Major scandal in Great Britain about hidden WW1 documents.

[Attrition]

Why trust one jumped-up civil servant's memory over another?

[glenn239]

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.

If the incidents were being recounted decades later I could see possible problems with precise dates, as you suggest. However, the exact chronology not what caught my attention, and whether the king missed by a day is not particulariy important. Rather, it's the whole concept of history overlooking something as big as the king pressuring the government to find a pretext for war with Germany. I don't recall that being mentioned in any of the histories I've read. I'll be interested to at some point go back through Grey's Twenty Five Years to see if he neglected mentioning it.

[Terry Duncan]

The problem here is that it is more likely the king that was wrong almost twenty years after the event, and that the records from the time are correct. It also needs to be considered that any view he held could have been heavily influenced by Bethmann's neutrality bid where he pretty much admitted the intent to violate Belgium. What I am curious to know is if this letter changes your view on Grey at all, as you have repeatedly stated he was looking for war, whilst this letter says pretty much the opposite.

[glenn239]

The problem here is that it is more likely the king that was wrong almost twenty years after the event, and that the records from the time are correct. I

I'm not interested in marginal theories trying to pretend the king didn't say and think what the king said he was saying and thinking. As above, what interests me is that the accounts I've read from British players seem to have omitted this type of detail, which if true calls into question the basic integrity of the accounts. (After all, if a detail as important as this was redacted, what else buried in these files was redacted?)

It also needs to be considered that any view he held could have been heavily influenced by Bethmann's neutrality bid where the pretty much admitted the intent to violate Belgium.

The king's account suggests that the motivating fear was German hegemony if Britain stood aside.

What I am curious to know is if this letter changes your view on Grey at all, as you have repeatedly stated he was looking for war, whilst this letter says pretty much the opposite.

TBy 1914 Grey seemed indifferent to the prospect of war, but was not seeking it. As I've indicated previously, I believe that Grey would have implemented a peace plan had Russia desired that outcome. So the information is in accord with my current model, except that I have to alter the king's attitude from being a passive observer in favor of supporting France to more like General Wilson - an agitator for war seeking any pretext.

[ljadw]

The only thing we have is a not confirmed,not proved report from a nephew of Grey,where HE (the nephew ) is telling us what the King told him what he (the King) said to his uncle in 1914 (thus 19 years later) and what Grey told the King .

We don't know if the report is true.

We don't know if the King told the truth.

Only Grey could confirm.deny what the King told .

And, only the King could confirm/deny what the nephew of Grey told .

They didn't do it .

Thus,for any serious historian,the story is worthless .Only those with an agenda will ive the story any importance .

[Attrition]

Peterhof won't have been the first person to mistake the Graun for a newspaper, it's not his fault.

[Terry Duncan]

I'm not interested in marginal theories trying to pretend the king didn't say and think what the king said he was saying and thinking.

You dont know what the king said and have no reason to believe a 1933 memory is more accurate than what was recorded at the time in 1914. What I said is not a marginal theory, it is simply looking at things as they have so often been recorded with people making comments long after the events.

As above, what interests me is that the accounts I've read from British players seem to have omitted this type of detail, which if true calls into question the basic integrity of the accounts. (After all, if a detail as important as this was redacted, what else buried in these files was redacted?)

But if it didnt happen at all in 1914 then it cannot have been recorded at the time, therefore no omission was needed. So with regards you 'if it is true,' statement, what if it is not true? You have no reason to believe this account from a letter many years later is more accurate than the official records, so it appears you are either just believing anything that suits your case without any further investigation or thought, or just believe the latest thing you have heard.

The king's account suggests that the motivating fear was German hegemony if Britain stood aside.

You mean the exact reason British policy followed the path it did from 1900-1914? I really fail to see how anyone vaguely familiar with British policy or its conduct in this period could find such a comment to be a revelation.

TBy 1914 Grey seemed indifferent to the prospect of war, but was not seeking it. As I've indicated previously, I believe that Grey would have implemented a peace plan had Russia desired that outcome. So the information is in accord with my current model, except that I have to alter the king's attitude from being a passive observer in favor of supporting France to more like General Wilson - an agitator for war seeking any pretext.

Only if you wish to write off all other documented statements and observations from the time and accept a private letter from almost twenty years later with no supporting evidence as being accurate.

As to Russia, Sazonov was still putting forward ideas to avoid war right up until the end of the crisis, even the idea of referring the matter to the International Courts at The Hague - something Russia could hardly object to a verdict from as she had been instrumental in setting them up in the first place!

[glenn239]

You dont know what the king said and have no reason to believe a 1933 memory is more accurate than what was recorded at the time in 1914. What I said is not a marginal theory, it is simply looking at things as they have so often been recorded with people making comments long after the events.

What you said is a marginal theory - you've latched onto the idea of a false account because you don't like what the account is saying. Might be best to pull in the wild theories and await the publication and vetting of the archive by historians.

Only if you wish to write off all other documented statements and observations from the time and accept a private letter from almost twenty years later with no supporting evidence as being accurate.

As to Russia, Sazonov was still putting forward ideas to avoid war right up until the end of the crisis, even the idea of referring the matter to the International Courts at The Hague - something Russia could hardly object to a verdict from as she had been instrumental in setting them up in the first place!

I didn't mention the part about Grey being indifferent to war in order to start a discussion. I did so because you had misstated my position on the matter that required correction. I do not believe Grey was 'looking' for war, but that he had become indifferent to the possibility of it.

[Terry Duncan]

What you said is a marginal theory - you've latched onto the idea of a false account because you don't like what the account is saying. Might be best to pull in the wild theories and await the publication and vetting of the archive by historians.

Hardly. We have many records from the time, including official documents, all telling the same thing, and one new private letter from the king to a relative of Grey written almost twenty years later. The marginal theory is your as it is based on the marginal evidence and seeks to overthrow the body of evidence we do have despite there being no other supporting evidence. It is highly revealing that in your hurry to leap to a conclusion you like that you didnt notice the letter is only private correspondence and not an official document from the supposed archive scandal - that isn't.