Talk:Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner

Wartime Minister

In para 6 of this section there is a long list of people, beginning with Lord Derby and ending with Admiral Jellicoe who were removed from office. The article then refers to "the former " and the "latter." I think this is inappropriate with a list of more than two. If "the former" relates to Lord Derby the "former " should be replaced by "the first." The "latter" is clearly Jellicoe and I will alter this but the account does not square with the article on Jellicoe. Jellicoe was resistant to convoys but the were apparently in common use by August 1917. "his orders" is a bit vague. What orders ? Or does it mean dismissal. Can the account of his removal be squared with that in the Jellicoe article?Spinney Hill (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorted. Jellicoe was a respected figure and is praised by modern historians (for having comprehensively outmanoeuvred the High Seas Fleet at Jutland and being very unlucky not to win a second Trafalgar) but at the time, he was under a cloud because of disappointment at Jutland and I get the impression he was a bit worn out - and I suspect that Lloyd George was looking for somebody to kick in his frustration at Haig and Robertson (but that's just my opinion). The "First Sea Lord" section of Jellicoe's biog was written by me back in about 2013. For what it's worth, they actually toyed with appointing General Robertson as First Lord of the Admiralty before giving it to Geddes.Paulturtle (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Milner was certainly involved in the replacement of Carson by Geddes as First Lord of the Admiralty in July 1917, but I don't think he was actively involved in the sacking of Jellicoe at the end of 1917. He was involved in the removal of Robertson early in 1918, having lost confidence in the generals in 1917 over Third Ypres.Paulturtle (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Response: Lord Milner was 'the wind beneath Lloyd Georges wings' when it came to personnel replacements. Here's an extract from General Haig's papers: Link. Note that Carson was replaced because he supported Jellico, Jellico still refused to turn, and during a war cabinet meeting with the Americans present, he loudly remarked that the British would lose the war by the end of 1917 due to shipping losses. Regarding convoy movements: Although inbound convoys became fully escorted by August, outgoing convoys were not fully escorted until the fall, and there was the attack on the Scandinavian Convoy. Lord Milner (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Historical Speculation/"What If's?" Under "The Peace Treaty" Section Unwarranted.

While the Peace Treaty Section on this article relating to Milner is very specific and focused, the ending of this section beginning with the quote from Marshal Foch seems largely to be unnecessary commentary on the part of the editor. The section goes into quoting many people of tangential (some, even no) relation to Milner himself. The insertion of quotes from those long after Milner's lifetime that discuss the Treaty of Versailles generally and not Milner specifically also seem largely out of place in this Wikipedia article dedicated to him. Perhaps this discussion is much better suited to Treaty of Versailles page itself, where debate and editing for accuracy can be consolidated rather than fought over on a more peripheral article.

Additionally, when my title mentions historical speculation it refers most particularly to this line:

"perhaps the two of them could have persuaded President Wilson to bring the peace treaty closer in line with the Presidents own 14 Points. Certainly, there were those in England who thought that the Prime Minister should have stayed at home and delegated the detailed task of peacemaking to subordinates. Of the allies, the French were the main obstacle to a fairer peace, so the likes of Lord Milner in charge could have been the catalyst for a permanent peace, one that would have avoided the start, just three months later, of Adolf Hitler's rise to power."

This line is clear cut speculation and frankly an expression merely of the editor's opinion, not a statement grounded in fact. We all are entitled to our own opinions but Wikipedia articles, which are meant to approach being unbiased, are not the place to express them. Such a passage is of dubious nature in any Wiki article. Alfred Milner, particularly, is only tangentially related to such speculation. The passage simply should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:e300:1800:8c6:870f:9a33:d73b (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply: Of the 3 sentences, the first two came from a referenced source; they both deserve footnoting. The third sentence I inserted because after finding out (through the Brittanica source) that Hitler's rise to power started in September 1919, I was surprised that it happened just three months after the signing of the peace treaty. Also, it should be a fact to all that the French were the main obstacle to a fair peace. So, I would objectively say that the first third of the sentence is common knowledge, the middle is objective, and the last third is properly sourced. You can't expect us all to be robots.🙂— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A Bad Evaluation

The paragraph from Newbury says Alfred was aloof from politics. This is so not true: he was one of the stars in Salisbury's Unionist government, with others being Arthur Balfour and Joseph Chamberlain. Unionists were to the right of Conservatives. The best way to look at it is here: Unionists were gung-ho for the Empire, Conservatives were anti-Empire, and Liberals were about Home Rule (Irish Independence). The idea of the modern welfare state first appeared in the early years of the twentieth century, influenced by Germany, in the minds of Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George, but this clouds the issue. Milner formed his own political party, the British Workers National League, to swing 'patriotic labour' to the side of the Empire, and he was the founder of The Round Table journal, which gave quarterly updates to the common man on developments in each colony.

The paragraph from from Elkins says Alfred was a racist. However, he was only biased towards what he called, "the British race". A typical example of his writing says, "It is the British Race which built the Empire, and it is the undivided British race which can alone uphold it.... Deeper, stronger, more primordial than material ties is the bond of common blood." Furthermore, if race is a social construct, then there is none better than countries as a race. Advocating one's nation as a race was common with Unionists, and besides, what would be the state of the world today without British intervention?

For these reasons, I think both paragraphs in the articles section should be modified or deleted. Lord Milner (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

References