Germany's handling of the July crisis.

[Terry Duncan]

France could only preserve peace if it remained neutral, if it was solidary with Russia, it would hasten war and would have to fight for Russia, something the majority of parliament would refuse .

Then France needed to inform Germany and Russia of this supposed intent. Maybe you can tell us when in the July Crisis it did so? We do have the date that supposedly unimportant people committed France to supporting Russia and at no point to my knowledge was this commitment was never revoked.

If Viviani and Poincaré ( political enemies ) would suddenly pursue a different foreign policy, government would fall and parliament would refuse to accept this new policy .And parliament had the last word .

All quite possible if there is time for such things. In 1914 there was no time, and nobody in France seems to have even got close to suggesting bringing down the government, so the commitment from Poincare was still the latest French policy. The French parliament had the last word only if it chose to use it, and in 1914 it very clearly decided not to do so.

[Terry Duncan]

Other proofs .
From the French historian Pierre Renouvin in Les Relations franco-russes a la fin du 19ieme siecle et au début du vingtiéme siecle
There was in 1897 a conflict between Turkey and Greece ,which could result in a mobilisation of Austria and war between Austria and Russia : France said that it would remain neutral .
On P 132 : France wanted to exclure the problems of the Orient from the alliance .
In 1909, Russia fears an Austrian attack against Serbia, and asks France to help her,if this results in war between Austria and Russia.France refuses .
And Renouvin writes :
Chacun des contractants s'applique á restreindre la portée des engagements mutuels .
Rough translation : both signatories want to minimize their engagements .
En Juillet 1912 Poincaré dit qu'il veut freiner la politique balcanique russe . In July 1912 Poincaré said that he wanted to stop,to slow down the Russian policy in the Balkans .
I think that these proofs are sufficient .

The opinions of Pierre Renouvin are of little interest, especially as you have presented them totally unsupported by any evidence he may cite. And please note that events of 1909 and 1912 do not mean the same policy was to be followed in 1914 by either France or Russia as a very different military situation now existed. Nothing here indicates that France or Russia were planning to renege on their alliance if the other was attacked.

[MarkN]

This then made me chuckle. The inability of the troll to maintain a coherent argument is so amusing. Here (s)he's arguing the complete opposite of what (s)he's been posting the last few days.

Jaures said a few days before he was shot that the French government, of which he was an opponent, tried to preserve peace .
France could only preserve peace if it remained neutral, if it was solidary with Russia, it would hasten war and would have to fight for Russia, something the majority of parliament would refuse .
If Viviani and Poincaré ( political enemies ) would suddenly pursue a different foreign policy, government would fall and parliament would refuse to accept this new policy .And parliament had the last word .

1) France had an alliance with Russia.
2) Did it intend to honor or dishonor and repudiate that alliance?
3) ljadw said France never intended to honor it - the implication being that it was French policy to dishonor and repudiate that alliance.
4) Poincare and Viviani repeatedly stated and implied that the alliance would be honored.
5) ljadw claims they were all just lies.
6) However, those receiving Pointcare and Viviani's words assumed them to be truthful and accurate.
7) And, since the government didn't fall, perhaps they weren't lies after all!!!!

A)
If they were lies, that's to say Poincare and Viviani were NOT providing truthful statements about French policy and intention, then they clearly had a huge individual impact on the July Crisis because their words were accepted as truthful and accurate in Petersburg, Berlin, Vienna and London. This, of course, is a complete contradiction of ljadw's claim that they were "irrelevant" and "nobody". And, according to ljadw's latest offering, the government should have fallen because Poincare and Viviani were telling everybody the opposite of French policy and intent.

B)
If Poincare and Viviani were "irrelevant" and "nobody" accurately relating French policy and intent (ie the intent to honor the alliance) as simple mouthpieces as ljadw claims, then they were not lies. and there was no reason for the government to fall. However, this is then a direct contradiction of ljadw's wider fantasy narrative about French policy, intent and actions.

Personally, I don't consider the French attempts to prevent bloodshed are incompatible with an intent to honor their alliance with Russia. Indeed, they are complimentary. In otherwords, Jaures' commentary is accurate and it is just ljadw's analysis that is utterly flawed.

[MarkN]

Russia was attacked by Germany on August 1 , and France did not employ all her available forces to attack Germany .

1. Germany did not attack Russia on 1st August, she declared war. The German armies were to attack in the west.

The "Germany wanted war against France nor Russia" "7 armies against France, 1 on defence against Russia" are ljadw's normal refrains.

The mental gymnastics required to keep up his fantasy narrative are too complex for him to handle.

None of which matters. The mobilisation of one or both of the Central Powers was enough to trigger the mobilisation of the Franco-Russian alliance, and that alliance did not require any declaration of war or further hostile intent until at least Day 15 of mobilisation.

Contrary to the false narrative peddled by glenn239 and others, mobilization did not mean war to anybody except Germany. For them it was the time for concentrated diplomacy to kick in to avoid bloodshed.

[MarkN]

France could only preserve peace if it remained neutral, if it was solidary with Russia, it would hasten war and would have to fight for Russia, something the majority of parliament would refuse .

Then France needed to inform Germany and Russia of this supposed intent. Maybe you can tell us when in the July Crisis it did so? We do have the date that supposedly unimportant people committed France to supporting Russia and at no point to my knowledge was this commitment was never revoked.

Perhaps Jaures the allegedly "de facto ruler" of France had a secret word with Berlin on the matter before he passed. So secret that nobody knows anything about it. So secret that not even Berlin knew about it at the time.

Or, perhaps, it's another place where historical reality and ljadw fantasy narrative diverge. Perhaps that's because ljadw is a Martian and not a French national.

[ljadw]

France would honor its alliance only if it benefited France, Russia the same : dishonor is not a word for diplomats, but for moralising people : most treaties and alliances are,were and will be repudiated .
France did not need to inform Russia and Germany of its intents .There was no one who could oblige France to do this . The less the others knew of its intents, the better .
For the rest , I give up : the hostility to even the mentioning of non Anglo-Saxon historians proves the unwillingness to have a serious discussion .

[Terry Duncan]

France would honor its alliance only if it benefited France, Russia the same : dishonor is not a word for diplomats, but for moralising people : most treaties and alliances are,were and will be repudiated .
France did not need to inform Russia and Germany of its intents .There was no one who could oblige France to do this . The less the others knew of its intents, the better .
For the rest , I give up : the hostility to even the mentioning of non Anglo-Saxon historians proves the unwillingness to have a serious discussion .

If there was nobody in France who could repudiate the alliance we must presume that France would follow the alliance as its actions of 1st August onward indicate.

There is no hostility to 'non-Anglo-Saxon historians' as such, but simply posting the opinion of such historians without showing the evidence they base the opinion on is not really of much use. Opinion is opinion, and with regards the subject matter here, the vast majority of historians clearly view Poincare and Viviani as important and influential. There is no unwillingness to have a serious discussion, several of us have asked you to post actual evidence supporting your claims, whilst you have responded with your own opinion and finally that of Pierre Renouvin, who by your own standards was 'a paid agent' as he was paid by the French counterpart to the German War Guilt Section that was dedicated to showing France was innocent and Germany guilty. If Barnes and Fay are unacceptable then so is Renouvin - although so far you have only shown his opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Renouvin

Do not try to blame people for a problem with non-Anglo-Saxon historians and flounce away feigning sleight, it is the almost total lack of supporting evidence people are having a problem with, evidence you insist exists but seemingly also insist on not showing to those of us who have requested you post supporting evidence several times in this discussion. You are the one putting forward an extremely unorthodox point of view and as such really do need to offer some form of documented evidence to show your case has any merit whatsoever.

[MarkN]

If there was nobody in France who could repudiate the alliance we must presume that France would follow the alliance as its actions of 1st August onward indicate.

Indeed.

The Dual Alliance existed and had not been officially repudiated be either party. The default assumption must be, in the absence of evidence otherwise, that both parties intended to honor it.

Is it theoretically possible that one, or both, of the parties had privately decided to dishonor the Alliance in whole or in part, under all circumastances or only selected circumstances? Yes, but in the absence of evidence to suggest this was the case, it's a rabbit-hole what-if timewasting discussion.

Nevertheless, for France, any decision to dishonor the Alliance would need to be an accepted policy level decision and not just the whim of a single individual: not Jaures, Poincare, Viviani or even Rene the cafe owner. Evidence of such a policy decision should be easy to produce if it ever existed - especially in the instance where it needed ratification by parliament.

The absence of such evidence points to Poincare and Viviani being quite accurate and truthful in their discussion in/with Petersburg, Berlin, Vienna and London; they were not lying as ljadw believes. Moreover, the intention to honor the Dual Alliance remained - again, the complete opposite of ljadw's fantasy narrative.