WWI, Why America?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Straybow
We obviously had to attack Germany to secure banana production and shipment continue without abatement.

This makes as much sense as TR's assumed fear of Germany and not Britain and France.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
At least the French of today understand British perfidity of that era. The director of the 2005 film, Joyeaux Noel, went over-the-top to demonstrate the total depravity of the British propaganda at the time.

Just curious, Ned: have you actually seen this film? I have -- I just watched it a month or so ago. The German high command comes off as badly as the British, if not worse. The theme ofo the movie is the ordinary humanity of the soldiers on both sides versus the inhumanity of the commands on both sides. It is the very last movie I would think of to bolster an argument about the relative merits of WWI opponents.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson
About Louvain - on the eastern front, Germans leveled to the ground Kalisz, the oldest polish city, despite lack of any troops inside - just to terrorise the civilians

Anyway, my opinion is - British - American relations were very good at this time and that is the clue.

Exactly.

I read somewhere, I can find the quote if forum extremists demand it, that the Brits were almost disappointed that the US didn't join in with them earlier. They seemed to "expect" America to help the "motherland."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Just curious, Ned: have you actually seen this film? I have -- I just watched it a month or so ago. The German high command comes off as badly as the British, if not worse. The theme ofo the movie is the ordinary humanity of the soldiers on both sides versus the inhumanity of the commands on both sides. It is the very last movie I would think of to bolster an argument about the relative merits of WWI opponents.

Rufus, you have got to be kidding. Sure the German Kronprinz was pissed. But what came out of his mouth was not the bull**** that came out of the archbishops mouth. Most reviewers of the film were utterly shocked by what he said.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

I also do not doubt that civilians not involved in the attacks were killed during the firefights. Thus the bodies were lying all about, not up against walls. I am not sure how a soldier distinguishes one civilian from another when civilians are doing the shooting.

I see. All those dead civilians, including women, were accidents. Surely you cannot blame drunken and enraged German soldiers for shooting at everything that moves (especially at people RUNNING AWAY from them) as long as they claim that someone shot at them.

So you need dozens of civilians lined up against a wall and shot in order to be convinced that Germans commited war crimes in Belgium? Well, here you are - again, this is from the source you provided yourself:

Aerschot was partially destroyed on August 19 and 20. The Germans claim that their commanding officer was shot by the son of the Burgomaster. The Belgians claim that he was struck by a stray bullet fired at random by one of his own men in the market-place. However that may be, the whole place was instantly in an uproar, and quiet was not restored until the town had been sacked and over one hundred and fifty people killed, among them women and children. The Burgomaster and his son and a priest were among those shot and buried outside the Louvain gate. One of those taken to the place of execution was spared on condition that he should go to Louvain to tell of what had happened.

Originally posted by Ned

But note, even if there were deliberale shooting of innocent civilians, that was halted as soon as the German government found out about it.

The destruction of buildings was deliberate. But even that was halted when orders came down.

No, this is not what the author says. Here are his words again:

When the German Government realised the horror and loathing with which the civilised world learned of the fate of Louvain, the orders were cancelled and the story sent out that the German forces had tried to prevent the destruction, had fought the fire, and by good fortune had been able to save the Hôtel de Ville. Never has a Government lied more brazenly.

[...]

It was only when he learned how civilisation regarded his crimes that the Emperor's heart began to bleed.

I'm amazed how much you can twist the words of this author until they fit your needs.

[ElTigre]

Ned, the link you posted is really amazing, I'm still reading it! Here are some more quotes:

As nearly as we can learn, the Germans appear to have come through the town on their way toward Liége. Nothing was supposed to have happened then, but on the 15th, 16th, and 17th November troops came back from Liége and systematically reduced the place to ruins and dispersed the population. It was clear that the fires were all set, and there was no evidence of street fighting. It is said that some two hundred civilians were shot, and seven hundred men bundled aboard trains and sent back to Germany as prisoners of war — harmless people like the old chap we saw.

In Andennes and Seilles (a little village across the Meuse) the Germans did a thorough job. They killed about three hundred people and burned about the same number of houses. Most of the houses had been looted systematically. According to the stories of those inhabitants who remain, there was a reign of terror for about a week, during which the Germans rendered themselves guilty of every sort of atrocity and barbarity. They are all most positive that there was no firing upon the German troops by the civil population. It seems to be generally believed that the massacre was due to resistance of retiring Belgian troops and the destruction of bridges and tunnels to cover their retreat. Whatever the provocation, the behaviour of the Germans was that of savages. We were shown photographs showing the corpses of some of those killed. It was to be inferred that they had been wantonly mutilated.

Beside this man's property there is a railway crossing. When a troop train passed over it the day before yesterday, there was an explosion like the report of a rifle. The train was immediately stopped. The officer in command announced that civilians had fired upon his train, and ordered all the men in the vicinity to be taken prisoners. Then, refusing to listen to explanation or discussion, he had them all stood up against a wall and shot. When it was all over, he listened to explanations and learned that the report was that of a cap placed in the switch by the German railway-men as a signal to stop the train before reaching the next station. By way of reparation, he then graciously admitted that the civilians were innocent. But, as my caller said, " the civilians were also dead."

According to what we were told, the Germans entered the town from the direction of Ciney on the evening of August 21, and began firing into the windows of the houses. The Germans admit this, but say that there were French troops in the town and this was the only way they could get them out. A few people were killed, but there was nothing that evening in the nature of a general massacre. Although the next day was comparatively quiet, a good part of the population took refuge in the surrounding hills.

On Sunday morning, the 22nd, the German troops set out to pillage and shoot. They drove the people into the street and set fire to their houses. Those who tried to run away were shot down in their tracks.

The congregation was taken from the church, and fifty of the men were shot. All the civilians who could be rounded up were driven into the big square and kept there until evening. About six o'clock the women were lined up on one side of the square and kept in line by soldiers. On the other side, the men were lined up along a wall, in two rows, the first kneeling.

Then, under command of an officer, two volleys were fired into them. The dead and wounded were left together until the Germans got round to burying them, when practically all were dead. This was only one of several wholesale executions. The Germans do not seem to contradict the essential facts, but merely put forward the plea that most of the damage was incidental to the fighting which took place between the armed forces. Altogether more than eight hundred people were killed. Six hundred and twelve have been identified and given burial. Others were not recognisable. I have one of the lists which are still to be had, although the Germans have ordered all copies returned to them. Those killed ranged in age from Félix Fivet, aged three weeks, to an old woman named Jadot, who was eighty. But then Félix probably fired on the German troops.

Now lets go back to your initial statement about this diary:

Originally posted by Ned

There is no confirmation that any non combatants were deliberately harmed by the Germans anywhere in that diary.

Is your statement a deliberate lie, or didn't you bother to read your own source?

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Ned


Germany was a threat to Britain as a seapower and a threat to France as a land power. Those two were united against Germany even if no formal alliance had yet been inked. Belgium has apparently also signed up.

Germany invades unprovoced and you go on to claim Belgium sided up with the Entente? Hell, even during the war King Albert I was reluctant to fully align with France and Britain, much to those countries' irritation.

[Ned]

ElTigre, I didn't read it all, obviously. Just the beginning and the part about Louvain.

But it does seem the Germans were totally enraged by civilians shooting at them and took to pillaging and executions in reprisal.

You win this point.

So, I guess a proper answer to the poll question would be item 3, the Huns were barbaric and had to be destroyed.

Right?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Colon™




Germany invades unprovoced and you go on to claim Belgium sided up with the Entente? Hell, even during the war King Albert I was reluctant to fully align with France and Britain, much to those countries' irritation.

I inferred this from the way things played out.

I got confirmation in the link in the OP. Did you read that link?

[Imran Siddiqui]

None of the above. Basically, LOTM is 100% correct - geopolitical considerations (or realpolitik). It was in the US interest that Britain and France won. Part of it was debts and part of it was to keep a strengthening German state in check.

[Colon™]

Oh oh oh, you're going to lecture me on the war's development in Belgium or what? Holy cow man, you already just had a German attacking his own country's record during the war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Colon™
Oh oh oh, you're going to lecture me on the war's development in Belgium or what? Holy cow man, you already just had a German attacking his own country's record during the war.

Then how do you deal with the assertion in the OP's link that Belgium had secret alliances with Britain and France? Rather than take the deal offered by the Germans for the passage of their troops that Luxembourgh had taken, Belgium chose to fight. As a result, Belgium was virtually destroyed.

If I were Belgian, I would be very angry with any leaders who chose the path to war and destruction when another path was clearly open and that remained open for a good period after the war had begun. Reminds me of Hitler's orders in his final months to fight to the very last German even if his country was totally destroyed.

Insane!!!!!!!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I were Belgium, I would be very angry with any leaders who chose the path to war and destruction when another path was clearly open and that remained open for a good period after the war had begun.

Yeah, and I'd prefer that my leaders fight evil rather than bow down to it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
None of the above. Basically, LOTM is 100% correct - geopolitical considerations (or realpolitik). It was in the US interest that Britain and France won. Part of it was debts and part of it was to keep a strengthening German state in check.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this at all.

Please explain how "German" sea power was a threat to the US where the even greater sea power of Britain was not?

Debts, what debts are you talking about? Besides, do you really, really, believe that Britain would have lost had we not intevened? I made that argument before, but no one agreed. Molly made a convincing case that Britain would have won the war without US help.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If I were Belgium, I would be very angry with any leaders who chose the path to war and destruction when another path was clearly open and that remained open for a good period after the war had begun.

Yeah, and I'd prefer that my leaders fight evil rather than bow down to it.

What is your position on the Iraq war, pray tell.