Posts
The following text cites a conversation between a prominent British imperial politician and an American diplomat in London, in 1910. It is an interesting example of what key players say when they feel free to speak their mind. This was before Wikileaks, after all ...
"As
Germany's industrial and financial power as well as its trade increased, a
growing antagonism between Germany and the British Empire arose. Everywhere the
ambitious German industry confronted a British competitor avidly observing the
growing danger to his monopolistic trade relations, jealously guarded until
then. A 1910 conversation between Lord Balfour, leader of the British
Conservative Party, and Henry White, then United States Ambassador in London,
shows the contrast between the two European industrial powers, and the attitude
of the British leadership:
Balfour:
We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before
she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.
White:
You are a very high-minded man in private life. How can you possibly
contemplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a war against a
harmless nation which has as good a right to a navy as you have? If you wish to
compete with German trade, work harder.
Balfour:
That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler
for us to have a war.
White:
I am shocked that you of all men should enunciate such principles.
Balfour:
Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our
supremacy. "
(This text is from Georg Franz-Willing, ‘The origins of the Second
World War’, Journal of Historical Review, Vol 7, Number 1, Spring 1986,
p 97. The Balfour-White conversation was taken from a biography of Henry White)
Tony Norfield, 4 March 2013
3 comments:
I read a quote from a Churchill speach before that war in which he said the same thing. I read the quotation in a wsws some years ago, but I've been trying to find it but so far unsuccessfully
John: The best quotation I have seen from Churchill was given in a blog post I did in June 2011, where ahead of WW1 he talks of the importance of Britain keeping its 'vast and splendid possessions'! Here https://economicsofimperialism.blogspot.com/2011/06/winston-churchill-told-it-like-it-was.html
These biographical snippets are always interesting to read (if even true), but I find they're often read out of context or given more weight than is due them. P.M. Balfour seems merely like he's pontificating on a far-flung idea and not entirely committed to the notion. More like he's just trying it on and doesn't necessarily intend to wear it to the ball.
If that conversation had been had in 1935, it wouldn't have rendered the UK's necessity to throw in against Germany in 1939 any less valid. This alleged exchange was four years before July of 1914. UK intended to remain neutral in the rising tensions between Austria-Hungary and Germany on the one side, and Serbia, Russia, and France on the other. But then that "harmless nation stormed Belgium when Belgium stood firm on its own neutrality. If neutral Belgium was ripe for Gwrman invasion, then certainly enemy France was. And if France, then the only thing remaining between the UK a nation now bent on war and known for trampling neutral parties (Belgium) to achieve its ends was the English Channel. UK didn't need to invent a reason to join the war after all. It turns out Germany was quite capable of giving them a valid reason.
Post a Comment