ljadw wrote:France was urging caution to Russia BEFORE the visit of Viviani and Poincaré.
Such as? As the Note had yet to surface there was very little to say, so I would love to see these pre-Note urgings.
ljadw wrote:There was little talking about international problems during the visit, which was only ceremonial (it was the 5th visit abroad by Poincaré) and it would be very unconstitutional from Poincaré if he was giving his opinion .
We do know that it was Poincare that warned the Austrian ambassador that Serbia had a friend in Russia and Russia had a friend in France, which under the circumstances was a=bout as open a threat as could be envisaged. We also know he urged Russia to take a hard line, using the rationale that it would make war less likely unless Germany and Austria had already determined on war, in which case it would make no difference anyway.
ljadw wrote:I like also see the proofs for the claim that Paleologue was withholding information . I know the story, but it remains an unproved allegation . Besides why should he do this ?
If you know the story, therefore the total lack of warnings he sent to France about Russian mobilisation decisions, and what he did send was misleading, then what evidence do you require beyond this? We have the records of other ambassadors and Sazonov to tell us the sort of line Paleologue was taking, and it was not urging caution. Why? He appears to have been following the line advocated by Poincare, that of taking a hard line. We do know Viviani had very little to say until the delegation landed back in France, so the only lead from France was supplied by Poincare.