as there were indeed in other occupied countries) and Britain had to make a decision who they were going to arm and support -- hence MacLean's mission. And he reported that the communists were the only effective resistance - and in THAT sense the communists then received British aid and the competing groups were shut out. And under Tito's communism - it is my understanding that the Party was able to reach out to Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Christians, Muslims etc etc.. That structure seemingly did not survive Tito's leadership.

I was NOT BEING SERIOUS when I posted to Mike about British involvement in The US Civil War, Yugoslav devolvement etc. I could not believe Mike missed my sarcasm and took the point seriously.

I have come to the conclusion that Wars of Independence are like loosing your virginity --- your experience (in rebellion) is more (rebellious) than anyone else's -- and the oppressor is more oppressive, brutal and evil than anyone else's.

The US War of Independence was a fine effort by America - but it was hardly the Warsaw uprising or the rape of NanKing -- although Mike may disagree with me . And I'm always happy to be educated.

Mike ?


MM

 

[mikewint]

OK Michael, off the topic but if you would like a few examples of the Gentlemanly British dealing with a rebellion of former countrymen:
Consider the British prison hulks where American captives were kept for an excellent example of how they waged war. The British had some mastless prison ships in NY harbor during the war. American prisoners (enlisted men) were stuffed into the hold and not allowed to come up on deck for exercise or fresh air. They had to urinate and defecate over the side and, since the ship was anchored, the foul water was only washed away with the tides. They were given small cast iron pots (1 for every 10 men) to cook whatever rancid meat they were given and it had to be cooked in salt water since they weren't given any fresh water for cooking. And the only salt water they could get was the aforementioned water covered with feces. Occasionally, locals would row out to the ships and donate or sell fresh food to the prisoners. Thousands died under those conditions. Not too gentlemanly for the American captives who starved to death there.
Then there was Bloody Ban Tareleton a war criminal if there ever was one. That he was popular in Liverpool after the war says more about the people there than it does about Tareleton. Colonel Banastre Tarelton or "Bloody Ban" as he was called – actually commanded a Tory Legion of green-coated American loyalists who were exceptionally brutal. The most famous account was after the Battle of Camden, the massacre at Waxhaws, when Banistre "Bloody Ban" Tarleton had his men slaughtered surrendering American troops. That incident gave rise to the term "Tarleton's Quarter", which meant no quarter at all. There was also a story of a woman down south who was found tied to a tree and her unborn infant had been cut out of her, hung upside down to the tree and a note attached to it saying, "This bastard will never grow up to be a rebel." Tareleton was barely twenty when he killed his first prisoner.
Don't forget for a second that it was the British who invented the concentration camp, not the Germans. Remember their war of aggression against the Boers?
Cherry Valley was a town in west, central New York which was attacked by Butler's Rangers and 500 Iroquois and Onondaga Indians who were allied with the British. The British had convinced the Indian tribes that the colonists would take the Indian homelands. The colonists of Cherry Valley were slaughtered and scalped. The slaughter included all residents including all of the women and children. Cherry Valley is where Indians got their reputation for scalping. So it was not the Americans who brought scalping to the American Indians, or brought the Indians into the American Revolution, unleashing that particular horror against the settlers. It was the British, paying their Indian allies by the scalp, with no qualms about who it had belonged to, whether man, woman, or child. How very civilized. I am also reminded that Lord Jeffrey Amherst introduced a nice tweak to frontier fighting: germ warfare via smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians who had offended the Crown. So Americans did attack and kill Indians. However if you really want dead Indians one must look to the sub continent; where of course the British held sway. Ever see the images of Sepoys tied to the mouths of cannons? That is British justice, and they didn't learn that from the Germans or from the Americans
The Hessians were also noted for their lack of compassion to surrendering troops and there are several accounts of them bayoneting Americans asking for quarter. Saying the British behaved like the SS men is entirely backwards – it would be far more appropriate to say that the SS men behaved like the British. Although, even Hitler never came up with a horror like the punishment King George used for those convicted of treason: have you by chance a clue as to just what it means to be hanged, drawn, and quartered?
Realpolitic is a German usage but they learned it from the British, after enduring an uneasy alliance with them during the Napoleonic Wars. For more on that see Peter Hofshroer's two volume classic on the 1815 campaign and see for yourself who started the dynamic that led to two world wars in the next century.
It should be stated that the SS men would have found no place in Germany had not the British (and French) pursued their abominable Versailles treaty and attendant policies which virtually assured a second world war. Finally, it was the English who brought America into the first war, one in which we had no national interest, but which having involved ourselves, tilted history in a way that haunts us still.
Who settled the slave states? Oh...it was the British and it was they who brought the slaves here in the first place. Slavery was quite as legal in Britain at that time as it was in the US. Yet one never found too many free blacks in Britain or perhaps someone would care to note a painting that shows one, or a book that mentions one? Freeing slaves came much later and certainly not in London – that would have been unseemly. Indeed, in Britain, white men were treated as slaves.
While there were indeed black slaves, there were large numbers of free black men fighting in the revolution it can be readily ascertained that a free black was one of those killed at the Boston massacre. See the early paintings of the battles in the South and at Breeds Hill for contemporary views of free black men at war.

 

[pbfoot]

Cherry Valley was a town in west, central New York which was attacked by Butler's Rangers and 500 Iroquois and Onondaga Indians who were allied with the British. The British had convinced the Indian tribes that the colonists would take the Indian homelands. The colonists of Cherry Valley were slaughtered and scalped. The slaughter included all residents including all of the women and children. Cherry Valley is where Indians got their reputation for scalping. So it was not the Americans who brought scalping to the American Indians, or brought the Indians into the American Revolution, unleashing that particular horror against the settlers. It was the British, paying their Indian allies by the scalp, with no qualms about who it had belonged to, whether man, woman, or child. .

jeez do you think these guys were a little pissed for getting run off their land , my GreatGreat etc Grandfather was a member of Butlers Rangers who were forced off their land by vigilante Rebels and forced to leave , they moved to the Niagara Frontier and took the fight back ( these same "SS" guys banned slavery in 1793).

 

[michaelmaltby]

We're about to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. In Toronto - we're going to burn parts of the city and hire official "looters" to reenact what the US troops - a rabble really - did to Muddy York (aka Toronto). Burning Washington was payback.

By 1814 affairs with Napoleon were over and Britain was able to devote all her "attention" on the USA - Ghent came pretty quickly after that.

Mike, I suggest you visit my thread from 3 months ago on the new British National Anthem - it pretty much addresses all your concerns. Apologies are in order and all that sort of stuff.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/new-english-national-anthem-discuss-28394.html

MM

 

[parsifal]

Part I of II


The abolition of slavey in England was a process that took nearly 63 years to complete, yet it stands as a beacon for other emancipation movements across the world, including the liberal movements in the US.

The defeat of slavery was not achieved by the gun, it was actually defeated in the english courts of law.

"Some of the first court cases to challenge the legality of slavery took place in Scotland. The cases were Montgomery v Sheddan (1756), Spens v Dalrymple (1769), and set the precedent of legal procedure in British courts that would later lead to successful outcomes for the plaintiffs.

The court case of 1769 involving Cartwright who had bought a slave from Russia ruled that English law could not recognise slavery. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments, but upheld an earlier principal by the Lord Chief Justice in 1701 when he ruled that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England.

William Wilberforce later took on the cause of abolition in 1787 after the formation of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in which he led the parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807. He continued to campaign for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, which he lived to see in the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

The last known form of enforced servitude of adults (villeinage) had disappeared in Britain at the beginning of the 17th century. But by the 18th century, traders began to import African and Indian and East Asian slaves to London and Edinburgh to work as personal servants. Men who migrated to the North American colonies often took their East Indian slaves or servants with them, as East Indians were documented in colonial records. They were not bought or sold in London, and their legal status was unclear until 1772, when the case of a runaway slave named James Somersett forced a legal decision. The owner, Charles Steuart, had attempted to abduct him and send him to Jamaica to work on the sugar plantations. While in London, Somersett had been baptised and his godparents issued a writ of habeas corpus. As a result Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Court of the King's Bench, had to judge whether the abduction was legal or not under English Common Law, as there was no legislation for slavery in England.

In his judgment of 22 June 1772 Mansfield declared: "Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." Although the exact legal implications of the judgement are actually unclear when analysed by lawyers, it was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England. This judgment emancipated the 10,000-14,000 slaves or possible slaves in England, who were mostly domestic servants. It also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the North American colonies) could not be enforced in England.

The Somersett case became a significant part of the common law of slavery in the English speaking world, and helped launch the movement to abolish slavery, in particular the situation in North America. After reading about the Somersett's Case, Joseph Knight, an enslaved African in Scotland, left his master John Wedderburn. A similar case to Steuart's was brought by Wedderburn in 1776, with the same result: chattel slavery was ruled not to exist under the law of Scotland. Nonetheless, legally mandated, hereditary slavery of Scots in Scotland existed from 1606 until 1799, when colliers and salters were legally emancipated by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain (39 Geo.III. c56). A prior law enacted in 1775 (15 Geo.III. c. 28) was intended to end what the act referred to as "a state of slavery and bondage," but it was ineffectual, necessitating the 1799 act."

Which leads me back to the point that caused this fraccus within a fraccus in the first place. the claim that you made was that the british were involved in slavery (or enslavement) in the twentieth century. Yet in english law there was no place for slavery since the mid 18th century, and slavery as a concept wa banned at least from 1833. There was subjugation of peoples for colonial reasons, thats for sure, but there has neve been any slavery, at least legally, since 1769.

it would be wrong to claim that the british were not brutal, of course they were. My own country was born from that abuse. however, to judge britain for events that occurred over 200 years ago by todays standards is a travesty of process. The British abused prisoners, as did just about every other nation. Ever heard of the black hole of calcutta? it makes the treatment of your american rebels look positively benign.

its all true that britain used 'divide and conquer methods to hold control over their vast empire. its true also that concentration camps were used in the boer war, though this is far from the first time they were used. was the boer war a war of aggression? Only if you judge on todays standards. The Boer war was not seen as a war of agression by the british at the time, though once again, if you want to apply todays standards, then yes it is a war of aggression. The rounding up of boer sympathisers into camps is pretty abominable, but once again we are judging the british actions of the time by todays standards. And ther is simply no comparison between what the british did, and the nazi concentration camps, though the results were similar. the british army rounded up people it considered to be supporters of the boers.....which included wives and children, and placed them in unhealthy and unsafe conditions of incarceration. This led to many deaths, and was brutal, but it was never a crime. At the time these people were the enemy, and since there were no treaties or conventions, the british could really have done anything they liked to these people and not have been guilty of any crimes

The development of international laws governing the treatment of prisoners is a complex one, but for the purposes of modern international law it commenced with the first geneva convention

The First Geneva Convention was a set of laws signed in 1864 governing the treatment and care for the wounded and prisoners of war began when relief activist Henri Dunant witnessed the Battle of Solferino in 1859, fought between French-Piedmontese and Austrian armies in Northern Italy. It did not really cover the treatment of POWs or non-combatants. Dunant published his account Un Souvenir de Solferino and through his membership in the Geneva Society for Public Welfare he urged the calling together of an international conference and helped found the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863. The conventions of 1864 through representations by the red cross did manage a statement recognizing that it is "primarily the duty and responsibility of a nation to safeguard the health and physical well-being of its own people," there would be a "need for voluntary agencies to supplement… the official agencies charged with these responsibilities in every country." To ensure that its mission was widely accepted it required a body of rules to govern its own activities and those of the involved belligerent parties.

On August 22, 1864 several European states congregated in Geneva, Switzerland and signed the First Geneva Convention. Germany subsequently acknowledged its obligations to this treaty, brought about by several of its member states signing before the formation of the german state:

This first effort provided only for:

the immunity from capture and destruction of all establishments for the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers,
the impartial reception and treatment of all combatants,
the protection of civilians providing aid to the wounded, and
the recognition of the Red Cross symbol as a means of identifying persons and equipment covered by the agreement.[6]
Despite its basic mandates it was successful in effecting significant and rapid reforms.

This was the mandated conventions under which the boer war was fought. Britain, in the prosecution of the war largely adhered to those established conventions. where there were apparent breaches such as allegedly occurred with breaker morant, there were severe penalties. morant was shot for apparently executing prisoners without a fair trial. The incarceration of non-combatant and civilians was not covered by this convention

The hague convention was signed in 1907, and generally followed the experiences in africa. britain was an enthusiastic supporter of this initiative and has generally observed its provisions since that time. germany has selectively applied the provisions. against the russians, it did not observe the provisions during the war (ie WWII). against certain allied pesonnel it also failed to observe its treaty obligations

The second geneva convention was also signed in 1906. But it has little relevance to the issues associated with the boer war. The Second Geneva Convention, for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was first adopted in 1906, after the Russo-Japanese war, but was significantly updated in 1929 and again in 1949. It adapts the main protections of the First Geneva Convention to combat at sea.

upon its adoption Britain more or less adhered to its principals ever since. We will look at germany's observance, or otherwise in a minute.....

 

[parsifal]

Part II of II

In 1929, the third geneva convention was signed by alll major powers, except japan, , In its preamble it says "Recognizing that, in the extreme event of a war, it will be the duty of every Power, to mitigate as far as possible, the inevitable rigours thereof and to alleviate the condition of prisoners of war;
Being desirous of developing the principles which have inspired the international conventions of The Hague, in particular the Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War and the Regulations thereunto annexed",

The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, was first adopted in 1929, but was significantly updated in 1949. It defines humanitarian protections for prisoners of war. it includes articles for the protection of ones own internal populations, and those of foreign civilian populations. Germany and britain were both signatories of this treaty. britain has observed the provisions of this treaty, more or less (isolated breaches do occur, but these are in breach of the law, and if detected are dealt with by the british justice system). In the case of germany, on the occasions that she has been tested to use it, the germans have pretty universally failed to observe its provisions

During the war the UN more or less imposed the provisions of this treaty even on those nations that had not signed it. this was the principal vehicle that led to the prosecution of many japanese as war criminals. If it had not occurred, the japanese could have claimed immunity because their government was not a signatory to the convention. Since WWII, it doesnt matter if your government signs or doesnt sign...an uindividual is still bound by its provisions, though this doesnt seem to wash with the US military these days. im not quite sure how that works just yet.

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention and abbreviated as GCIV, was adopted in August 1949, and defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone, and outlaws the practice of total war. There are currently 194 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including this fourth treaty but also including the other three. but as i said, the provisions are applicable to individuals, regardless of the signatory status of your country.

In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts. This passed the essntially temporary provision i mentioned easrlier (in the UN charter) into a rather unique situation of 'international common law".

Now, with that brief framework, whereas i can argiue with a great deal of conviction and substance that the british adhered to nearly all its treaty obligations with regard to the treatment of prisoners and non-combatants, for most of the 20th century, I can make no such claim for a number of other nationalities, most notbaly, you guessed it, germany. Germany has a less than exemplary record in the observance of its treaty obligations except in the period after WWII.

 

[parsifal]

Some further coments regarding the allegation the british engaged in the slave trade into the 20th century.....

The Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March 1807, making the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire. The Act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. Such a law was bound to be eventually passed, given the increasingly powerful abolitionist movement. The timing might have been connected with the Napoleonic Wars raging at the time. At a time when Napoleon took the retrograde decision to revive slavery which had been abolished during the French Revolution and to send his troops to re-enslave the people of Haiti and the other French Caribbean possessions, the British prohibition of the slave trade gave the British Empire the high moral ground.

british laws were backed by british action. The act's intention was to entirely outlaw the slave trade within the British Empire, but the trade continued and captains in danger of being caught by the Royal Navy would often throw slaves into the sea to reduce the fine. In 1827, Britain declared that participation in the slave trade was piracy and punishable by death. Between 1808 and 1860, the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard. Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers. hardly the actions of a regime that believed in and supported slavery......

After the 1807 act, slaves were still held, though not sold, within the British Empire. In the 1820s, the abolitionist movement again became active, this time campaigning against the institution of slavery itself. In 1823 the first Anti-Slavery Society in the world was founded in Britain. Many of the campaigners were those who had previously campaigned against the slave trade. Sam Sharpe contributed to the abolition of slavery with his Christmas rebellion in 1831.

On 28 August 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was given Royal Assent, which paved the way for the abolition of slavery within the British Empire and its colonies. On 1 August 1834, all slaves in the British Empire were emancipated, but they were indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was abolished in two stages; the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships were scheduled to cease on 1 August 1840, six years later.

On 1 August 1834, an unarmed group of mainly elderly Negroes being addressed by the Governor at Government House in Port of Spain, Trinidad, about the new laws, began chanting: "Pas de six ans. Point de six ans" ("Not six years. No six years"), drowning out the voice of the Governor. Peaceful protests continued until a resolution to abolish apprenticeship was passed and de facto freedom was achieved. Full emancipation for all was legally granted ahead of schedule on 1 August 1838, making Trinidad the first British colony with slaves to completely abolish slavery. The government set aside £20 million to cover compensation of slave owners across the Empire, but the former slaves received no compensation or reparations. hardly evidence of a regime that supported slavery. far from it, which is what makes this particular claim all the more insulting and galling. far from promoting slavey, the british establishment was at the cutting edge to outlaw it and stamp it out, and made considerable efforts to achieve just that.

and while this was happening what were other nations doing? In the US, the issue was so entrenched in some states that a war needed to be fought, at least in part, to prise this abominable practice from their grasp. and this was late in the process.....1865


For the record, incidentally, whilst british ships often provided the ships in the 18th century for the movem,ent of slaves, the demand for slaves in the deep south of the US came from french and to a lesser extent spanish inspired practices. St Louis, new orleans, the word 'missisippi' are all French concepts if i am not mistaken


In 1839, a successor organization to the Anti-Slavery Society was formed, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, which worked to outlaw slavery in other countries and also to pressure the government to help enforce the suppression of the slave trade by declaring slave traders pirates and pursuing them. This organization continues today as Anti-Slavery International.

 

[mikewint]

Parsifal, the issue of slavery is a very moot point and I will readily and totally agree with you and anyone else that on that issue the British were a shinning star to the rest of the world. However, the American Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a war blow at the south hoping in insight a slave rebellion. Our civil war was caused by five major problems:
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.
2. States versus federal rights.
Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

 

[parsifal]

I doubt that the reasons for the American civil war have a lot to do with the causes of WWI, though i will say that your explanation as to its causes are uniquely american in their ability to deflect the focus away to anything other than the root cause of the war.

The reason I responded to the british slavery issue was because it was raised by yourself, i think as an indirect reference to british policy approaches. Broadly speaking, you seemed to be saying britain was an ammoral state that could not be trusted and by reason of its unscrupulous ways forced germany to take an aggressive stance. One of the reasons you seemed to put forward for that behaviour was that the british wanted to enslave the world. You did not further clarify that statement to say whether you meant direct slavery as an issue, or more the colonial subjugation of peoples.

It appears that you are prepared to concede that britiain was not engaged in slavery, and therfore this longer issue that the british government was unscrupulous to that extent must now fall away. You are silent on the point that, far from promoting slavery, britain was in fact at the forefront of suppressing its existence. If i am to understand you correctly, your remaining issue is that britain wanted war with germany, to solve the 'issue" and contrived to contain germany by a series of alliances to contain them, and as a second strand in your position, used divide and conquer methods in the lead up to WWI and as a general tool in its colonial dealings.

These are the basic facts that we can agree on. I agree that britain used a series of ententes and alliances to contain germany which I think britain saw as a threat. I agree that divide and conquer was a tool used by the british in its dealings with its colonial interests and in its dealings with other major powers. however i do not agree that these were major causes of WWI, except if one accepts that germany should have been allowed to dominate europe and subjugate other white european nations. The issue of whether british colonial methods used divide and conquer tactics, is not i think directly relevant to causes of the war, except in this rather generalised and unspecific accusation that the british were a devious bunch who were prepared to use unscrupulous means to get their way. Youve presented some rathe questionable examples to support your notion that britain is responsible for all (or most) of the divisions in the world today, because of its colonial policies. It does not seem to enter into your logic processes that Britains previous colonial holdings had the least painful transition to self rule of any of the colonial empires, that its former possessions have the best record of democratization in the world, of any group of nations with a common heritage, or that the obvious instability that exists in some nations might have something to do with their own non-british pasts, or that the british empire at one time constituted 30% of the worlds land area and 50% of its peoples (outside europe and china), and therefore it is logical that a lot of todays problems are likley to occur within its former territories simply as a result of size.......

its the conclusion you draw, that are perhaps the most fantastic and outrageous of all. because britain moved to contain germany, and germany chose to break out of that cordon using aggressive war a means to do that, it was somehow britains fault?? to use American slang.... Go figure?????????

My position on this is that britain did indeed place a cordon around germany, but for good reasons. britain was acting in her national self interest when doing this, which any nation, even today, has the right to do. There were three reasons that i think were direct causes to this british reaction.


The first was the realization that germany was a major economic threat to britain.

The second reason was that germany saw fit to directly challenge British intersts by building a blue water navy that could threaten british control of the european seas, and indeed the safety and security of the british isles itself.

The third reason was that germany had a proven track record of acting subversivly against british interests, as evidenced by them selling arms to the boers and other peoples that cost the british many lives. Britain was treating germany in much the same way as the US dealt with the soviets in the Cold war, and the germans reacted in much the same way, except they were unscrupulous enough to actually pull the trigger.

Whilst today nations might form trading blocks, or provide subsidies to protect economic interests, britain sought to contain german influence by direct economic ties with other nations. economic strength is the basis for military power, Military power can be abused. britain feared that. And therefore took steps to try and contain its unbridled use. they thought they could contain the germans by surrounding them with a series of hostile alliances. they pursued the same strategy in the lead up to WWII 9and a someone rightly pointed out, this cost the poles dearly, although they failed to realize this would have happened to Poland with or without british gurantees). They under-estimated the germans. Howeve, did the britsh act ammorally or aggressively by seeking to contain the germans, no not in the slightest. they were acting within the law, and did not break any international codes or understandings. Did germany break any rules, cross any treaty obligations or act ammorally when they invaded another country. you bet they did.

Which leads to the conclusions that we need to draw from all of this. your position, put into its crudest terms, is that Britain was most responsible for the war because it placed germany in an impossible position. My position is that is really just a load of bollocks...britain acted in her own national self interest, which she was allowed to do. She acted within the law, and within accepted moral standards of the day. She under-estimated the aggression of the german state, and Britain, as well as the rest of the world, paid a heavy price for that.

 

[parsifal]

I bet the Poles in 1939 thought otherwise...

Hi igor

britains gurantee to poland was not the course of polish suffering. In 1939, Poland was a doomed state, whether they entered into agreement with the british or not. Germany was the instigator of polish suffering, not the british. The fact that Britain or the poles could not stop Poland being overrun is a different matter, but hardly constitutes a breach of trust. The british guranteed Polish sovereignty, but failed to deliver, but not for reasons of bad faith, it was simply a case of making promises they could not keep. same thing happened in 1944, with the Soviets. Churchill did his best to try and save something of the Polish state, and when the warsaw uprising occurred, made valiant attempts to lend assistance. But without Soviet assistance the british were essentially powerless.

What else would you have liked them to do beyond what they already attempted. they gave assurances rashly, but in good faith, but circumstances defeated them. I fail to see how else they could have assisted without placing their own national security at risk. As it was, going to war on behalf of poland seems risk enough, dont you think?

 

[michaelmaltby]

Ah - back on track. Thanks, Parsifal.

MM

 

[imalko]

Actually I agree with you Parsifal, I was merely pointing out that the Poles must have felt betrayed in 1939 that's all. I doubt the British could have done more. Though one can't but ask himself what would have happened if French and the British pressed for the offensive over the border in fall of 1939 while bulk of the Wehrmacht was still engaged in Poland...

By the way, this is a thread about WW1 right? Seems like we all stranded heavily off topic (myself included of course).

 

[parsifal]

Yes, we are drifting off topic, but still an interesting discussion....its robust debate, but still interesting IMO. I'm okay with it if the other participants are too....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am okay with it, as long as it remains civil (which thankfully it has so far...).

 

[parsifal]

It will be fine. mike and myself are mature enough to get through a tussle like this. as to more refrences about "civil" surely not more discussion about that "war" again???

 

[mikewint]

Parsifal, most assuredly sir, as I highly respect you and your opinions though they be different than mine. We can and have reached agreement on somethings and will most likely have to agree to disagree on others. But is that not the essence of a Forum? What a wonderful world this is when two products of the British Penal system (slap the criminals on a boat with 3rd rate tools and no farming experience and ship them half way around the world to a hostile and inhospitable land, and of course, wish them godspeed) can look at the same data and come up with two totally different explanations. I do apologize for the off topic detours but I was asked and so responded in kind. OK, back on topic. I believe that for the roots of WWI we need to look at the events of 1815 and come forward:
The Congress of Vienna was a conference of ambassadors of European states chaired by Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, and held in Vienna from September, 1814 to June, 1815. The objective of the Congress was to settle the many issues arising from the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. This objective resulted in the redrawing of the continent's political map, establishing the boundaries of France, Napoleon's Duchy of Warsaw, the Netherlands, the states of the Rhine, the German province of Saxony, and various Italian territories, and the creation of spheres of influence through which Austria, Britain, France and Russia brokered local and regional problems.
The possibility of German unification (and indeed Italian unification) challenged the fundamental precepts of balance laid out in 1815; unification of these groups of states would overturn the principles of overlapping spheres of influence. Prince Klemens von Metternich (German-Austrian), Robert Stewart Viscount Castlereagh (British Foreign Secretary) and Tsar Alexander (and his foreign secretary Count Karl Nesselrode), who were the principal architects of this convention, had conceived of and organized a Europe (and indeed a world) balanced by and guaranteed by four powers: Great Britain, France, Russia, and Austria. Each power had its geographic sphere of influence; for France, this sphere included the Iberian peninsula and shared influence in the Italian states; for the Russians, the eastern regions of Central Europe, and balancing influence in the Balkans; for the Austrians, this sphere included much of the Central European territories of the old Reich (Holy Roman Empire); and for the British, the rest of the world, especially the seas.
The system of spheres of influence in Europe depended upon the fragmentation of the German and Italian states, not their consolidation. Consequently, a German nation united under one banner presented significant problems for the four major powers. Castlereagh's Congress system of solving Continental problems initially worked very well but by 1822 it had broken down due to irreconcilable differences between the major powers.
The Crimean War of 1854–55 and the Italian War of 1859 disrupted relations among Great Britain, France, Austria and Russia. In the aftermath of this disarray, the convergence of von Moltke's operational redesign, von Roon and Wilhelm's restructuring of the army, and Bismarck's diplomacy influenced the restructuring of the European balance of power. Their combined agendas established Prussia as the leading German power through a combination of foreign diplomatic triumphs, backed up by the possible use of Prussian military might, and internal conservatism tempered with pragmatism: Realpolitik.
Bismarck expressed the essence of Realpolitik in his subsequently famous "Blood and Iron" speech to the Budget Committee of the Prussian Chamber of Deputies on 30 September 1862, shortly after he became Minister President: "The great questions of the time will not be resolved by speeches and majority decisions—that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by iron and blood." Bismarck's words, "iron and blood" (or "blood and iron", as often attributed), have been variously misquoted or misappropriated as evidence of German lust for blood and power. First, his speech, and the phrase, "the great questions of time will not be resolved by speeches and majority decisions", is often interpreted as a repudiation of the political process, a repudiation that Bismarck did not himself advocate. Second, his emphasis on blood and iron did not imply simply the unrivaled military might of the Prussian army, but rather two important aspects: first, the ability of the assorted German states to produce the iron (and the related war materials) and second, the willingness to use them if, and when, necessary.
Bismarck faced two major problems (1) Austrian control of the German Confederation (the King of Britain was a member until 1837) as established in Vienna in 1815 by Metternich to serve as a buffer between Austria and Prussia and (2) unite all the disparate German states into a unified whole.
(1) The Austro-Prussian War of 1866. The pretext for precipitating the conflict was found in the dispute between Prussia and Austria over the administration of Schleswig-Holstein. When Austria brought the dispute before the German diet and also decided to convene the Holstein diet, Prussia, declaring that the Gastein Convention had thereby been nullified, invaded Holstein. When the German diet responded by voting for a partial mobilization against Prussia, Bismarck declared that the German Confederation was ended. After the Battle of Koniggratz where the Austrian death toll was 7 times that of the Prussians, the Austrians rapidly sued for peace. In order to forestall intervention by France or Russia, Bismarck pushed King William I to make peace with the Austrians rapidly, rather than continue the war in hopes of further gains. The Austrians accepted mediation from France's Napoleon III. The Peace of Prague on August 23, 1866 resulted in the dissolution of the German Confederation, Prussian annexation of many of Austria's former allies, and the permanent exclusion of Austria from German affairs. This left Prussia free to form the North German Confederation the next year, incorporating all the German states north of the Main River.
(2) Bismarck next needed a Casus Belli to unite all the German states remaining against a common foe. The conflict that presented itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two nations, which finally came to a head over the issue of a Hohenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne, following the deposition of Isabella II in 1868. The public release of the Ems Dispatch, which played up alleged insults between the Prussian king and the French ambassador, inflamed public opinion on both sides. France mobilized, and on 19 July declared war on Prussia only, but the other German states quickly joined on Prussia's side. It soon became evident that the Prussian and German forces were superior, due in part to their efficient use of railways and the better Krupp steel artillery. Prussia had the fourth densest rail network in the world. A series of swift Prussian and German victories in eastern France culminated in the Battle of Sedan, at which Napoleon III was captured with his whole army on 2 September. Yet this did not end the war, as the Third Republic was declared in Paris on 4 September 1870, and French resistance continued under the Government of National Defense and later Adolphe Thiers.
Over a five-month campaign, the German armies defeated the newly recruited French armies in a series of battles fought across northern France. Following a prolonged siege, Paris fell on 28 January 1871. The siege is also notable for the first use of anti-aircraft artillery, a Krupp piece built specifically to shoot down the hot air balloons being used by the French as couriers. Ten days earlier, the German states had proclaimed their union under the Prussian king, uniting Germany as a nation-state, the German Empire. The final Treaty of Frankfurt was signed 10 May 1871.
My point in all this is that the newly unified German nation had been for almost 100 years, deliberately kept weak and fragmented by the actions and policies of Britain, France and Russia. After finally emerging as a unified nation they found themselves hemmed in by interlocking treaties designed to keep them a second class nation and maintain Britain as the worlds #1 power. A brighter, more diplomatically astute leader could had gradually overcome these limitation but alas Wilhelm II was none of these and he took the bait and initiated WWI. Of this simple fact there can be no debate but the British-French-Russian hands are hardly clean and clearly wanted this war to occur. To all parties credit, none had envisioned the TYPE of war that would result and the horrible loss of life that would occur. Most had thought the war would be settled by Christmas.