Writing Feedback / 1500 word report on a letter by the author Norman Angell appeared in Times 1914 [NEW]

FULLY UNDERSTAND AND EVALUATE OF SOURCE PROVENANCE 10%
UNDERSTAND AND APPLY WHERE APPROPRIATE WIDER CONCEPTUAL QUESTIONS REGARDING SOURCE MATERIAL AND SURVIVAL 10%
FULLY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE/DOCUMENT WITHIN ITS WIDER HISTORICAL CONTEXT 25%
CRITICALLY EVALUATLE AND ANALYSE THE MEANING AND SIGIFICANCE OF SOUCE/DOCUMENT 25%
MAKE EFFECTIVE AND INSIGHTFUL USE OF THE RELEVENT HISTORIOGRAPHY WHERE APPROPRIATE 10%
WRITE WITH STRUCTURE CLARITY AND GOOD GRAMMER 20%
Questions
Who made document and why for whom what of wider context prevailing conditions what others say how accurate the document what evidence is lies beneath the surface.

We are asked to intervene in the continental, war because unless we do so we shall be isolated. The isolation which will result for us if we keep out of this war is that, while other nations are torn ,and weakened by war, we shall not be, and by that fact might conceivably for a long time be the strongest power in Europe, and by virtue of our strength and isolation its arbiter, perhaps to useful ends.

Britain and the Great War

Assessment 1 1500 Word Report
Write a 1500 word report on a letter written by Norman Angell that appeared in the Times on the 1st August 1914.
The report will highlight possible agreements, amongst colleagues, also discrepancies and split loyalties that existed in government circles when Norman Angell's letter to the Times dated 1st August 1914, was printed. The report will look at the wider context geographically; Germany and their possible reception and perception of the letter, also Adrian Gregory's outlook on the prevailing mood of the people of the country.

Steed, the foreign editor of the Times was reputed as being anti-German. It is highly unlikely that Angell's letter was printed because the editor was unbiased; it is more likely that the Times like most papers, excepting The Manchester Guardian and The Nation, were keen to underpin their own argument in agreement with Asquith that the British Empire will protect Belgium's neutrality, and not abstain from its responsibilities, which Angell's letter was advocating.

The letter written by Norman Angell on the 31st July was most certainly not drafted in isolation; he probably had the full backing of senior cabinet members. David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Trevelyan Parliamentary secretary of the board of Education, John Burns President of the local Government Board and John Morley Secretary of state for India, whom all threatened to resign if Asquith declared war, all but the Chancellor did resign. It is understandable that Angell might have felt that the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith might concede to the pressure of his intervention in league with the aforementioned government ministers. Angel and the government ministers might have also believed that they carried the weight of public opinion behind them.

Public opinion according to Asquith in his address to parliament on the 5th of August 1914 was firmly behind him when he tells parliament, 'I am certain the country will believe, that we are unsheathing our sword in a just cause'. Speech That is a misconception according to Adrian Gregory, who criticises Author Marwick, who portrays 'images of cheering crowds outside Buckingham Palace in support of the war,9 Gregory claims that Bank Holiday crowds gathered around Buckingham Palace ought not to be taken as representative' of the nations feeling as a whole. 13

The controversy surrounding Angell's letter is further muddled if we must consider the letter as Angell's personal response and that of others to Germany's act of war, against a country according to Asquith that we are sworn to aid. Coulton argues that Angell is 'extremely inaccurate in his beliefs, but that he appeals especially to an unthinking and uncritical type of reader'. p16 Clearly, Angell's negative response to Belgium's request, might have impacted on the Prime Minister, who accepted the resignation of his most senior ministers rather than ignore King Albert's plea for help against the German aggressor.

Angell's ethos underpins the doctrine in his book The Great Illusion, which is at the heart of his letter to the Times. He seems to be asking the reader to appeal to their own survival at the cost of a friendly country in need of immediate support, which might well lose the right to neutrality therefore, freedom and liberty. As we have seen some powerful government ministers bought into Angell's philosophy, for what must have been business reasons since Angell's doctrine is business pacifism according to James Clotfelter. Norman Angell, in The Great Illusion, argued that wars destroy prosperity, even for the victor. James Clotfelter On the other hand he appears to contradict his own position when he writes 'self preservation is not the final law for nations any more than it is for individuals'. p7 the great illusion Lets be clear about Angell's letter if the decision to sit on the sidelines and agree to Germany's ultimatum to remain neutral is a morally sound option, and Britain will be the stronger for it, therefore, he must be advocating business as usual with Germany, yet this is precisely why peace movements fail because they are unable to convince people that wars hurt economies. James Clotfelter

Angell openly condemns Britain for her imperialism; in his book The Great Illusion, however, in his letter to the Times he offers no such condemnation of Germany's aggressive stance in Europe, given that Germany is poised to invade Belgium. His allegiance is questioned by the editor of the Daily Express Ralph Blumenfeld, when he suggests that the UDC, of which Norman Angell was a core member, was working for the German Government.

The thrust of Angell's opening argument in his letter, is that any military intervention by Britain in the Continental War, will weaken not strengthen her position; as a result leave Britain isolated, for the reason that, involvement will reduce and or undermine her perceived power in Europe. He claims that by allowing other hitherto friendly nations to be torn and weakened by war we will be an arbiter for useful ends, presumable victorious in bringing about a peaceful reconciliation between the warring parties. His argument may be financially and intellectually feasible, even if it is morally unacceptable, it is doubtful the victor, probably Germany would respect Britain for her pacifist stance, more likely Germany will see Britain as a weak ineffectual spent conquerable country. Furthermore, it appears that it is Angell who is isolated, had the government ministers resigned before Asquith committed Britain to war and were cosignatories on Angell's letter, then his belief that he, not the Prime Minister spoke for the English people, might have been justified, and could have led Asquith to a different conclusion.

The problem for Angell is that what he proposes is inaction, a policy that Asquith in his speech in parliament tells the committee, has not been successful despite the persistent efforts of Sir Edward Grey to secure peace for Europe.

The embryo of a peace movement is apparent in Angell's letter however, characteristic of peace movements is factionalism which is transparent in Adrian Gregory's book The Last Great War. Gregory tells us that an antiwar demonstration in Trafalgar Square on the 2nd of August, the meeting being disrupted red flags were torn down, blows were exchanged and the police were called.15 The reader needs to be cautious when debating Gregory's pacifist argument in support of Angell, especially at his uncritical acceptance of the Manchester Guardian's report, that 'what seemed unanimous was that no one seemed to want war'.15 Gregory offers no other evidence to substantiate his claim that the general mood of the country was antiwar. If the mood in the London was antiwar and the Trafalgar Square demonstration typified that why wasn't Angell addressing that meeting? Dominic Hibberd answerers that question 'Angell was convinced that business interests wanted peace',20 thus his doctrine for peace is for self interest.

According to George Robb the artists and writers in Britain were pessimistic as the war dragged on, however, despite Gregory's opinion 'most established figures promoted the war in a straightforward patriotic manner portraying the conflict as heroic and a just crusade,129 the opposite Of Angell's claims more akin to Asquith resolution. Gregory appears homophobic in his approach to defending the pacifist doctrine of which Angell prescribed when he tells us that the decision for war in 1914 was taken by a very small number of men.10 That viewpoint is a propaganda invention on the part of the pacifist writes Dominic Hibberd, the elder statesmen did their best to prevent war. It was the young warlike crowds who thronged Whitehall whilst the cabinet deliberated the alternative to war.33

Angell ignores in his letter the consequences of not defending the right to neutrality that we enjoy. Asquith argument for declaring war with Germany is that Germany is intent on extending her boundaries, by the use of military force, and she has the audacity to assume we can remain neutral thereby aid her, against a blatant disregard of the principles of the civilized world. firstworldwar.com/source/asquithspeechtoparliament.ht

Clearly Angell should have directed his Pacifist doctrine toward Germany. He was right that as victors Germany would not benefit from war, financially, history had proved him right as he indicates in his letter regarding Alsace-Lorraine. Unfortunately as we have seen from this report his argument was not provable either to Germany or the British government. There are discrepancies between how historians understand the mood of the British public leading up to the declaration of war. Gregory seems to have a blinkered vision and limits himself to one or two newspapers to substantiate his argument, whereas other writers take an opposing stance offering a stronger balanced observation. Angell's claim at the close of his letter, that Sir Edward Grey says there is no moral obligation to defend a small country like Belgium seems unlikely in the face of Germany's aggressive attitude, and seems out of context when face with the tangible prospect of war. However, what is more disturbing it is that Angell admits to having no moral obligations to a weaker nation. Thus his only reason for not going to war was naked financial self interest.