Talk:King and Country debate

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Debating, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DebatingWikipedia:WikiProject DebatingTemplate:WikiProject DebatingDebating articles

Military history: British / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

University of Oxford High‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anti-war Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 27 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Billiebobjones.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill's "The Second World War" mention

W.Churchill mentions the debates again in that book, there's a quite interesting couple of paragraphs and I think a line or two could be quoted. --CopperKettle 17:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on speaker

This article erroneously recorded Mr. David Graham as opposing the motion. As Ceadel's journal article confirms, Graham spoke in favour of the motion (which, as Ceadel further shows, he had himself drafted in the first place). Nandt1 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Oxford Oath

Oxford Oath is a much shorter article which mainly seems to be about the impact of the debate in the U.S., so could be merged with this one... AnonMoos (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Oxford Oath" is important enough to stand on its own. אורח לרגע (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should be a no-brainer. There's no particularly good reason why the two cannot be contained within the same article and this seems the preferable title.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Erich von Richthofen " letter -"very likely a hoax".

In his long article on the "King and Country" debate, "The King and Country Debate, 1933: Student Politics, Pacifism and the Dictators". Martin Ceadel mentions the letter from "Erich von Richthofen" which appeared in the Daily Telegraph in 4 May 1965, and mentioned in the R. V. Jones book " Most Secret War". Ceadel points out a number of facts which express doubt about the letter's authenticity:

"The initial point to be made is that the one explicit and ostensibly first-hand testimony, that of Erich von Richthofen in his letter to the Daily Telegraph of 4 May 1965 quoted in the first paragraph of this article, is of doubtful authenticity. The only address given in the letter is Newton Abbot and an inquiry through the local newspaper has revealed no knowledge of anyone of that name living there in the mid-sixties or any other time; the only member of the von Richthofen family of that name is now a professor in the University of Toronto, was never in the German army, and denies having written the letter; and the German military archives have no record of any General Staff or senior army officer of that name in that period. It seems very likely, therefore, that the letter is a hoax".

In addition, a JSTOR search for "Erich von Richthofen" and "Daily Telegraph" only shows one result, Ceadel's article. http://www.jstor.org/action/doAdvancedSearch?q0=%22erich+von+richthofen%22&f0=all&c1=AND&q1=%22daily+telegraph%22&f1=all&wc=on&fc=off&Search=Search&sd=&ed=&la=&pt=&isbn=

Surely if a member of the German General Staff had given verifiable information on Hitler's motives it would be mentioned in many more articles?

I am not aware of anyone who has challenged Ceadel's statements about the letter' dubious authenticity. Unless someone can state proof that the letter is not a fake, then references to it should be removed from this article immediately. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Germany consider the debate relevant or not?

The last two paragraphs of the article seem to give somewhat inconsistent reports on whether Germany found the debate relevant or not. On the one hand it cites how even as late as 1939 a German newspaper considered it irrelevant. Yet Winston Churchill says it made an impression upon the Germans and Italians. Was this simply not acted upon (much)?

Also from the article "Oxford Oath," the following is stated:

"It has been claimed by one Joseph Alsop that the resolution made a tremendous impression upon Adolf Hitler; he regularly cited it when his general staff protested against his military decisions."

Perhaps Hitler used it as rhetoric but the newspapers didn't seem to care? Or the situation changed after 1939? Or there was a difference between Britain's public image and military strength/resolve? Cornelius (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could have given the Germans a little bit of extra confidence to conduct the Remilitarization of the Rhineland, but by 1939 the overall climate of British opinion had changed very significantly, and anybody in Germany who gave it great importance in 1939 was deluding himself... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also might have given Italy some extra confidence to invade Abyssinia, of course. AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Oxford Oath into King and Country debate

The scopes of these articles seem to be essentially the same. I'm not seeing how to separate articles are justified. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed above on this page in 2012... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge on the grounds of both short text and context. Specifically, Oxford Oath is short, and arose from the the King and Country debate at the Oxford union, so benefits from being discussed in the context of those debates. I also note that consensus can change over the course of 9 years; for example, common sense can prevail. Klbrain (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add 2023 debate results?

They asked the same question last year Antiparcialidade (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill

Churchill is described several times throughout the article as someone with a clear bias in this discussion, and possibly as a dubious source(or at least one with a clear point of view). And yet, at other points in the article, he is uncritically cited(and he is the only source for several paragraphs). This seems very problematic to me, and I think there should either be an additional source or the deletion of parts of the article that exclusively rely on it. 77.137.73.163 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill in 1933 was still kind of wandering in the political wilderness in terms of UK party politics, and the views he expressed at the time were those of one individual, but can still be included in the article if that's made clear. Winston Churchill looking back on 1933, after the war, is expressing his view as wartime leader, which is a little different. AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different perhaps, but it's not a different person, is it? Still the same views and interests. Mooneylupin (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "interests" in this context. Winston Churchill obviously remained the same person, but in 1933 he was a backbench semi-rogue Tory MP (out of government for 4 years), while during his time as wartime leader he had access to much information about German leaders... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]