Terry Duncan wrote:
An objection you have never raised even once when it was 'the Entente/Grey/Russia did it' over several threads, so it is strange you object here where speculation is doing no more than pointing out many possible links rather than just 'I dont like Grey so he masterminded the entire Crisis' based theories.
I've never stated Russia or Britain caused Sarajevo - there's no evidence for either. All we can say for certain is a Russian connection seems likelier than any other, if having to choose. On this thread it was only because this nonsensical 'Germany did it' theory was droning on and on without end that I bothered chiming in.
My point is that the Entente were almost never going to get all three involved to attack the Central Powers as it would be totally against British policy for one, and neither Britain or France wanted to see Russia occupy parts of Germany!
As the Ottoman Empire drifted into alliance with Germany a collision seems increasingly likely.
Grey did not make any 'underhanded' decision to hold naval talks, it was the Russians that were asking for them, and I cannot recall the Germans ever inviting Britain to military discussions between Austria and Gemany, so this nonsense based around some sort of 'Britain shouldnt talk to Russia' without German permission is really going nowhere. Secret talks, requested by Sazonov, were hardly designed to be enflamatory as nobody was supposed to know about them in the first place. There is also the facts seldom mentioned here that they were two part talks, the second part of which were not due to take place until mid August 1914, not to forget that the RN thought the Russians delusional because the Pommeranian plan was plainly impossible even if the shipping for so many troops had been available - remember it was larger than D-Day in intended scale, with 400,000 troops being the initial intention.
Grey was either incompetent or underhanded in his timing, as the political danger to an Anglo-Russian naval accord was great while the military requirement for it did not exist.
Things changed for the German perspective because the Germans couldnt believe other nations would not attack them as soon as a situation arose they themselves thought suitable. It was the same with the 'we have information that the French plan to invade Belgium' nonsense they tried, where all they actually had was their own military planning department saying 'we we would do it if we were France'. This is why the saying that German dimplomacy was 'childlike' has a lot of truth to it, their reasoning was based entirely on others acting as they would, not on how the others may view things, let alone actually did.
The danger Germany posed to France is understood as a matter of course. Where we seem to be having difficulty is in your inability to admit that France posed an aggressive danger to Germany as well.