WWI, Why America?

[Dr Strangelove]

During the Spanish-American War there was an incident involving the American, British and German fleets in the vicinity of the Phillipines. I'm a little hazy about it, some of the details may be out of place. Basically as the US fleet under Dewey refueled in China and left for the Phillipines the German fleet began shadowing it. The Royal Navy heard of this. When the Americans defeated the Spanish at Manilla they had no substantial land forces to occupy the Phillipines with. The German navy made for the harbor, presumably to snatch up the spoils of war, but the British fleet blocked the way, giving the Americans time to bring up additional troops.

This has nothing to do with WW2. Undoubtedly reports of German atrocities in Belgium had a lot to do with the formation of anti-German sentiment in the US. The Kaiser's repressive occupation policies made it very easy for the British. Reports of German outrages against Belgian citizens were substantiated by a commission sent to Belgium by Wilson, the International Red Cross, and reports from Dutch nationals who still had access to Belgium. You should be aware though that both sides played that game. Years ago the Smithsonian Institute displayed an exhibit of WW1 propaganda from both sides. The problem with the German propaganda was that the allies simply didn't supply them with substantial material to use so they had to make things up.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre

Ned, this story about an Anglo-French-Belgian Alliance is bull****. In Guns of August, p. 62 (German version), Barbara Tuchman mentions that the future commander of the BEF, Sir John French, visited Belgium in 1912 in order to obtain the permission to land British troops in Belgium immediately after a German violation of Belgium's borders. The Belgian reply was that even if German troops would violate her borders, the British government would have to wait until asked by the Belgian government to send troops. If British troops would land earlier, they would be shot at.

The Belgian government vehemently insisted on its neutrality, and made it perfectly clear that its army would fight against anyone violating its territory - including France and Great Britain. For another reference, see THE LONG FUSE: An Interpretation of the Origin of World War I by Laurence Lafore, second edition, p. 198.

I know they had to do so publicly because of their treaty obligations to Germany. But the real kicker in all this is the behavior of Albert. He takes on Germany in a war knowing that there is no way he can win for the purpose of making a gesture? No, no sane person would do this. He really expected to win -- but that means he counted on the support, immediate support of Britain and France.

And what happened?

As soon as he "formally asked, British and French troops appeared in the capital to wild cheers of the Belgian people. He "knew" he could count on their support.

Now, you might say that if the French had first marched their troops into Belgium, he would have joined with Germany in its war against France. I think you know that that is ludicrous. From reading that link I posted, the people of Belgium were radically pro-French and pro-British and anti-German. There is no way that the government would ever have sided with the Germans against France.

We see from the facts that Albert had the backing of Britain and France and counted on their support. Otherwise, his actions in taking on Germany ALONE would have been completely insane.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Incidently, a neutral has an obligation to enforce it's neutrality, especially when it is recognised by international treaty. You do know something about agreements and laws, being a lawyer and all, right, Ned?

Oh, I see. You are equating Belgian defiance in '14 with Nazi ideas of national suicide in '45.

I suppose you can't see a difference between a hopeless cause with no help possible in a war that destroyed countries and peoples on one hand and dedication to the basis for a nation's existence when supported by signatories to the treaty that served as midwife to the birth of the nation on the other.

I don't think you have the feigntest clue what the word 'just' means.

Oh, and Belgium as well as it's government and people survived. The Nazi regime did not, and Germany barely escaped a very dark fate in the wake. A good comparison?

I addressed most of these points in a post immediately above. But the so-called neutrality of Belgium was an obligation Belgium had to its creators, including Germany. By siding with England and France, Belgium certainly breached that obligation to Germany, in my view.

But, you say, Belgium didn't side with Britain and France? Well the fact say otherwise. Albert was willing to destroy his country rather than allow German troops safe passage. What, is he a fool? Or was he working for Britain and France?

Luxembourgh was another such neutral. It took the German deal to allow safe passage of German troops. Nothing at all adverse happened to Luxembourgh and it remained neutral even with respect to Germany.

But, you could say, Luxembourgh betrayed its people by not fighting to the last man and last building? What kind of insane person are you NYE if you actually think that such a war would be "just" even if its cause was legally correct?

Stack the lives and property of your people on one scale and the legal document on the other. See what weighs more. If the leader chooses to sacrifice his people and property for the legal document, he is either insane or has an ulterior motive, such as a secret alliance with powerful nations that make his gesture something other than complete folly.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Ah yes, the university library of Louvain clearly posed a great threat to Imperial Germany... which is why it had to be destroyed!!!!!!


248 unarmed Belgian civilians died at Louvain, shot by German soldiers.

More were killed at Aarschot, Tamines, Andenne, Dinant, and Arlon; in France there were civilian non-com casualties in Longuyon, Nomeny and Gerbevillier.

The official German White Book of 1915 had to attempt to explain the casualties- this means that even German officials acknowledge that there was a death toll.


Based on German experience of the French levee en masse in the Franco-Prussian War, they assumed that there would be widespread francs-tireurs actions- but there weren't.

A German soldier's diary (he was in the 178th Infantry Regiment) tells of how 150-200 civilians were executed in Dinant allegedly for being guerillas/francs-tireurs.

Furthermore, he details the use of two handcuffed civilians as human shields in a march at night on August 26th 1914, and the shooting of villagers from Villers-sur-Fagne and the subsequent burning of the village.

Of course the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 and the sinking of American ships and the loss of American lives did help sway American domestic opinion.

Hardly surprising really...

Molly, based on this link, in another post I have already conceded that the Germans did commit atrocities in Belgium.

You win this point.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Well the sender of the note thought he sent it.

Are you saying you know better than Zimmermann himself ?

Molly, the question is WHY?

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


The only extremist I can think of offhand is the one who keeps downplaying Nazi warcrimes and the criminality of Hitler's regime.

And yes, we do expect sources and cites for your more ludicrous suggestions/allegations.

Who is downplaying NAZI war crimes? All I ever said was that what happened during the war was not the cause of the war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Desperation and probably a flawed superficial analysis of the balance of power in North America. On the books the United States Army was considerably smaller than Mexico's army. The Germans probably failed to take into account the fact that Mexico was still engaged in a civil war and that much of Mexico's army was of dubious quality and loyalty. Mexico was so weak that onbly a few years earlier it had knuckled under to American pressure and had allowed an American army expedition free reign to persue the dissident Mexican commander Pancho Villa on Mexican soil. Mexico knew it didn't have the power to fight the US, but evidently some German government officials didn't appreciate that fact. After all, as I said above the Mexican army was larger than the US army.

The question is WHY would Germany send such a note in the first place?

I think you are missing the point of the question.

[Jon Miller]

Umm, if you are my neighbor and allow troops to attack me from your land, I would consider your act to be an act of war against myself.

Basically, Belgium was forced... by Germany, to side with Germany or France/Britain. It chose France/Britain. I don't see what you are having a hard time understanding here.

Jon Miller

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It'll never happen. The frogs in Quebec are afraid that cruel stare from the poster will be turned on them.

The nuts of all Canadian-frogs retract at the very thought.

Yeah the French Canadians should have reason to join with the very civilized Brits to kill the uncivilized Huns who burn and pillage while they conquer.

http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/1759B.HTM

"In 1757, after being ordered to destroy the Acadien villages along the Gulf of the Saint-Laurent, [Wolge, the British commander] orders his men that "all be burnt." He writes to Amherst to flaunt that he "did a lot of harm and spread the terror of His Majesty's army in all the Gulf area, but without adding to my reputation." As for Québec, Wolfe has a precise goal: to conquer the city by all means or leave it in ruins.


He also writes to Amherst: "if for some reason we come to the conclusion that we have very little chance of conquering Quebec, I propose to bombard the city, destroy the crops, houses and animals, upriver as well as down river, expedite as many Canadiens as possible to Europe and leave behind me nothing but hunger and desolation (...)

"[T]he English surround the city with their boats and bombard it day and night for weeks, reducing theonce proud capital of New France to a desolate pile of smoking ruins. We estimate that about 15 000 bombs were thrown on Québec that summer and the fate of the surrounding villages is also far from lenient. Farms are pillaged and burnt, villages are ravaged and the inhabitants who did not join the militia (women, children, elderlies and priests for the most part) are incarcerated in prisoner camps.

The British troops are accompanied by the "Rangers", American militiamen so cruel and pitiless that some British officers loathe to send them on missions. One such officer describes the Rangers as "mangy, cowardly and contemptible dogs." These Rangers commit many atrocities during the war; pillaging, murdering and scalping the often defenseless inhabitants. But it is important to understand that the Rangers were obeying British orders in applying a scorched earth strategy, just like British regulars."

Ah, yes, the French Canadian flock to join up to protect the "Empire." They better, or else.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Umm, if you are my neighbor and allow troops to attack me from your land, I would consider your act to be an act of war against myself.

Basically, Belgium was forced... by Germany, to side with Germany or France/Britain. It chose France/Britain. I don't see what you are having a hard time understanding here.

Jon Miller

Luxembourgh.

[Dauphin]

Oh, Luxembourg. The country with an 'army' of 400 people. Yeah, they couldn't have fought even if they had wanted to.

[Ned]

And I'm sure France and Britain held that against them the entire war.

Which does illustrate the point very well. Belgium chose to fight Germany without good reason precisely because she was allied with Britain and France.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Usually someone wanting to use your country as a freeway for their territorial aggrandizement is a good reason to fight. Chances are that if Germany won the war, a good hunk of Belgium would have been German territory.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Usually someone wanting to use your country as a freeway for their territorial aggrandizement is a good reason to fight. Chances are that if Germany won the war, a good hunk of Belgium would have been German territory.

Why of course!

Just like the alleged Brit justification that they went to war to enforce a century-old treaty because they feared a German takeover of Belgian ports.

Let us ignore, for the moment, shall we, that Britain also attacked the Ottoman Empire and Austria? Let us ignore the contest that was currently going on between Germany and the UK for exclusive rights to ME oil that were held, in part by the Ottoman Empire and its vassals.

Let us disguise the REAL reason for Britain's war on Germany and the Ottoman Empire with pretext piled on pretext 'til the average fair historian vomits.

[Ned]

And, is there no one here who has a clue, even a small hint, as to why Germany would want Mexico to go to war against the United States?