Major scandal in Great Britain about hidden WW1 documents.

[peterhof]

This recently appeared in The Telegraph:



"Revealed: how King George V demanded Britain enter the First World War

Record of previously unknown meeting between George V and his Foreign Secretary reveals that the King told him to "find a reason" to go to war with Germany

By Anita Singh, Arts and Entertainment Editor

7:00AM BST 26 Jul 2014

It is a letter that throws fresh light on one of the darkest periods in Britain’s history.

A note which has remained in private hands for a century details a previously undocumented meeting between George V and his Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, on the eve of the First World War.

The King, mindful of his position as a constitutional monarch, made no public declarations about the situation in Europe in the lead-up to the conflict.

But in the newly-disclosed meeting, the King informed Sir Edward it was "absolutely essential" Britain go to war in order to prevent Germany from achieving “complete domination of this country”.

When Sir Edward said the Cabinet had yet to find a justifiable reason to enter the conflict, the King replied: “You have got to find a reason, Grey.”

Historians have no record of the meeting which took place at Buckingham Palace on August 2 1914, two days before Britain went to war.

It was revealed in a letter written by Sir Cecil Graves, Sir Edward’s nephew, who met with the King a month after his uncle’s death in 1933.

George V had summoned Sir Cecil – a future director-general of the BBC - to the Palace, where he offered his condolences before recalling the events of 1914.

The King “told me of the interview he had with Uncle Edward two days before the outbreak of war. It lasted for one and a half hours,” Sir Cecil wrote.

“He told me that Uncle Edward had said that he could not possibly see what justifiable reason we could find for going to war.

“HM said in reply, ‘You have got to find a reason, Grey.’”

Click here to see a full version of the letter

The King told Grey "that, if we didn’t go to war, Germany would mop up France and having dealt with the European situation would proceed to obtain complete domination of this country.

“For that reason," Sir Ceci wrote, "he felt that it was absolutely essential that whatever happened we had got to find a reason for entering the War at once…

“The next day he had a private letter from Poincaré [the French President] urging our participation in the War, and almost at the same time a telegram arrived from King Albert [of Belgium] about the violation of Belgium.

“He sent this straight across to Uncle Edward with a note to the effect that here was the reason and there was no need for him to try and think of anything.”

The envelope that Adrian Graves discovered among his grandfather's records

On August 3, shortly after receiving the King’s note, Sir Edward gave a speech to Parliament in which he said “it is clear that the peace of Europe cannot be preserved”.

He returned to his room in the Foreign Office and made the now famous remark as he watched the lamps being lit outside: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”

The following day, when the chimes of Big Ben rang out at 11pm, Britain was at war.

The letter was unearthed by Sir Edward’s great-great-nephew and grandson of Sir Cecil, Adrian Graves.

Mr Graves inherited Sir Cecil’s papers, which he kept in their original Asprey case alongside his fishing tackle, but had never studied them.

“My grandfather was involved in the First World War – he was one of the first to be captured, at the Battle of Mons, and later awarded the Military Cross. The case contained some of his records and papers relating to the war and his captivity.

“I decided to look through them as the centenary of August 4 was coming up, and I came across an envelope. Written on the front were the words, ‘Interview with King’. I had never known it was there,” Mr Graves said.

Among the heirlooms passed down to Mr Graves is Sir Edward’s gold pocket watch. It has no glass cover because the Foreign Secretary had failing eyesight and could tell the time only by touching the face.

Mr Graves said: “I hold it and think: was my great-great-uncle feeling the hands as they approached 11pm and realising that war was almost upon us?”

At the time of the meeting with George V, Britain’s Cabinet remained divided over whether Britain should go to war.

Prof Hew Strachan, military historian and author of the recent The First World War: A New History, said: “It is clear that the King took a more active role in thinking about the country’s foreign policy than most conventional accounts allow for."

It is also clear that in the case of George V, the apple did not fall far from the tree. Colonel House later described the King to President Wilson as "the most belligerent little monarch loose in these parts."

The complete article including photographs may be seen here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/worl ... d-War.html

[amcl]

This recently appeared in The Telegraph:



"Revealed: how King George V demanded Britain enter the First World War

Record of previously unknown meeting between George V and his Foreign Secretary reveals that the King told him to "find a reason" to go to war with Germany

By Anita Singh, Arts and Entertainment Editor

Arts and Entertainment Editor? That would be one way to bury a story in plain sight, although other explanations also come to mind.

Angus

[peterhof]

Good work Peter.

I see on Google there follow up stories into June of 2014 at least.

I'm not surprised at this story - I'd be posulating for years that the British archives were probably missing material and that these would have to be published before a full reckoning of British policy could be made.

Thank you Glenn,

For you and others who might be interested, there is a new book out about WW1. It is entitled Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, by Gerry Docherty and James MacGregor. The book is a first-of-its-kind in that it puts blame for WW1 squarely on Great Britain without equivocation or qualification. This thread about the secret stash of documents in Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire appears to confirm the authors' contention that top British leaders made the decision to confront Germany and kept the decision top secret. It is available from Amazon Kindle and you can google their website/blog and, hopefully, contribute to the very vigorous debate evolving there.

Cordially,

Peter

[Terry Duncan]

I'd be posulating for years that the British archives were probably missing material and that these would have to be published before a full reckoning of British policy could be made.

Name the material you imagine is in these missing documents?

[Terry Duncan]

For you and others who might be interested, there is a new book out about WW1. It is entitled Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, by Gerry Docherty and James MacGregor. The book is a first-of-its-kind in that it puts blame for WW1 squarely on Great Britain without equivocation or qualification.

You mean the conspiracy theory of secret elites that rule the world, almost identical to the same old Carroll Quigley nonsense that you refused to post a single excerpt from despite being asked to do so several times. A real 'first of its kind' despite there being many such works out there.

This thread about the secret stash of documents in Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire appears to confirm the authors' contention that top British leaders made the decision to confront Germany and kept the decision top secret.

All it shows is that there are a number of documents previously not available, it says nothing at all about British leaders before WWI in the passages quoted, so you are simply speculating. Absense of evidence is not proof, and not knowing what a document says is not proof either.

[glenn239]

Name the material you imagine is in these missing documents?

That's your government's job, not mine. Perhaps buried in the million plus documents we'll find a few of Buchanan's missing telegrams. Crowe's contact report from 16th July (the visit of the Chancellor to the Austrian Embassy, where the Austrian policy was spelled out in some detail) might be in there too. There's also at least one missing cabinet report to the king.

Anyways, the bit about George isn't surprising, and yet is surprising at the same time- we knew where he stood, but to see it laid out in black and white. Certainly Grey had no worries about being restrained from that quarter. Interesting that the naval pledge to France appears right in the same timeframe.

[Terry Duncan]

That's your government's job, not mine.

The British government can hardly answer what you imagine might be included in these documents, that is entirely your own speculation.

Anyways, the bit about George isn't surprising, and yet is surprising at the same time- we knew where he stood, but to see it laid out in black and white. Certainly Grey had no worries about being restrained from that quarter. Interesting that the naval pledge to France appears right in the same timeframe.

All it says is this is what George told somebody in 1933, which, given the war and the losses in it, might have been a reflection of that and a change of views in the next two decades. It also suggests Grey was far from in favour of war, even at this stage, something you never wish to believe when others have said as much. Do you now accept Grey didnt want war or is it only selective bits of the letter you want to agree with?

[ljadw]

Name the material you imagine is in these missing documents?

That's your government's job, not mine. Perhaps buried in the million plus documents we'll find a few of Buchanan's missing telegrams. .

Attentive readerswill notice the word : PERHAPS.

And,perhaps,it will snow on XMas

[Attrition]

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/ ... -to-power/

Cobain's got form

~~~~~Instead of giving the true story, the government authorised version published by Cobain misdirects the entire subject towards Diego Garcia. The truth is that Diego Garcia is pretty incidental in the whole rendition story. On UK soil there was actually a great deal more done at Wick airport (yes, I do mean Wick, not Prestwick). That is something the government is still keeping tight closed, so don’t expect a mention from Cobain.~~~~~

[Michael Kenny]

Can I add as a failry clued-up UK resident who has an interest in this area that I have seen not the slightest sign of this 'Major Scandal' anywhere.
Total fiction.

[David Thompson]

An incoherent and insulting rubbish post from peterhof was removed by this moderator - DT.

peterhof -- We don't tolerate national or personal insult posts here, much less foul-mouthed ones. Don't make this mistake again.

[glenn239]

The British government can hardly answer what you imagine might be included in these documents, that is entirely your own speculation.

The British government should end speculation by releasing the entire archive.

All it says is this is what George told somebody in 1933...

I'd never heard anything before indicating that the king was actively pushing his government to find a reason for war. If its true, that's a pretty detail for a century of study to have overlooked.

[Terry Duncan]

You dont think that the king may have been rather more anti-German in 1933 than he had been in 1914, or failed to remember what he had said for reasons linked to what happened in the war? My money would be on the 1933 recollection being considerably at odds with events in 1914, in rather the same way most of the accounts by generals and politicians were written to flatter themselves.

[Jon Clarke]

I'd never heard anything before indicating that the king was actively pushing his government to find a reason for war. If its true, that's a pretty detail for a century of study to have overlooked.

There are some significant timing mistakes in the account of the King's meeting with Grey. According to the account, 'The next day he had a private letter from Poincaré urging our participation in the War, and almost at the same time a telegram arrived from King Albert about the violation of Belgium.' However the letter from Poincare was received on 1 August but the letter from King Albert was not received until two days later. Not only does it show that the King's memory for dates was undoubtedly faulty but it also draws into question what other aspects of his account were wrong. There are for example some significant contradictions between Grey's actual behaviour & the stance the King said he took. Moreover Grey had known since 30 July that Germany intended to violate Belgian neutrality in the (now likely) event of war, so why did he not point this out to the King rather than allegedly saying he couldn't think of a justifiable reason?

It would hardly be a surprise if the King's memory was faulty - how many of us can accurately remember events from 19 years ago? In my opinion, we should therefore treat this new 'information' with interest but also with a great deal of scepticism.

[Alanmccoubrey]

It seems that I've lived in the UK all my life and entirely missed this "scandal", some people plainly don't have enough real life problems to keep them occupied !