![]() | The contents of the Oxford Oath page were merged into King and Country debate on 8 May 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
They asked the same question last year Antiparcialidade ( talk) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)