MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997573831

1940년 5월 말 처칠과 협상을 통한 평화의 문제

2019· article· ko· W2997573831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
홍성곤

Bibliographic record

Venue서양사연구 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabinet (room)GermanNegotiationSpanish Civil WarAppeasementHistoryLawCriticismMediationPolitical sciencePoliticsArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Churchill announced for the first time his view towards a negotiated peace with Germany that included Malta and Gibraltar and some African colony at the War Cabinet on 26 May. As a result, on 5 p.m. 26 May the War Cabinet decided that Halifax must draw up the suggestion of Italy’s mediation. But while Halifax considered positively the position of France at the negotiation, Churchill and Chamberlain expressed the tendency to ignore France. But considering the desert of France, Churchill expressed the will of fighting on at the War Cabinet on 4:30 p.m. 27 May. Then Halifax attacked Churchill’s view by pointing out Churchill’s statement at the previous War Cabinet. Because of Halifax’s criticism, if Hitler demand the restoration of the German colony and the supremacy of the central Europe, Churchill expressed the will to accept Germany’s terms. But Churchill did not think that Hitler would suggest the terms corresponding to the British interests. Churchill’s doubts were about whether Hitler wanted a general settlement, which is what Halifax thought possible, or whether it was more likely that he would demand a peace reflecting German military conquests. But the War Cabinet accepted Chamberlain’s view. Though Italy’s mediation might be ineffective, Chamberlain argued that we did not ignore the France’s suggestion and waited the result of Roosevelt approach. But Mussolini rejected the Roosevelt’s mediation, Halifax’s ‘peace now’ was unconvincing at the War Cabinet on 4 p.m. 28 May. In this situation, Churchill accepted Chamberlain’s argument. Now was not the right time to approach Mussolini. If Britain held out she would later be able to obtain terms which did not affect our independence. According to this position, Churchill informed the British position to Reynaud. Thus Chamberlain’s ‘war now, peace later’ line defeated Halifax’s ‘peace now’ line. In this respect, not Churchill but Chamberlain took the lead of the debate of the War Cabinet. Thus considering the result of this study, Ponting’s assesment is correct. There are two significant points about these long debates, held over three days, about whether Britain should ask for peace terms. First, Churchill did not advocate a policy of absolute resistance and fighting on to the end. He favoured fighting on for a few months. Second, Churchill accepted that it might well be necessary to make peace. But Churchill felt that Britain ought to be able to obtain better terms at that stage than when France was collapsing. And in order to obtain that peace Churchill was quite prepared to trade British territory to Germany and Italy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.024

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue서양사연구Same topicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political StudiesFrench-language works237,207