WWI, Why America?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by 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.

Once more, because I don't think you are understanding this. If a country stages attacks on me from your country, I consider it an act of war by you. This is standard international relations.

The US does this now...

JM

[ElTigre]

I have replied in regard to Belgium's neutrality in the other thread. Short summary: OF COURSE did the Belgians and the Belgian king know that France and Britain would help defend Belgium, since these nations were OBLIGED to do so in the treaty that created Belgium.

Let us ignore, for the moment, shall we, that Britain also attacked the Ottoman Empire and Austria?

Regarding Turkey: On October 28th, 2 Turkish warships bombarded Odessa, a Russian town, without a formal declaration of war. In return, France and Britain declared war om Turkey.

EDIT: BTW, the ships were actually German, the 'Goeben' and the 'Breslau'. Think about this for a while...

Regarding the British DOW on Austria-Hungary on August, 12th, what's your problem? AH was at war with France and Russia at that time, countries allied with the British.

Originally posted by 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?

Another document you're quoting but haven't read, Ned? It clearly states that Germany expected an American entry into WW1 because Germany would resume unrestricted submarine warfare, and that Germany was looking for an ally in the Western Hemisphere:

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1917/zimmerman.html

Berlin, January 19, 1917

On the first of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America.

If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details are left to you for settlement....

You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan; at the same time, offer to mediate between Germany and Japan.

Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months.

Zimmerman
(Secretary of State)

Makes sense, doesn't it?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Actually, what's insane is your continued insistence that Albert's knowledge that he would be supported by France and Britain IF the Germans attacked Belgium is evidence of a prearranged alliance.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Once more, because I don't think you are understanding this. If a country stages attacks on me from your country, I consider it an act of war by you. This is standard international relations.

The US does this now...

JM

Jon, I think that would depend upon circumstances, would it not? Consider the case of Lebanon. Iran's supports Hezbollah which stages attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon. Israel does not consider Lebanon to be at war with Israel simply because its territory is being used by the Iranian-supported Hezbollah. Israel is quite aware that the government of Lebanon has no real choice in this matter.

During the Vietnam war when the Communists were using Cambodia as basing areas for attacks in South Vietnam, we did not consider the government Cambodia to be at war with us. The reason for this was because we knew that the government of Cambodia had no real choice in a matter.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

You are such a fool. I will cut this short with words from your own source. These are the feelings of an American diplomat who you have relied upon, who was present, who witnessed the events, and who probably had a greater understanding of the situation and the motives of the actors than some neo-Nazi spouting twit could ever hope to have.

August 5
Yesterday morning we got about early and made for the Chamber of Deputies to hear the King's speech. The Minister and I walked over together and met a few straggling colleagues heading in the same direction. Most of them had got there ahead of us, and the galleries were all jammed. The Rue Royale, from the Palace around the park to the Parliament building, was packed with people, held in check by the Garde Civique. There was a buzz as of a thousand bees, and every face was ablaze — the look of a people who have been trampled on for hundreds of years and have not learned to submit.

...

When the cheering had subsided, the King walked in alone from the right, bowed gravely to the assembly, and walked quickly to the dais above and behind the tribune. With a businesslike gesture he tossed his cap on to the ledge before him and threw his white cotton gloves into it — then drew out his speech and read it. At first his voice was not very steady, but he soon controlled it and read the speech to the end in a voice that was vibrating with emotion but without any oratory or heroics. He went straight to the vital need for union between all factions and all parties, between the French, Flemish, and Walloon races, between Catholics, Liberals, and Socialists in a determined resistance to the attack upon Belgian independence. The House could contain itself for only a few minutes at a time, and as every point was driven home they burst into frantic cheering. When the King, addressing himself directly to the members of Parliament, said, " Are you determined at any cost to maintain the sacred heritage of our ancestors? " the whole Chamber burst into a roar, and from the Socialists' side came cries of, " At any cost, by death if need be."

It was simple and to the point — a manly speech. And as he delivered it he was a kingly figure, facing for the sake of honour what he knew to be the gravest danger that could ever come to his country and his people. When he had finished he bowed to the Queen, then to the Parliament, and then walked quickly out of the room, while the assembly roared again. The Senators and Deputies swarmed about the King on his way out, cheering and trying to shake him by the hand — and none were more at pains to voice their devotion than the Socialists.

After he had gone the Queen rose, bowed shyly to the assembly, and withdrew with the Royal children. She was given a rousing ovation, as everybody realised the difficulty of her position and was doubly anxious to show her all their confidence and affection. The whole occasion was moving, but when the little Queen acknowledged the ovation so shyly and so sadly and withdrew, the tears were pretty near the surface — my surface at any rate.

For several minutes after the Queen withdrew the cheering continued. Suddenly a tense silence fell upon the room. M. de Broqueville, the Prime Minister, had mounted the tribune and stood waiting for attention. He was clearly under great stress of emotion, and as the House settled itself to hear him he brushed away the tears that had started to his eyes. He began in a very direct way by saying that he would limit himself to reading a few documents and hoped that, after hearing them, the House would consider the Government worthy of the confidence that had been reposed in it, and that immediate action would be taken upon matters of urgent importance. He first read the German ultimatum, which was received quietly but with indignation and anger which was with difficulty suppressed. Without commenting upon the German Note, he then read the reply which had been handed to the German Minister. This was followed by a final Note delivered by the German Minister this morning stating " that in view of the refusal of the King to accede to the well-intentioned proposals of the Emperor, the Imperial Government, greatly to its regret, was obliged to carry out by force of arms the measures indispensable to its security." After reading these documents he made a short and ringing speech, full of fire, which was repeatedly interrupted by cheers. When he came down from the tribune he was surrounded by cheering Senators and Deputies struggling to shake his hand and express their approval of his speech. Even the Socialists who had fought him for years rose to the occasion and vied with their colleagues in their demonstrations of enthusiasm. Broque-ville rose again and said: " In the present crisis we have received from the Opposition a whole-hearted support; they have rallied to our side in the most impressive way in preparing the reply to Germany. In order to emphasise this union of all factions, His Majesty the King has just signed a decree appointing Monsieur Vandervelde as a Minister of State. " This announcement was greeted by roars of applause from all parts of the House, and Vandervelde was immediately surrounded by Ministers and Deputies anxious to congratulate him. His reply to the Prime Minister's speech was merely a shout above the roar of applause: " I accept. "

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Jon, I think that would depend upon circumstances, would it not? Consider the case of Lebanon. Iran's supports Hezbollah which stages attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon. Israel does not consider Lebanon to be at war with Israel simply because its territory is being used by the Iranian-supported Hezbollah. Israel is quite aware that the government of Lebanon has no real choice in this matter.

During the Vietnam war when the Communists were using Cambodia as basing areas for attacks in South Vietnam, we did not consider the government Cambodia to be at war with us. The reason for this was because we knew that the government of Cambodia had no real choice in a matter.

Your hero Jack was ready to blow up the entire ****ing world for the sake of capabilities never used in another, non-neutral, country.

Yet you question the sanity and motives of people who were performing their duties as prescribed by treaty, not to mention national interest, when attacked by another party.

It's loony toons time.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Yer damned straight! ... but more than a little slow.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre
I have replied in regard to Belgium's neutrality in the other thread. Short summary: OF COURSE did the Belgians and the Belgian king know that France and Britain would help defend Belgium, since these nations were OBLIGED to do so in the treaty that created Belgium.

You say that Britain and France had the treaty obligation to come to defense of Belgium should the Germans violate the treaty of 1839 . I say that the Belgians had an agreement with Britain and France to come to its aid if the Germans violated the the treaty of 1839. You (or at least others) say that I am wrong that there was no secret alliance between Belgium, Britain and France. However, I think we are actually an agreement. The only nuance is that Belgium seemed to have wanted the right to keep the British and French troops out of Belgium until it made a formal request for aid.

Regarding Turkey: On October 28th, 2 Turkish warships bombarded Odessa, a Russian town, without a formal declaration of war. In return, France and Britain declared war om Turkey.

EDIT: BTW, the ships were actually German, the 'Goeben' and the 'Breslau'. Think about this for a while...

Regarding the British DOW on Austria-Hungary on August, 12th, what's your problem? AH was at war with France and Russia at that time, countries allied with the British.

Let's discard France for a moment.

I'm not sure just how Britain's obligation to defend Belgian territory against the German violation of its borders as anything to do with Austria or the Ottomam Empire. I think you begin to see just how Britain used the pretext of Belgium to engage in a general war against the three empires for the ultimate purpose of enhancing the British Empire at the expense of the German, Austria and Ottoman empires.

Another document you're quoting but haven't read, Ned? It clearly states that Germany expected an American entry into WW1 because Germany would resume unrestricted submarine warfare, and that Germany was looking for an ally in the Western Hemisphere:

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1917/zimmerman.html

I think you're being a bit obtuse. Whether the submarine war was restricted war unrestricted would be entirely irrelevant to United States if the United States was not actively trying to support Germany's enemies by shipping supplies and arms to those countries using American vessels.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Actually, what's insane is your continued insistence that Albert's knowledge that he would be supported by France and Britain IF the Germans attacked Belgium is evidence of a prearranged alliance.

Obviously, I am the second insane person in this thread as ElTigre maintains the same thing.

According to El Tigre, Albert knew that the 1839 treaty obligated Britain and France to come to its aid to Germany violated its borders. As I stated in the previous post, the only nuance seems to be it is that Albert wanted the right to formally request aid before French and British intervention.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Obviously, I am the second insane person in this thread as ElTigre maintains the same thing.

According to El Tigre, Albert knew that the 1839 treaty obligated Britain and France to come to its aid to Germany violated its borders. As I stated in the previous post, the only nuance seems to be it is that Albert wanted the right to formally request aid before French and British intervention.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

You have argued, based on an essay written by a high-school student... actually, you've distorted even what she said... that there was a prearranged, secret, alliance between Britain, France, and Belgium.

Please tell us what was so secret about an old treaty that Germany herself signed? Perhaps you'll explain how Belgium was waiting for the Germans to attack France so that she could fall on the flank, perhaps by driving through Holland.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned


You say that Britain and France had the treaty obligation to come to defense of Belgium should the Germans violate the treaty of 1839 . I say that the Belgians had an agreement with Britain and France to come to its aid if the Germans violated the the treaty of 1839. You (or at least others) say that I am wrong that there was no secret alliance between Belgium, Britain and France. However, I think we are actually an agreement. The only nuance is that Belgium seemed to have wanted the right to keep the British and French troops out of Belgium until it made a formal request for aid.

"I say" and "I think"... If your opinion is all you have to prove that this secret treaty existed then I don't think this point is worth discussing anymore.

Come back when you can find some prove for this treaty, or at least dig out that quote from Mr. Fleming.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Your hero Jack was ready to blow up the entire ****ing world for the sake of capabilities never used in another, non-neutral, country.

Yet you question the sanity and motives of people who were performing their duties as prescribed by treaty, not to mention national interest, when attacked by another party.

It's loony toons time.

I say Albert would be insane if he could not count on Britain and France's aid. Other's here apparently agree that he could count on their aid.

So he chose sides. He chose to side with Britain and France in a war against Germany.

Now, if he chose the other path, the path that Luxembourgh took, it would not have resulted in the destruction of his country by the Germans, but maybe by the British and French who may have fought the Germans there. But certainly, the course to neutrality is to not join a war on one side. Regardless of the legalities of the situation, that is what he did.

The alternative that Luxembourgh chose may not have been so popular among the people at the beginning. But I am sure many Belgians looking back in 1915 may have wished he had. His country lay in ruins and thousands were killed. The rest were starving and broken.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


"I say" and "I think"... If your opinion is all you have to prove that this secret treaty existed then I don't think this point is worth discussing anymore.

Come back when you can find some prove for this treaty, or at least dig out that quote from Mr. Fleming.

I'm sorry. We are aguing about words. Nothing more. We are in agreement, not disagreement.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

You have argued, based on an essay written by a high-school student... actually, you've distorted even what she said... that there was a prearranged, secret, alliance between Britain, France, and Belgium.

Please tell us what was so secret about an old treaty that Germany herself signed? Perhaps you'll explain how Belgium was waiting for the Germans to attack France so that she could fall on the flank, perhaps by driving through Holland.

We arrive at the same destination by different paths.

Molly even pointed out Britain's 1912 request to intervene without a formal request by Belgium. I think Albert knew what Britain was going to do.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned


Obviously, I am the second insane person in this thread as ElTigre maintains the same thing.

According to El Tigre, Albert knew that the 1839 treaty obligated Britain and France to come to its aid to Germany violated its borders. As I stated in the previous post, the only nuance seems to be it is that Albert wanted the right to formally request aid before French and British intervention.

The treaty of 1839 does not oblige Belgium defend France and Britain in case of an attack - it's a 'one-way treaty', in which Britain and France (and all other nations that have signed this treaty) get nothing in return except a neutral Belgium.

I completely agree with what notyoueither said, and I deny that our (your and mine) positions on this subject are identical, or even close.