Terry Duncan wrote:People need to keep this discussion to the points people raise and not make comments about the other person, as whilst I am willing to allow a small ammount of 'banter' the site rules prohibit insults etc. Please try to keep the discussion on subject and remember than opinions are often based on cumulative evidence gained from many sources, and that English is not the first language of everyone here.
Banter and insults? What about some evidence to back up the "
points people raise", the opinion and the historical claims?
I can understand a serious discussion built around "
cumulative evidence gained from many sources" where direct evidence from the principles does not exist. By default, it's all one can do.
To take an opinion seriously - and lend credibility to a historical claim - where direct evidence from the principles is in abundance and contrary to the opinion and claim, is nigh on impossible.
Are you suggesting posters should humour the ridiculous?
Here's another ridiculous theory based upon "
cumulative evidence gained from many sources" and a direct response to the original question.
It was impossible for Britain to remain neutral because they had an international legally binding obligation to uphold Belgium's neutrality which Belgium had unilaterally just decided to do away with (see Crowe's memoradum of 1908 and Britain's liability if Belgium chooses to do away with neutrality herself). Thus, when Germany decided to act upon their obligation to "
make good" Belgium's deceit, Britain was obliged to act in concert with Germany and, if necessary, oppose Belgium's (indirect) ally France. Moreover, history should be rewritten to accept that the Kaiser, Moltke and Germany were in the right, and that Britain - because it didn't do as it should - was in the wrong!
"
Cumulative evidence gained from many sources" = Belgium supplied weapons of war to Serbia, one of which was used in the killing of Archduke Ferdinand. Serbia had a relationship with Russia and Russia had an alliance with France. QED, Belgium no longer upholding its neutrality and allied to France, Russia and Serbia.
I've raised a point. Utterly ridiculous point I know. But it has the same level of credibility as the theory that Britain chose war based upon Antwerp (principally) - and perhaps other Channel ports - being gobbled up by Germany.
Let's discuss!
PS. Are you sure English is my first language? I use it for about 5% or less of my daily communication. I do so here (part of the 5%), and on other similar websites since it is the rules of the forum. The other part of the 5% is made up with business meetings and telephone conversations with foreign business and professional associates where English is a common medium.