Talk:Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner

Image quality

The image really requires cropping to remove the frame and drop-shadow. If I do it in paint, I'm concerned I'll re-encode the jpeg and lose quality. Does anybody else know how to do this properly? Thanks, - Crosbiesmith 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points, however the picture itself isn't the greatest. Perhaps a better one ought to be found and used? I'll have a trawl through my library tomorrow—there's bound to be a better one which we can use.

Xdamr^talk 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you can use JPEGCrop for lossless JPEG cropping. Dcoetzee 04:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Alfred Milner, Viscount Milner by Hugh de Twenebrokes Glazebrook.jpg

Recently the file File:Alfred Milner, Viscount Milner by Hugh de Twenebrokes Glazebrook.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Unfortunately it's very dark, but appears to be a good color painting showing him in military regalia - perhaps a brightened version could be uploaded. Dcoetzee 04:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember this one its a little to dark but its still as good as it was the day it was painted. Lol Thelitegaurd (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a perfect picture of this in one of the Milner biographies. It should look great on his webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.56.169 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC) The picture mentioned is in the 1979 biography, "Milner" written by Terrance O'Brien. However, it is in black & white. The color painting here is far superior. I downloaded it, lightened it, and fixed cracking in parts. It is a real picture of the portrait in The National Gallery. I would upload it here, but I need a little help with directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.223.117 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the corrected picture of Lord Milner: File:Alfred_Milner,_Viscount_Milner_by_Hugh_de_Twenebrokes_Glazebrook, August 1901, corrected.jpeg

A good black & white picture of this (and other pictures) can be found on Lord Milner's facebook page. Access it through, "External Links". From what I have read, the original oil painting has many chips around the frame, and the picture has turned dark. It is probably unrepairable, least it becomes further damaged by outside chemicals.

I have great pics on "The Man Who Won The War" on Lord Milner's facebook page. Please visit, download them, and load the best one or two up here. It is found here (or in, 'External References', the 4th line down): https://www.facebook.com/pg/Lord-Alfred-Milner-109792770489900/photos/?tab=albums&ref=page_internal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.237.153 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Anglophilia?

Can an Englishman really be described as an Anglophile? john k (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines an "anglophile" as "a person who is not British but who likes Britain or British things very much". The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines it as "a person who is not British but is interested in, likes or supports Britain and its people and customs". So I would say no. Gabbe (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As my cousin 3rd remove alfred did what he could to bring peace to the lands and himself so i could yes i can strongly agree with you he could be discribed as a anglophilliac in all modern sence. Thelitegaurd (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry i mean't cousin 3rd removed Quick family tree from alfreds dad to me. Charles milners brother Authur Authur Milner then his son Charles Milner then his son Raymond Milner then his daughter Carol Milner then her son Jonathan H Baker(Milner)

Thelitegaurd (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No Kindergarten?

We have an article on Milner's kindergarten but no reference to it in this article. Can anyone with any knowledge of it help? Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I find it actually funny ,this lovable obituary for a man that should be known as the inspirator of nazi choices. We all know the brittish racial superiority . This people is so penetrated of this superiority , that since the example of "the man of Piltdown" , we know it's prooven as being great ancestor of the whole simian specie. But presenting the inventor of extermination camps as a great brittish man is equivalent to make a statue to Himmler for the great improving he bring to the Milner invention. I dare not remind people, that it's only because the Boers were fighting for the survival of their family and defeated the brittish army at Magersfontein that the Rothschild's agent : Alfred Milner , forced the colonel Kitchener to commit this filthy crime against mankind . MICHEL SERVET (talk) michel servet MICHEL SERVET (talk)

;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MICHEL SERVET (talk • contribs) 09:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC) 

State your country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.130.194 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is one link about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milner%27s_Kindergarten and another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Round_Table_(journal)

It is a bit of a mystery as to who sent them to South Africa. Lord Milner could have requested them, Joseph Chamberlain, or the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.130.194 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner → Alfred Milner, Viscount Milner – Ordinal numbers are used in peers' names when they need to be distinguished from other holders of the title. This man was the only holder of the Viscountcy of Milner, meaning no such distinction is necessary. --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Zacwill16 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per nom; although why stop here? See Robert Brand, 1st Baron Brand, for instance. Perhaps it's traditional to just name them as such? I don't know... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • ODNB does not use the ordinal for Milner nor for Brand. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Who's Who, however, does. Different house styles. Not relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've requested a move of a couple of other articles I've come across, Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle and William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin; but I'm not sure how I would go about requesting a move of every peer in this situation. Zacwill16 (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. While true that he was the only Viscount Milner, we do use the ordinal with peerages that were created as hereditary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCNOB and per User:Necrothesp's rationale at Talk:William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin#Requested move 26 June 2015 which covers exactly the same issue. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Goes against WP:NCNOB; indicates there are other Viscount Milners. --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309214446/http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/archive_aidbiography.cgi?8 to http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/archive_aidbiography.cgi?8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Architect of Apartheid

A new section Architect of Apartheid has been added. I am quite sure Milner was a racist, as were most people of his time and as are most of us today, but to call him the Architect of Apartheid is a misnomer, that notorious title rightfully belongs to Hendrik Verwoerd. The Alberton Record newspaper which is cited as a reference to support the claim of Milner as the Architect of Apartheid is hardly a reliable source, it is a free community newspaper, and they have quoted sahistory.org.za Lord Alfred Milner, British Colonial Secretary, and architect of the Union of South Africa dies and have leaped from "architect of the Union of South Africa" to "Architect of Apartheid" these are not one and the same thing. I believe that this claim of Milner as Architect of Apartheid poor history and should be removed. Though I believe the issue of his refusal of black US troops in WW1 should remain as part of the article. Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Also, it happened a second time, with Milner's, "British race patriot" phrase. In news stories today out of the West Indies, that phrase has been twisted around and defames him as a super racist. These people have no right to an opinion, no less this slander. Music man214 (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: From this source, http://www.academia.edu/8459292/Apartheid_South_Africa_A_Brief_Overview

“After the South African War of 1899-1902, a trend of visible British complicity in the construction of apartheid could be seen. At the peace of Vereeniging which ended the war (dubbed the white man’s peace), Britain promised the Boers that the question of African enfranchisement would not be decided until the introduction of self-government for the Boer republics. Godfrey Lagden, Governor Alfred Milner’s commissioner of Native Affairs in the Transvaal suggested that in order to guarantee a supply of cheap migrant labor, Africans should be granted limited access to land in the industrial areas. In a comment much like Apartheid jargon, Lagden argued that, “as every rabbit must have a warren where he can live and burrow and breed, so must every African have a warren too” (ibid. p.17). As chairman of Milner’s Native Affairs Commission, Lagden was responsible for the formulation of key segregationist policies that laid the foundation for Apartheid. It was his recommendation that Africans be denied ownership of land, stripped of the right to decide where they lived or worked, or the right to vote for white candidates. Africans should be confined to separate locations and vote for separate, pre-approved white candidates to represent them in parliament.”

A policy of complete separation was best for both sides. They could then go on with their normal lives. Music man214 (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Milner wasn't the architect of apartheid, Verwoerd was. But Milner was a man of quite disagreeable views: idealistic in some ways, frankly nasty in other ways. He wanted to create a British-ruled, white-dominated South Africa, on the model of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, for the greater glory of the Empire, and he thought this could be done by bringing the Afrikaners (Boers) into the imperial fold. And, to do that, you had to let them (and the similarly minded 'Uitlanders', and the Wernher-Beit gold-mining concern) boss the blacks, because they insisted on that. As Milner, the newly installed High Commissioner at Cape Town, wrote to H.H. Asquith on 18 November 1897, 'You have only to sacrifice "the nigger" absolutely and the game is easy.' (Thomas Pakenham, now Earl of Longford, The Boer War, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1979, pbk Abacus, London, 1992, ISBN 0-349-10466-2, pp.119-120, 605.) The letter is in the Asquith papers at the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Milner remains, and always will remain, notorious for that one sentence, which was cynical and offensive even by the standards of the time. Weirdly, this article does not cite or rely on Pakenham's book at all, even though it is the definitive history of the Boer War, which is the only thing that Milner is really remembered for. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The word, 'apartheid' did not enter the Boer lexicon until after World War II (~1948). It stands for keeping people apart. In fact, two committees were set up to research the race problems. The first came back sympathetic to the black cause; the second not sympathetic at all. The SA President went with the latter, and the policy held for decades. The problem with South Africa is that it is a very large country, enough so that the blacks were allowed to stay. They were set up in camps, mostly in the new colonies area, and they gave up their tribal ways. That's all the Dutch did for them (remember who started the slave trade), and they paid a hell of a price for this in 1979 with President Carter. Today there is some sort of copycat game going on, where the blacks have taken over television, and are trying to improve themselves through imitation. And, of course, all the camps are closed, and all the blacks were transferred into new condominiums paid by slashing defense spending and taking on a higher national debt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.237.153 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Doullens

This is a great place to settle the Doullens controversy. What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobody knows for certain, and victory has a thousand fathers, as the saying goes. Everybody wanted to take credit for Foch's appointment when it turned out well. Somebody - I can't for the life of me remember who - wrote that it was a room full of strong-willed men arguing with one another in French (the language of diplomacy at the time - Clemenceau was the only French leader who could speak English) so we shall never know, and the only thing we know for certain is that it didn't happen the way Haig claimed. Haig's diary for this period was almost certainly written up after the event and its accuracy has been called into question.Paulturtle (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Update(March 13, 2020): Today, I think we do know what happened at Doullens. If we look at forensic evidence, including the autobiographies of those present (which would be witness statements, but not testimony, in court), Lord Milner is revealed as the big hero on March 25th (in Paris) and 26th (at Doullens). He went to France on the 24th to find out what was going on, he assured the fate of the Western World on the 25th when got Clemenceau to agree to install Foch as head of the allied armies, and he sealed the deal at Doullens town hall on the 26th. He was also responsible for kicking out the heads of the Army and Navy, he took over as head of the War Office, and he seen the war through to its end. He not only took over as Secretary of State of War, he created the X Committee to manage war strategy with the Prime Minister (it was just the two of them, along with Henry Wilson (friend) and Leo Amery (secretary, typist, and friend)). He had tremendous power and judgement, he used it judiciously, and he is comparable only to Winston Churchill of World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.237.153 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that rather exaggerates his role. He certainly wasn't personally responsible for the removal of Robertson, and I'm not aware he had anything much to do with the removal of Jellicoe. My understanding is that his relations with Lloyd George soured a bit from the spring of 1918 onwards.Paulturtle (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Where are the Milners today?

I bought an ancestry book about 20 years ago, and found that 200 to 225 Milners live in the United States, all over the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Some Milner's live in San Diego. Martin Milner, the Hollywood actor, lived in Los Angeles. Music man214 (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The milners to do with Lord Milner reside in sutton,surrey. This far as i could get towards a actual heir. However it may have been some time scince i looked them up. This done back in 2016. So i they live their still it would be a miricle. I narrowed it down to angel hill, sutton, surrey. Somewhere in area somewhere. I hope this helps. Thelitegaurd (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Cruelty Dispelled

The Good Lord seems to have run afoul with certain people nearly a century after his death. There is a cruel myth about Alfred among certain English that has endured to this day, it paints him as evil, greedy, power hungry, beholden to the wealthy English, and all this is proved by his closeness with the randlords, and his trusteeship over Cecil Rhodes' will. Moreover, he is seen as the head of a secret society that runs everything in England, including foreign policy, which, of course, means orchestrating (self serving) wars for greed. There is a book recently published called, "Lord Milner's Second War" , which people should find and perhaps even buy. I'm sure it's a real gem. There is at least one other book, and perhaps other material on the internet about this. However, I am here to say that none of that is possible. People are not so easily screwed, and Alfred's only reason to orchestrate the, "Round Table movement" was to enhance the power of the Empire, not to enlarge his bank account. Even the Lord Milner Hotel in South Africa is a misnomer. Alfred never lived there. It was built in 1899, and it was home to British Army Headquarters.

Rather than starting wars, Lord Milner was about ending them. People should read the words of American Peace Conference Delegate James Shotwell, found here: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Lord-Alfred-Milner-109792770489900/photos/?tab=album&album_id=111199363682574 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.160.60 (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Did not he want WW1 extended, rather than to end 'early', in 1916...? Didn't he want the Ottoman Empire to stay in the war rather than to leave it? (I am referring to the Morganthau diplomatic expedition to Turkey which was stopped.) I might admit he did well with the British people, but as a statesman of one of the two most powerful empires in the world, did he serve other peoples as well...? (John G. Lewis (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC))

US 92nd Division

Apropos the suggestion that the US 92nd Division might have served alongside the British, Duncan Hill commented (in an edit summary) that Pershing wasn't too keen on US troops serving with British and French. Well, he was fiercely opposed to US troops being integrated into the Allied armies at regiment and battalion level, as Haig and others had suggested.

I haven't found anything very specific, although I haven't looked very hard. I don't know for certain but I suspect this may refer to the US II Corps, which fought alongside the British. It initially consisted of the US 27th, 30th, 33rd, 78th and 80th divisions. The latter three were transferred out when the Allies went back onto the offensive but the 27th and 30th remained under British command until the end of the war.Paulturtle (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I was rather dubious about the assertion, as I knew Pershing had gone out of his way to prevent his troops being trained or brigaded with Allied forces. The statement in the article is referenced to Pershing, John Joseph (1931). "Ch XXX". My experiences in the world war. Vol. Vol. 1. Frederick A. Stokes. p. 46. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help). Now I do not have the book, and only snippets are available on Google Books and search only on Hathi trust, and I can't find it on Archive.org or on a couple of well-known sites that we aren't meant to use. The Google snippet view only shews the name Milner as being on pages 54, 308, and 363. The Hathi Trust says he's mentioned on pages 54, 264, 308, 363, and 397. So - neither gives a result for the claimed page 46. Neither Google Books nor Hathi Trust give a result for 92nd Division, they both give a result for 92+division on page 132, but from the Google snippet this is about the number of machine guns allocated to each division at the beginning of the War. I am therefore going to remove the assertion as being apparently unsupported by the source. I shall ask on WP:RX if anyone can supply the page, or even chapter referred to. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• AHAH! It looks like it's in Volume II, not Volume I, and in Chapter XXIX, not XXX. It's perhaps not quite as clear-cut as the text in our article suggested. Pershing says the American War Office suggested assigning the 92nd to the British, the British attaché in Washington objected, Pershing wrote to Haig and Milner saying they should take them, a few days later Milner wrote back saying it looked like "this difficult question may not be going to trouble us, for I see, from a telegram received from General Wagstaff, that the Divisions so far arrived for training with the British do not include the 92nd", and then Pershing says the Division came over shortly afterwards and was not included among those assigned to the British. See this on Google Books. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So, yes the British did, according to Pershing, object to the 92nd and that was on colour grounds (Milner actually says "administrative trouble"), how much of this was down to Milner himself and how much to the Army we can't say on the evidence in Pershing, and indeed how much account the Americans took of British objections . It would be very interesting to find out more about the episode. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree based on that evidence that Milner seems to have been writing on behalf of the Army authorities (although he didn't disagree strongly enough to overrule them), and that it doesn't seem to have affected the outcome anyway. Might be a mildly interesting addition anyway to shed light on attitudes of the time.Paulturtle (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: Hi. I put that on. I will copy pages about this and post it on the facebook website. I will get back to you as to where you can find it. I was hoping that someone here can add a line in the 'External links' section of the Lord's Wikipedia page, to link the following: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Lord-Alfred-Milner-109792770489900/photos/?tab=albums&ref=page_internal Thank you.

Load a Picture

How do I load a picture? I have many pictures I would like to load, but I don't know how to load a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs) 07:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Loading pictures onto Wikipedia is a tedious process. To do this, you must:

1.  Make sure your pictures are ready to upload.
2.  Go to WikiMedia and create an account (this is not WikiPedia).
3.  Log into WikiMedia and select the pictures you have from your hard drive (select, "upload file" from the left hand column).
4.  Follow the upload instructions, and prepare to type in bibliography information.
5.  Use the default copyright field provided by wikiMedia.
6.  Once uploaded to wikiMedia, verify your work at the "Uploads" tab located at the top right of the main wikiMedia screen. Your picture(s)
    will soon (within a few hours or days) be reviewed by an editor.  You may have copyright problems, in which case you will be given a
    10 day deadline to have your work fixed or deleted. If this happens, you should closely follow the instructions given.  It would behoove you to
    open a blank page on Word or in Notebook, and copy important links you find relating to: wikiMedia copyright codes for all countries, important
    definitions like, "fair use policy", "derivative work", and generally, procedures used to update copyright fields.
7.  When a picture is uploaded to wikiMedia and has a copyright problem, think of it as being held in queue, pending deletion.  All corrections must
    be made in the "Edit" tab at the top of the screen (select the picture, then select, "Edit").  On the "source" line, type the name of the book,
    its publisher, and the year it was published (for an internet site, insert the http address).  Beneath this, on the "author" line, type the name
    of the author, and if he is deceased, next to his name type, ", died xxxx."  Under the "license-header" line, type the wikiMedia copyright code
    that applies (all codes are enclosed in {{ }} brackets).  Codes are country specific.  Remember that:
   a.  In the US, the government does not retain copyright ownership over materials.  All Government owned pictures, including those contracted out 
       to vendors, who are then paid by the government, are in the public domain (PD).  They are free to use.  However, insert the code.  The opposite
       is true in the UK, where vendors (photographers) have copyright ownership until 70 years after their death. 
   b.  Many government pictures are used by authors in books.  The book is called a secondary, or "derivative" work, and because it is 
       surrounded by other useful material, the author has a copyright claim.  For this, a second wikiMedia code must be inserted next to the 
       first code (see "a" above).  In the UK, copyright ownership exists for 70 years after the author dies; in the US, 50 years; the EU and 
       Russia follow UK policy.  Insert the right code.
   c.  If you load unique content that you created, law gives you automatic copyright ownership.  However, wikiMedia requires you to insert a 
       code even for your own work.  If you have a collage photograph from many pictures (made from off the self software, or your PC), each 
       picture has its own copyright status, in addition to your own unique work.  In this case three codes need to be added: one for the 
       source work, one for the most recent derivative work, and one for yourself.  If you combine 17 or 18 old pictures onto one photograph, 
       you should add line items for each picture under the "author" line of the "Edit" tab (use the return key to add as many lines as 
       needed, and add each work in a standard bibliography format.  At the end of each line, add, "Author died xxxx", or, "Author not deceased").
8.  To move your picture from wikiMedia to wikiPedia, go to your picture screen, select, "Use this file" from the center submenu, select "Thumbnail",
    select the entire field under "Thumbnail", right click on your mouse and select, "copy", open a new page on windows (select the "+" next to the
    tab at the top of your page), go to your wikiPedia page, go to the paragraph where you want to insert the picture, select, "edit source" create
    a few lines with your return key, and insert the code at the top of the paragraph (right click, and "paste").  Next, select the "show preview" box
    and review your change.  By default, wikiPedia automatically inserts pictures at the right side of the page.  If you prefer your picture to appear
    on the left side of the page, insert "|left" immediately after, "|thumb" on the line you copied and pasted from wikiMedia.  Verify your change, and
    then select, "Publish changes".    

~~from "The Monday Night Cabal"~~

A list of all copyright tags are found here: All Copyright Tags Lord Milner (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Lord Milner"

There is an editor using the name Lord Milner who has been very active on this page recently. He doesnt have his own user page. I am sure he means well and some of the edits are very useful. Some I don't understand -mostly to do with refs. Some however seem to be done for the sake of it. The ones that annoy me are those where he insists on using US spelling. I have corrected him on a number of occasions on spelling and other things and have always given my reasons. He rarely summarises his edits or gives reasons. Please Lord Milner could you respond? I am sure you act in good faith. So do I and I always try to improve articles. Even if we disagree on things we should have constructive disagreement and act collaboratively with a view to making a better encyclopedia.Does anybody else have any comments? Spinney Hill (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Response: Of course, I will use correct British english. I suppose this occurs because the internet address begins with, "en", but I'm not certain. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Also, I apologize for making changes and linking them up later. It is much easier for me to do it this way. All is linked up now, and if there are any questions, please post them below, and I will address them. LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"En.wikipedia.org" in fact refers to the English language version of Wikipedia as opposed to the version in French,German,Spanish etc. I have just seen a reference to the "ja" version which is in Japanese. However the English version is used by all English speakers all over the world and has contributors in US, Britain,Ireland,Australia,Canada etc. However there are lots of different versions of English and each user (myself and yourself included) would like to use their own version.) There has to be a compromise. Wikipedia is a US invention and I suppose the default version is US English but a convention has evolved that where an article has a particular connection with a particular country that country's version of English should be used. Thus in an article about the British Royal Family British English should be used, in an article about an Australian City (eg Melbourne) Australian English should be used and in an article about George Washington US English should be used. The Manual of Style has quite a lot to say about the subject. but it can be summed up as this template message :

   " Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

     For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, 
     Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

     In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia 
     articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you."

The bit about international subjects seems to be a weak link in the argument. I once changed an article about a German battleship which only ever fought the British Navy and was roundly told off for this. US does seem to be the default for international articles. this seems to have some peculiar results we all have to live with. The general article on the First World War (sorry World War I) is in US English. The Battle of the Somme (fought by the British and Empire, France and Germany) is in British. "Gallipoli (fought by Britain,France,Australia,New Zealand and Turkey) is in British but an article about the ANZACs might be in Australian (not quite the same as British.) Milner is an international figure, having been born in Germany to British parents and educated in Germany, and spent time in South Africa and Egypt but would have thought of himself as English or British. There is a quote from Milner to that effect in the article. so I think this article ought to be in British English. Hope you can follow this.Spinney Hill (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Response: Yes! Thank you.

Bad Rap

Lord Milner's Second War

File:Lord Milner's Second War book summary.png

Lord Milner's Second War book summary

What is this? I'm not from England, but perhaps someone can explain to us how this cult like, conspiracy thinking started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Biography Information on Lord Milner (South Africa)

Peace in South Africa: 6/21/02

Debating martial law: 9/12/02

Lord Milner tours South Africa: 12/1/02

Joseph Chamberlain arrives in Johannesburg: 1/17/03

Lord Milner as England's next colonial secretary? 9/28/03, declines the offer 10/5/03

A full page "Appreciation" for his work in South Africa: 4/4/05

Forging the South African Constitution: 7/24/06

Lord Selborne returns from South Africa (half page news story): 6/4/10

The status of South Africa:1/1/60

Biography Information on Lord Milner (1906 to 1921)

On Chinese labor: 1/13/06, 3rd column

A Chinese labour amendment: 3/14/06

Reaction to censure request: 3/20/06, 3/21/06, pg. 5, column 1 & column 6, & pg. 7, 3/22/06, 3/24/06, 3/28/06 & 8/9/06

An Appreciation from The House of Lords (full page): 3/30/06, pg. 6, & pg. 7, first 4 columns

A dinner for Lord Milner (full page news story): 5/25/06

A speech about South Africa: 6/1/07, & reaction: 6/8/07

On Imperial Unity: 6/1/07

On tariff reform (creating a free trade zone with the Dominions): 5/29/08, 1/6/10, 6/8/10

Excerpts from "The Nation and the Empire": 5/15/13, pg. 7, column 6, and pg. 8, columns 1 thru 3

On truth & leadership: 11/1/15

On food production: 6/1/18

Speech on Armistice Day: 11/11/18, column 3

On Why Milner submitted a Resignation Letter: from Tempestuous Journey, Lloyd George His Life and Times, pgs. 503-504, 12/7/18

On his appointment as Colonial Secretary: 1/19/19

...on Egypt: 2/19/21, 3/4/21

...on Rhodesia: 1/27/21

...on fighting tropical diseases: 2/28/21

On the war debt: 7/3/19, 11/25/21

...on German reparations to Dominion allies: 7/7/21

Foch's interview with the Le Matin newspaper regarding Doullens: 1/17/21 (US Congress Document# 354)

A British League of Nations (PM talk): 2/16/21

On War Cabinet Responsibilities: 2/6/40, & 2/7/40

On his retirement: 1/7/21 & 1/8/21, and compliments: 1/21/21

His successor: 1/17/21, tory discontent: 6/10/21

Biography Information on Lord Milner (post retirement)

From, "The Times":

On his retirement: 1/7/21, 1/14/21,1/21/21, 2/5/21, & 2/14/21

On the June 1921 Colonial Conference: 6/20/21, pg. 11

On his promotion at the Pall Mall Gazette: 10/31/23

His report on Egypt, released 2/19/21, and remembered on 11/26/36

Peerage: 2/16/21

...a boat named "Lord Milner": 2/25/21

Married: 2/28/21

The retirement of General Sir Henry Wilson: 2/18/22

on Kenya (an editorial): 6/5/23

A review of his book, "Questions of the Hour": 6/8/23, & 6/18/23

Attends a concert at Albert Hall with the King and Queen: 6/19/23

Address to the Boy Scouts: 1/7/24

on the Rhodes Trust: 6/13/21, pgs. 10 & 15

Holds a Conservative meeting at Sturry Court: 7/21/24

To visit South Africa with his wife: 10/9/24

Accepts candidacy to be the next Chancellor of Oxford: 4/24/25, approved 5/6/25, and elected 5/16/25

His sickness, 4/30/25, 5/2/25, 5/11/25, and death: 5/14/25, pg. 17 & pg. 18

...funeral service: 5/15/25 & commemoration 5/18/25

...A tribute from General Smuts: 5/15/25, and "An Appreciation" from Leo Amery: 5/16/25

Lord Milner on fame: 5/19/25

A comment about South Africa: 7/8/25

Some of Lord Milner's notes to be published: 7/24/25, 8/17/25 & 10/22/25.

His Credo published: 7/27/25

...recommendation that it be published and taught to all schoolchildren: 7/29/25

...the Indian reaction 8/5/25

A Times news story about Lord Milner and Doullens: 3/26/26, columns 3 & 4, and a tribute by W. Basil Worsfold, column 6, & pg. 16

...editorials (one pro and one con): 3/27/26

...and rebuke: 3/30/26

On race in South Africa: 4/9/26

Smuts on Lord Milner's role in creating a home for the Jews: 4/29/26

Sturry Court gifted to Kings School, Canterbury: 2/12/27

Extracts from Winston Churchill's Book, "The World Crisis": 2/24/27, pg. 15 & pg. 16

Memorial fund set up for a plaque at Westminster Abbey: 3/22/26, 7/19/26, 7/26/27, 3/27/30, pg. 15 & pg. 16

...picture of the plaque: 3/22/30

Comments about General Haig: 2/9/28

Lady Milner deposits important Doullens documents at the Record Office: 5/22/28

The Death of Marshal Foch: 3/21/29

Reference to Lord Milner and Doullens in the journal United Empire: 5/2/29

The ground breaking of Milner Court at Canterbury School by Violet Milner & Leo Amery: 7/19/28; announcement 9/24/29, and opening, 10/5/29 & 10/7/29

Dedication of a Chapel in Canterbury to Lord Milner: 10/30/28

The Death of Georges Clemenceau: 11/25/29

Memorial at Toynbee Hall, Oxford: 5/11/31 & 5/19/31

Responsible for having Empire Day officially recognized: 5/23/31

A Bust of Lord Milner at Doullens Town Hall: 10/9/33 and 11/13/33

Volumes 1 & 2 of The Milner Papers are published: 11/2/33 & 11/14/33, and acclaimed: 3/18/32

Volume 3, on The Great War, to be written: 8/7/34 (the author died five days later)

Lord Milner & Doullens by Grace Julia Parker Drummond: 7/4/36

A dedication at Oxford for his leadership in South Africa: 10/12/36

Obituary of writer W.B. Worsfold: 9/28/39

Volume 3 of The Milner Papers delayed: 2/6/40 (from Maurice Headlam, the author's relative)

Memorial in Canterbury: 10/31/49

A Centenial tribute from Oxford, 3/13/54, Leo Amery 3/23/54

...and a retired army officer: 3/24/54

A Tribute by Frederick Sykes: 3/26/54

Evelyn Wrench to write Lord Milner's Biography: 8/23/55,

Comments from H.C. Thornton: 8/31/55

Review of Wrench's Book, "Geoffrey Dawson and Our Times": 11/28/55

Review of Wrench's book, "Alfred Lord Milner, The Man of No Illusions": 8/21/58

=

First World War :politics

Spinney Hill (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)=== It was proposed there be a war cabinet headed (or "headed up") by Lloyd George but with Asquith in charge. I do not understand this. Can it be clarified? How could Lloyd George head the war cabinet without being in charge? In British politics the Proime Minister is head of the cabinet (or has been since Walpole). therefore the text as it is at present is contradictory. Is it supposed to mean that Asquith would be Prime Minister in name only? Is it that the "war cabinet" was actually going to be a sub-committee of the cabinet with every decision going before the full cabinet or being approved by Asquith before being put into effect? Does it mean something else.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorted. The Fall of Asquith deserves an entire article (and will one day get one, no doubt). This article exaggerates Milner's role in those events. The plan was for Lloyd George to chair a small committee to run the war (one of whose members was to have been Carson) - Asquith initially agreed on condition it reported to him daily and he was entitled to attend if he wished. I dare say it would technically have been a Cabinet Committee as Asquith was a stickler for that sort of thing. In practice he would soon have been turned into a figurehead PM. However, although his conduct of the war had been increasingly criticised, everyone wanted to keep him either as PM or serving in a new government, both because he was still well-respected and because people feared a split in which the Irish and most Liberals might turn against the war (a repetition of what had happened in the Boer War). In May 1940, one of Halifax's reasons for declining the premiership was that he would have been a figurehead with Churchill running the war, just like the mooted Asquith-Lloyd George arrangement of December 1916.Paulturtle (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Response: The setup was analogous to the French Government after Prime Minister Clemenceau's return in late 1917: Clemenceau, as Prime Minister, was still the Vice President, yet delegated to himself (or had been delegated, I'm not sure which) the responsibility of running the war. Raymond Poincaré was the President, but never interfered. In late 1916, Prime Minister Asquith had agreed to this too. However, The Times newspaper story looked looked to Asquith like he had been betrayed, causing him to back out. This prompted both Bonar Law and Lloyd George to submit their resignations, which shortly thereafter led to Asquith's downfall. The King, by the way, wanted Bonar Law to form a new government. However, he declined, and instead offered up the name of Lloyd George. There is talk that Bonar Law and Lloyd George conspired for this to happen, but no evidence has ever surfaced. This is similar to the conspiracy rumour that the Ginger Group orchestrated Asquith's downfall with the newspaper story. No evidence can be found of this either, so if it was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy of one, Geoffrey Dawson. Lord Milner (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of this is right, and some of it isn't. It is not in any way analogous to the situation in France. French presidents were usually figureheads (until 1958-9 when de Gaulle came back). As a former Prime Minister, Poincare was unusually powerful for a French President, even after the socialists came to power under Viviani in 1914, because Viviani was weak - so Poincare played the dominant role in the July Crisis in 1914. Once stronger Prime Ministers were in office - Aristide Briand, Ribot/Painleve and then above all Clemenceau - Poincare was put back in his box, although he kept up the pretence by inviting himself to meetings whenever possible. Of course Poincare had a role as Head of State chairing the French supreme war body (I forget what it was called), but he no longer had much control over policy. Clemenceau was also Minister of War, making him even more powerful.

Lloyd George may well have played a role in the newspaper story which incensed Asquith. Lloyd George resigned after Asquith reneged on the deal, but Bonar Law certainly didn't - he was too weak a leader to risk his own position. By 1921-2 Bonar Law was a respected elder statesman, but in 1916 he was still a man of limited ministerial experience who had become leader by default, with little control over people like Balfour, Austen Chamberlain, Curzon etc. After Asquith resigned, the King asked Bonar Law to form a government - this was perfectly normal practice, as he was leader of the next largest party. He refused, preferring to serve under Lloyd George. Although the plotters would have preferred Asquith to remain as a figurehead PM, it seems unlikely that they had not discussed the contingent possibility of Lloyd George becoming Prime Minister.Paulturtle (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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