ich kann von euch nicht die geschichtliche hintergrund über mein land erwarten, die ich habe.
es reicht, daß um das erste jahrtausend die menschen schon zu weit aus ein ander waren. da gab es noch nicht echt deutschen oder niederländer.
übrigens... wenn wir darüber reden: meine sprache ist älter (i.e. ursprünglicher) als eure, denn machte die zweite lautverschiebung nicht mit. also sind wir urspünglicher. ihr seid also untreue niederländer.
anti-extrem
es kostete viel zeit um zu finden, was ich suchte. für sowohl diesen thread als den alternativ strang.
und dieser mann - Sir Edward Grey - wurde GB außenminister (ab 1905) und war es auch noch als WK I ausbrach.WW I - Grey + Edward VII
But the Prince of Wales had different ideas . . . Unbeknownst to his mother, Victoria (who would have been mortified had she known), he had managedsecret meetings in Paris with Leon Gambetta – the Prince of revanche – and Delcasse. Elizabeth Longford, one of the Queen’s many biographers has written: “For close on thirty years she [Victoria] obstinately kept PrinceAlbert’s golden key to the Foreign Office despatches out of hands which seemed to her both grasping and incompetent.” But as Sydney Lee reminds us: “It was not generally known that for some fifteen years every importantforeign dispatch had been placed at his disposal and that for some nine years the reports and proceedings of the Cabinet had been regularly submitted to him. Although he had not figured publicly on the political stage, hehad moves almost continuously behind the scenes and the prominent actors had often taken their cue from him.”
Finally, as Ian Dunlop tells us:
“When the King ascended the throne, he demanded, and very rightly too, that he should not be ignored and that he should be consulted, especiallyin connection with Foreign Affairs . . . “
Edward VII was of course a “constitutional monarch,” but his ardent admirer, Ian Dunlop, reports breathlessly:
“However, he [Edward VII] was not the sort of man to be thwarted by any Cabinet or Minister and he very soon leveled all the barriers opposedto him by the soundness of his views on all matters referred to him, and soon convinced the Government that from his knowledge of men and his shrewd appreciation of events his advice was well worth taking on all questionsof the hour.”
This was the man whose royal career may be summed up as having prepared the diplomatic ground for twin Ententes with France and Russia – fleshedout with military “conversations” by his Foreign Secretary, Edward Grey. And this was the man whose policies caused the German Press [Newe Freie Presse] to editorialize on April 15, 1907:
“Who can fail to receive the impression that a diplomatic duel is being fought out between England and Germany under the eyes of the world.The King of England . . . is no longer afraid of appearing to throw the whole influence of his personality into the scales whenever it is a question of thwarting the aims of German policy. The meeting at Gaeta [with the Kingof Italy] is another fact connected with the burning jealousy between England and Germany. Already people are asking themselves everywhere: What is the meaning of this continual labour, carried on with open recklessness, whoseobject is to put a close ring around Germany?”
“He’s a devil! You cannot believe what a devil he is!” exclaimed the Kaiser about Edward VII on March 19, 1907. Virginia Cowles [The Kaiser]explained that
"The outburst was caused by the knowledge that the British Government was negotiating in St. Petersburg for an agreement which would putan end to outstanding disputes between the two countries, and secondly by the announcement that King Edward would meet the King of Italy at Gaeta and the King of Spain off Cartagena. The Kaiser was convinced that his uncle'smain purpose was to do mischief to Germany"
The King’s Minister in charge of the Foreign Office was Sir Edward Grey, who wrote:
"No crime has ever aroused deeper or more general horror throughout Europe. Sympathy for Austria was universal. Both governments and publicopinion were ready to support her in any measures, however severe (my italics), which she might think it necessary to take for the punishment of the murderer and his accomplices."
This was in complete accord with the Preamble to the English Blue Book:
“No crime has ever aroused deeper or more general horror throughout Europe, none has ever been less justified. Austria was under provocation.She had to complain of a dangerous popular movement against her Government”
But Sir Edward Grey insisted on supporting the King’s policy:
Ferguson writes of “his [Grey’s] dominant belief, from as early as 1902, that Britain should align itself against Germany.” In January,1903, he told the poet Newbolt: “I have come to think that Germany is our worst enemy and our greatest danger . . . I believe the policy Germany to be that of using us without helping us: keeping us isolated that she mayhave us to fall back on. If any Government drags us back into the German net,” he declared to Liberal MP Ronald Munro-Ferguson in August 1905, “I will oppose it openly at all costs.”
Two months later on the eve of coming to power, he underlined his commitment:
“I am afraid the impression has been spread with some success by those interested in spreading it, that a Liberal Government would unsettlethe understanding with France in order to make up to Germany. I want to do what I can to combat this.”
The combined diplomacy of the King and his Foreign Secretary bore its inevitable fruit in August of 1914. Kaiser Wilhelm put it this way:
“Either we are shamefully to betray our Allies, sacrifice them to Russia—thereby breaking up the Triple Alliance, or we are to be attackedin common by the Triple Entente for our fidelity to our Allies and punished, whereby they will satisfy their jealousy by joining in totally ruining us. That is the real situation in nuce, which, slowly and cleverly set going,certainly by Edward VII, has been carried on and systematically built up by disowned conferences between England and Paris and St. Petersburg; finally brought to a conclusion by George V and set to work. And thereby the stupidityand ineptitude of our ally is turned into a snare for us. So the famous encirclement of Germany has finally become a complete fact, despite every effort of our politicians and diplomats to prevent it. The net has been suddenlythrown over our head, and England sneeringly reaps the most brilliant success of her persistently prosecuted purely anti-German world policy, against which we have proven ourselves helpless, while she twists the noose of ourpolitical and economic destruction out of our fidelity to Austria, as we squirm isolated in the net. A great achievement which arouses the admiration even of him who is to be destroyed as its result! Edward VII is strongerafter his death than am I who am still alive!
seid ihr überrascht, daß er auf alle weisen (heimlich) tat was er konnte, um einen krieg mit D zu schüren, wenn nicht anzustiften?
wobei man die schwer unterbelichtete rolle von edward VII absolut nicht vergessen darf.
viel machte wilhelm II falsch. das stimmt. war aber edward VII auch nur etwas besser?? eher viel schlechter und jedenfalls schlimmer.
anti-extrem
Keine Sorge, ich kenne einigermaßen Hollands Geschichte. Auch die dunklen Seiten.
So weit waren die Menschen damals nicht auseinander. Das sieht man nur so mit den heutigen Augen. Sicher, damals gab's halt nur Stämme. Weniger Materialismus, dafür mehr Freiheit.
übrigens... wenn wir darüber reden: meine sprache ist älter (i.e. ursprünglicher) als eure, denn machte die zweite lautverschiebung nicht mit. also sind wir urspünglicher. ihr seid also untreue niederländer. [/QUOTE]
Man könnte es auch so interpretieren. Dadurch, daß die deutschen deine zweite Lautverschiebung durchführten, bewiesen sie eine höhere geistige Regsamkeit. Ohne die zweite Lautverschiebung gäbe kein Automobil, keinen Computer, keine Quantenphysik......u.s.w.
Aktive Benutzer in diesem Thema: 1 (Registrierte Benutzer: 0, Gäste: 1)