The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Why ? If he had chosen otherwise he would have been a german ally.
No, he would have been neutral to ALL parties, there would have been no war in Belgium, his country would have been saved, and he would have been perceived as a person who saved Belgium from the horrors of WWI, like the leader of Luxembourg.
Instead he chose war and is responsible for the horror that war visited upon his country.
Originally posted by molly bloom
The Germans did indeed fear a declaration of war from the United States, but only because of their resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare.
Obtuse Ned ? Not at all.
Finally you agree with something I said. The Germans set the Z note because she feared a DOW by the US because of the resumption of unrestricted sub warfare.
Like it or not, but Britain was the mother country and played to her strengths in that regard. Germany was clearly seen as the aggressor with her invasion of Belgium, had brought a savage U-Boat campagn to the Atlantic and wasn't making American money.
Britain having blockaded Germany and used precident from the US Civil War to prevent trade via neutral Holland a la the Union for ships going via Mexico was no longer making America cash, Britain and France were willing to mortgage everything on victory and Britain had deep pockets and interests that America would do well to inherit.
Had Germany won, it'd have made for a dangerous new power dominating Europe, something that has never been considered a good idea by those not doing the dominating.
That Germany was stirring up Mexico, that just gave an excellent reason to go to War for peace and democracy.
But, most of all this key statement of the time:
"If you turned Hell over, it'd say 'Made in Germany' on the back".
I think the Herero's would agree, Germany was easily the most vile country of the 20th Century.
'If' and only 'if' the Germans violated Belgian neutrality.
Is there some kind of logic deficiency disease going around where you live ?
Really, you should stop trying to pass the buck here.
I'm sorry, molly, but the issue of studious stupidity is for the people who seem to want to deny that Albert knew the Brits would support him if the Germans came across the border and he chose to fight.
Now, with this final link, you have no final barricade behind which to hide in you denials of this simple fact. But still you insist your denials are logical, which they are not.
No, they decided to intervene ONLY in case of a German attack on Belgium or on the French ports on the north coast! Read your source carefully:
The very last part of this paragraph, "British intervention becomes inevitable" is written in hindsight, as at that time the Germans had already decided to attack Belgium. This, however, was so far unknown to the British government.
I must admit that I have a hard time discussing things with people who insist they are right and I am wrong when we are in complete agreement.
No, he would have been neutral to ALL parties, there would have been no war in Belgium, his country would have been saved, and he would have been perceived as a person who saved Belgium from the horrors of WWI, like the leader of Luxembourg.
Letting another countrys army pass trough to make an attack on a third isn't considered neutral.
Are you suggesting that if germany attacked france trough belgium and france managed to fend of the attack, that they should have stopped attacking the german forces when they retired to belgium soil ? By your logic they shouldn't stop because they didn't attack belgium, just german forces. Does it really make sense to you that the belgian should sit back and enjoy the sight of two foreign armies fighting a battle outside their windows ?
Instead he chose war and is responsible for the horror that war visited upon his country.
You are really turning things upside down - it was the germans that chose to wage war against the belgians. If they hadn't given the ultimatum there wouldn't have been a belgian-german war.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
No, he would have been neutral to ALL parties, there would have been no war in Belgium, his country would have been saved, and he would have been perceived as a person who saved Belgium from the horrors of WWI, like the leader of Luxembourg.
Instead he chose war and is responsible for the horror that war visited upon his country.
You'd have all neutral powers lie supinely on their backs to aggressors...Germany needed putting down, pity it was done so ineffectually the first time around, the Kaiser should have hung and the Terms of Versailles enforced with rigor, or Germany dissolved back into Bavaria, Saxony and Prussia to keep them from getting stupid ideas.
No, the Belgian government / King Albert decided to go to war before they learned about Britain's decision. Look at the timeline again: the German ultimatum was given to the Belgians on August 2nd, at 7.20pm. Less than 2 hours later, at 9.00pm, King Albert announces that Belgium will resist a German attack:
At 9.00pm he only announced a decision that was made by the Prime Minister (at the same time Minister of War) and the Foreign Minister only minutes after the note was received. For reference, see Tuchmann, Guns of August, p. 114/115.
No British telegram arrived in Belgium before 9.00pm - it's not in the timeline, and it's not mentioned in the literature. Sadly the exact time when the British learned about the German ultimatum not known - the timeline is very vague ("evening"), and I found only the statement that Grey (the British Foreign Minister) received a "warning" about an imminent German invasion of Belgium while "dining with Haldane".
I have no idea why this is relevant, though. I guess you'll use it to bolster your argument that King Albert was a blood-thirsty warmonger?
Are you ignoring the Brit cabinet vote that morning to intervene in the event that Germany invaded Belgium?
Regardless of whether there was a telegram sent, all he would have to do is read the afternoon press or his own traffic from Britain -- that is, unless the Brits intentionally kept the decision secret even from Belgium.
It even goes a bit further then that. After the Napoleontic wars a united Netherlands was created to keep France in check so that France would never again be able to afflict havoc in Europe (read: destroy Germany or threaten British domination of the seas). If anything, the independent Belgium that emerged after the union with Holland proved to be impossible received it's neutrality guaranties for exaclty the same reasons. Germany never had anything to fear from Belgium: it was there for their benefit.
But, IIRC, the neutrality clause was added at the insistence of the Brits.
Letting another countrys army pass trough to make an attack on a third isn't considered neutral.
Are you suggesting that if germany attacked france trough belgium and france managed to fend of the attack, that they should have stopped attacking the german forces when they retired to belgium soil ? By your logic they shouldn't stop because they didn't attack belgium, just german forces. Does it really make sense to you that the belgian should sit back and enjoy the sight of two foreign armies fighting a battle outside their windows ?
You are really turning things upside down - it was the germans that chose to wage war against the belgians. If they hadn't given the ultimatum there wouldn't have been a belgian-german war.
I have already said that the worst case would be that the war between France and Germany would actually be fought in Belgium. That was a fact of life that could not be avoided once Germany made its intentions clear.
The only issue would be whether one of the warring parties would view Belgium as an enemy and deliberately destroy Belgian cities, towns and villages and kill thousands, rendering the entire country a international basket case that depended on food and other aid from outside the country to survive.
The Germans did not choose to wage war against Belgium so long as she did not choose to wage war against her. Twice Germany offered peace and twice she was turned down.
Albert chose sides in the war between Germany and France and was not neutral to Germany to whom she owned a duty to be neutral.
I have already said that the worst case would be that the war between France and Germany would actually be fought in Belgium. That was a fact of life that could not be avoided once Germany made its intentions clear.
The only issue would be whether one of the warring parties would view Belgium as an enemy and deliberately destroy Belgian cities, towns and villages and kill thousands, rendering the entire country a international basket case that depended on food and other aid from outside the country to survive.
Are you seriously saying that the belgians should have allowed france and germany to fight a war on their soil and expect civlilan structure and people wouldn't suffer ? That the armies wouldn't go through cities and leaving crops unharmed ?
The Germans did not choose to wage war against Belgium so long as she did not choose to wage war against her. Twice Germany offered peace and twice she was turned down.
Albert chose sides in the war between Germany and France and was not neutral to Germany to whom she owned a duty to be neutral.
This is pure BS. Belgium didn't start a war against germany. They said that if germany attacked, then they would defend themself. The war started when germany attacked belgium, not when belgium declared that they would defend themself against an attack.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The Germans did not choose to wage war against Belgium so long as she did not choose to wage war against her. Twice Germany offered peace and twice she was turned down.
Albert chose sides in the war between Germany and France and was not neutral to Germany to whom she owned a duty to be neutral.
Priceless Ned, priceless.
Let us in or we knock the door down. And then it's the victim who is at fault.
Comedy gold.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Are you seriously saying that the belgians should have allowed france and germany to fight a war on their soil and expect civlilan structure and people wouldn't suffer ? That the armies wouldn't go through cities and leaving crops unharmed ?
This is pure BS. Belgium didn't start a war against germany. They said that if germany attacked, then they would defend themself. The war started when germany attacked belgium, not when belgium declared that they would defend themself against an attack.
Blackcat, the Germans offered to compensate the Belgians for any damage caused by their troops being in Belgium and the pay for any supplies they would requisition. By any measure, this deal is a lot better than average Belgian then the deal the action did receive for going to war against Germany.
War started? Are you ignorant of the fact that Germany gave Belgium an ultimatum that was refused and again offered peace after the forts at the Liege fell?
You are ignoring that if Belgium had allowed Germany to do as it wished, it would be the same as declaring war on France. I have pointed it out to you, others have pointed it out to you.
Germany chose war for Belgium. Belgium just decided they would fight Germany instead of France.
Jon Miller
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Tweet
Comment