Zionism and the Jewish Question in British Wartime Policy
- The De Bunsen Committee's report on British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire in 1915 did not address Zionism and the Jewish question.
- A memorandum by William Reginald Hall in 1916 highlighted the Jews' strong material and political interests in Palestine, as well as the importance of Zionism and British control of Palestinian railways.
- The omission of Zionism and the Jewish question in the report and the recognition of Jewish influence in the region raised concerns and called for considerations in future agreements.
- ベストアンサー
英文翻訳をお願いいたします。
Zionism and the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the De Bunsen Committee, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915. In a 12 January 1916 memorandum commenting on a draft of the agreement, William Reginald Hall, British Director of Naval Intelligence criticised the proposed agreement on the basis that "the Jews have a strong material, and a very strong political, interest in the future of the country" and that "in the Brown area the question of Zionism, and also of British control of all Palestine railways, in the interest of Egypt, have to be considered".
- 阿部 結唯（@iwano_aoi）
- お礼率88% (2878/3254)
- 英語
- 回答数1
- ありがとう数1
- みんなの回答 （1）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
以下のとおりお答えします。 ユダヤ国家設立のための条文草稿に対する反論について述べています。 ＞Zionism and the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the De Bunsen Committee*, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915. ⇒シオニズムおよびユダヤ人の問題は、オスマン帝国に対する英国の戦時政策を決定するために準備され、1915年6月に提出された「デ・ブンゼン委員会」*の報告によっては考慮されなかった。 ＊De Bunsen Committee「デ・ブンゼン委員会」：オスマン帝国に対する英国の戦時政策を策定するために、英国議会のアスキス首相によって1915年に設立された委員会。委員長のモーリス・デ・ブンセンの名を冠してこう呼ばれる。 ＞In a 12 January 1916 memorandum commenting on a draft of the agreement, William Reginald Hall, British Director of Naval Intelligence criticised the proposed agreement on the basis that "the Jews have a strong material, and a very strong political, interest in the future of the country" and that "in the Brown area the question of Zionism, and also of British control of all Palestine railways, in the interest of Egypt, have to be considered". ⇒協定の草稿を論評している1916年1月12日の覚書において、英国海軍諜報部の長官ウィリアム・レジナルド・ホールは、「ユダヤ人は物質的には強い関心を、政治的には非常に強い関心を、国の未来について抱いている」こと、および「褐色皮膚の地域では、シオニズムの問題も、また全パレスチナ鉄道に対する英国の支配権も、エジプトの利益に鑑みつつ考慮されるべきである」こと、（以上の２項）に基づいて、提案された協定を批判した。
関連するQ&A
- 英文翻訳をお願いします。
In Britain, an Offensive sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was appointed on 5 August and established a principle that command of the seas was to be ensured and that objectives were considered only if they could be attained with local forces and if the objective assisted the priority of maintaining British sea communications, as British army garrisons abroad were returned to Europe in an "Imperial Concentration". Attacks on German coaling stations and wireless stations were considered to be important to clear the seas of German commerce raiders. Objectives at Tsingtau in the Far East and Luderitz Bay, Windhoek, Duala and Dar-es-Salaam in Africa and a German wireless station in Togoland, next to the British colony of Gold Coast in the Gulf of Guinea, were considered vulnerable to attack by local or allied forces.
- ベストアンサー
- 病気
- 英文翻訳をお願いします。
In 2007, Sheldon wrote that although German casualties from 1 June – 10 November were 217,194, a figure available in Volume III of the Sanitätsbericht (1934), Edmonds may not have included them as they did not fit his case. Sheldon recorded 182,396 slightly wounded and sick soldiers not struck off unit strength, which if included would make 399,590 German losses. The British claim to have taken 24,065 prisoners has not been disputed. In 1940, C. R. M. F. Cruttwell recorded 300,000 British casualties and 400,000 German. Wolff in 1958, gave German casualties as 270,713 and 448,688 British. In 1959, Cyril Falls estimated 240,000 British, 8,525 French and 260,000 German casualties. John Terraine followed Falls in 1963 but did not accept that German losses were as high as 400,000. A. J. P. Taylor in 1972, wrote that the Official History had performed a "conjuring trick" on these figures and that no one believed these "farcical calculations". Taylor put British wounded and killed at 300,000 and German losses at 200,000. In 1977, Terraine argued that twenty percent needed to be added to the German figures for some lightly wounded men, who would have been included under British definitions of casualties, making German casualties c. 260,400. Terraine refuted Wolff (1958), who despite writing that 448,614 British casualties was the total for the BEF in the second half of 1917, neglected to deduct 75,681 British casualties for the Battle of Cambrai given in the Official Statistics, from which he quoted or "normal wastage", averaging 35,000 per month in "quiet" periods. Prior and Wilson in 1997, gave British losses as 275,000 and German casualties just under 200,000. Hagenlücke in 1997, gave c. 217,000 German casualties. Sheffield wrote in 2002, that Holmes's guess of 260,000 casualties on both sides seemed about right. Night action of 1/2 December 1917 and Action on the Polderhoek Spur On the night of 24/25 November, two battalions of the 8th Division advanced the line to the ridge crest and a German counterattack on 30 November was a costly failure.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文翻訳をお願いいたします。
Given the eventual defeat in 1918 and subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the agreement effectively divided the Ottoman's Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control and influence. An "international administration" was proposed for Palestine. The British gained control of the territory in 1920 and ruled it as Mandatory Palestine from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled Mandatory Iraq from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946. The terms were negotiated by the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks published the agreement on 23 November 1917 "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted."
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文翻訳をお願いします。
Prior and Wilson wrote that the success of the Second Army was exaggerated because of the lower expectations created by the partial repulses inflicted by the Germans on 31 July, the failures in the rains during August and the British success against the German counter-attacks on 20 September, especially on the Gheluvelt Plateau. In his 2008 biography of Haig, J. P. Harris wrote that the British had frontally attacked exceptionally strong defences with an apparently unfavourable number of troops but that they had been given much more fire support, the British artillery enjoying a 3:1 superiority in numbers, creating an "unprecedented" concentration of fire. The Second Army had three times the artillery of 31 July and the Fifth Army double the guns. The British gunners produced a "wall of fire" 1,000 yd (910 m) deep, that swept the ground and then continued as a standing barrage for several hours after the end of the infantry advance. The attack had not been uniformly successful but the average advance was 1,250 yd (1,140 m) and German casualties were about the same, most of their counter-attacks being deluged with artillery-fire and becoming costly failures. Harris wrote that Haig got over-enthusiastic and wanted the next attack to begin on 26 September, followed by two more in quick succession. Moving guns forward reduced the British rate of fire that gave the Germans a respite and they managed an organised counter-attack (Gegenangriff) on 25 September, south of Polygon Wood and although the attackers had "massive" casualties, the British attack the next day was disorganised and captured less ground. British casualties from 20–25 September are given by the British Official Historian as 20,255; 3,148 being killed, the 19th Division lost 1,933 casualties. 3,243 prisoners were taken with "very heavy" losses of killed or wounded inflicted on the German defenders. The Official Historian's calculations of German losses have been severely criticised ever since. In 1942 Volume XIII of Der Weltkrieg recorded 25,000 casualties from 11–20 September, including 6,500 missing. Subsequent operations Main article: Action of 25 September 1917 Minor attacks took place after 20 September as both sides jockeyed for position and reorganised their defences.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文翻訳をお願いいたします。
Since the Sykes–Picot Agreement, the League of Nations mandate system had been adopted. If a mandate were granted by the League of Nations over these territories, France wanted that part[which?] put aside for it. Lloyd George said that the League of Nations was unable to break the conditions the British treaty with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, referred to in the notes as King Hussein. He asked if the French intended to occupy Damascus as such a move would be a violation of the treaty the British had with Hussein. Stéphen Pichon replied that France had no convention with King Hussein. Lloyd George said that the whole of the Sykes-Picot Agreement was based on McMahon–Hussein Correspondence from Sir Henry McMahon to King Hussein, on the basis of which King Hussein had committed his resources to help Britain win the war against the Ottomans in World War I. Lloyd George claimed that France had for practical purposes accepted the British commitment to King Hussein by signing the Sykes-Picot agreement. If the British Government now agreed that Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo should be included in the sphere of direct French influence, they would be breaking their word to the Arabs, and they were unwilling to do this.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文翻訳をお願いします。
The Third Battle of Ypres became controversial while it was being fought and has remained so, with disputes about the predictability of the August deluges and for its mixed results, which in much of the writing in English, is blamed on misunderstandings between Gough and Haig and on faulty planning, rather than on the resilience of the German defence.Operations in Flanders, Belgium had been desired by the British Cabinet, Admiralty and War Office since 1914. Douglas Haig succeeded John French as Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force on 19 December 1915. A week after his appointment, Haig met Vice-Admiral Reginald Bacon, who emphasised the importance of obtaining control of the Belgian coast, to end the threat from German naval forces based in Bruges. In January 1916, Haig ordered General Henry Rawlinson to plan an attack in the Ypres Salient. The need to support the French army during the Battle of Verdun 21 February – 18 December 1916 and the demands of the Somme battles 1 July – 18 November 1916, absorbed the British Expeditionary Force's offensive capacity for the rest of the year. On 22 November Haig, Chief of the Imperial General Staff William Robertson, First Sea Lord Admiral Henry Jackson and Dover Patrol commander Vice-Admiral Reginald Bacon, wrote to General Joffre urging that the Flanders operation be undertaken in 1917, which Joffre accepted.In late 1916 and early 1917, military leaders in Britain and France were optimistic that the casualties they had inflicted on the German army at the Battle of Verdun, the Battle of the Somme and on the Eastern Front had brought the German army close to exhaustion, although the effort had been immensely costly. At the conference in Chantilly in November 1916 and a series of subsequent meetings, the Entente agreed on an offensive strategy to overwhelm the Central Powers by means of simultaneous attacks on the Western, Eastern and Italian Fronts. The Prime Minister David Lloyd George, sought to limit British casualties and proposed an offensive on the Italian front. British and French artillery would be transferred to Italy to add weight to the offensive.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文翻訳をお願いいたします。
The British notes taken during a meeting of the The Big Four held in Paris on March 20, 1919 and attended by Woodrow Wilson, Georges Clemenceau, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando as well as Lloyd George and Lord Balfour, and Lloyd George explained the British point of view concerning the agreement. The notes revealed that the blue area in which France was "allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they may desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States" did not include, according to the British, Damascus, Homs, Hama, or Aleppo. In area A (the blue area in the map) France was "prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States'.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文翻訳をお願いします。
Germany attempted to use Indian nationalism and pan-Islamism to its advantage. She tried instigating uprisings in India, and sent a mission to Afghanistan urging her to join the war on the side of Central powers. However, contrary to British fears of a revolt in India, the outbreak of the war saw an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and goodwill towards Britain. Indian political leaders from the Indian National Congress and other groups were eager to support the British war effort, since they believed that strong support for the war effort would further the cause of Indian Home Rule.[citation needed] The Indian Army in fact outnumbered the British Army at the beginning of the war; about 1.3 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while the central government and the princely states sent large supplies of food, money, and ammunition. In all, 140,000 men served on the Western Front and nearly 700,000 in the Middle East. Casualties of Indian soldiers totalled 47,746 killed and 65,126 wounded during World War I. The suffering engendered by the war, as well as the failure of the British government to grant self-government to India after the end of hostilities, bred disillusionment and fuelled the campaign for full independence that would be led by Mohandas K. Gandhi and others.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文の意味が良く分かりません。
以下の文章の和訳を教えて頂けると助かります。 ----------------------------------------------------------- DECLARATION OF INTERESTS IN CONTRACTS OR ARRANGEMENTS Each of the directors present confirmed that he or she had considered the nature and extent of any interest he or she had in the matters being discussed at the meeting and to the extent necessary declared the nature and extent of any such interest in accordance with the Companies Act and the Company's articles of association. ------------------------------------------------------------ Each of the directors present confirmed that he or she had considered the nature and extent of any interest he or she had in the matters being discussed at the meeting のあたりが いまいち良く分かりません。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 英文を訳して下さい。
Russian claims in the Ottoman Empire were denied following the Bolshevik Revolution and the Bolsheviks released a copy of the Sykes–Picot Agreement (as well as other treaties). They revealed full texts in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917; subsequently, the Manchester Guardian printed the texts on November 26, 1917. This caused great embarrassment between the allies and growing distrust between them and the Arabs. The Zionists were similarly upset,[citation needed] with the Sykes–Picot Agreement becoming public only three weeks after the Balfour Declaration. The Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918 pledged that Great Britain and France would "assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia" by "setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations". The French had reluctantly agreed to issue the declaration at the insistence of the British. Minutes of a British War Cabinet meeting reveal that the British had cited the laws of conquest and military occupation to avoid sharing the administration with the French under a civilian regime. The British stressed that the terms of the Anglo-French declaration had superseded the Sykes–Picot Agreement in order to justify fresh negotiations over the allocation of the territories of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
回答ありがとうございました。