WWI, Why America?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

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

No. Germany had already decided on which side Belgium would fight.

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.

There was no choice to remain neutral after Germany's ultimatum. Allowing an army to march through your country in order to fight a war of aggression is not neutrality. It would have been siding with the aggressor.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Of course he could count on their aid, you dolt! They signed a treaty saying so! In addition, he had had years of rebuffing the British and French armies trying to coordinate joint action, as well as diplomatic contacts that were probably fairly frequent, to understate it.

He knew exactly what he could count on. No agreement was required, but you have insisted such an agreement existed.

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

That is the reading of a nutcase.

What he chose was to resist the aggressor with the aid of the other signatories of the treaty that brought his country into being.

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.

If? May?

I have zero interest in getting into a course of historical what ifs with a tool that never had an edge, let alone lost it.

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.

First, Luxembourg had no choice, unless you think a troop of gendarmes could have put up a fight.

Second, you are demonstrating that your knowledge of history is less than pedestrian and that to call your conclusions infantile would be to besmirch the reasoning ability of newborns.

Judging the actions of a historical figure from the here and now, or the view from after the fact, is a fallacy that many casual amateurs fall into.

However, you go further. You make conclusions of what might have beens that aren't even remotely justified by your sources. In other words, you're as thick as a post, but the intelligence you've shown in this lends one to believe that you don't have what would be required to be a useful member of a fence.

In short, your posts here are evidence of black holes. They must be the periphery of an event that is sure to devour reason and are, in fact, evidence of negative IQ.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


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, you have a really funny view on the concept of being neutral. One thing is a micronation such as Luxembourg, if under pressure they have to give in, and noone would think bad about that. It's another matter with larger countries such as Belgium. Their "neutral status" includes their ability to defend themself against attacks and do that if threatened. It does NOT mean that country A can be given the right to free passage to attack country B.

Besides that, being neutral and attacked doesn't nessecarily mean that you aren't allowed to neither have treaties about support, neither to get it when attacked.

Albert didn't chose side as you say - it was done by germany by their attack. He had all the right to deny any german claims without choosing side - actually, giving in to german demands would certainly be choosing side - not being neutral.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Molly, the question is WHY?

No the question is why you chose to state this:

if they in fact did

when in fact the sender of the telegram admits he sent it.

You chose deliberately to introduce doubt.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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

No, you have implied more than once that WWII was started by Great Britain and France, and that the attempted genocide of European Jews by the Nazis was a result of the war.

Which is a pretty mealy-mouthed way of blaming the Holocaust on France and Great Britain.

You also refer to the 'tens of millions' of innocents killed as a result of the war (which following your thinking is the Allies' fault).

You don't bother referring to the immediate death toll in Poland resulting from the Nazi invasion and the deliberate actions of the armed forces in the Nazi occupied areas, especially with regards the Jewish inhabitants.

You don't refer to Nazi domestic policies towards German Jews, Austrian Jews, or the fate of Jews in the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia or the Nazi client state of Slovakia.

You don't refer to Nazi concentration/detention camps in existence prior to the outbreak of war, nor do you make much of Hitler's anti-semitic public speeches, writings, or private utterances.

[molly bloom]

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

It really does you no good making stupid remarks like that.

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

How big is Belgium ? Roughly 30 000 sq. km.

Luxembourg ? One of Europe's smallest countries, about 2 500 sq. km.

Belgium's army in 1914: 190,000 soldiers

Luxembourg's 'army' in 1914: a palace guard similar in size to the Swiss Guard in the Vatican.


Belgium 'chose' to resist the invader because it had rings of fortresses and an army.

Unlike Luxembourg...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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

When and where, Ned ?


Let's ignore, again, shall we, that you made up the supposed pre-war attack by the British on the Ottoman Empire.

Austria-Hungary was allied to Imperial Germany. Why might Great Britain or France go to war against Austria-Hungary too ?

Because in allying itself with Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary signally failed to limit its actions against Serbia to a Balkan conflict.

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.

What, in Persia for instance ?

Do try to be specific.

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.

Oh yawnsville.

The average fair historian definitely excludes:

you, David Irving and that anti-semitic website you referred to.

We keep asking for sources and cites and direct quotes.

Again and again we get unattributed allegations from you or your fact-free assumptions.

That's not the work of a fair or any other kind of historian.

[molly bloom]

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?

For the same reason the Entente were 'happy' to fight Germany on more than one front.

For the same reason the Germans devised the Schlieffen Plan.


Good grief.

[molly bloom]

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 and the high school girl whose essay you use fail to substantiate this so-called 'agreement'.

If there was an 'agreement', who signed it, where and when ?

It can't be that secret if someone found out about it, can it ?

The secret is why you bother to build a 'theory' based on one unsubstantiated mention in a high school essay.

You (or at least others) say that I am wrong that there was no secret alliance between Belgium, Britain and France.

We say, where is the evidence ? actually.

However, I think we are actually an agreement.

Oh dear me no.

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.

It's not a nuance- it's the Belgians being scrupulous about their neutrality- telling the Entente that should France or Great Britain violate Belgian neutrality, their forces would also be treated as hostile.

Only you could turn this into OMIGODSECRETTREATY!!!!
based only on your bizarre animus for the British.

Let's discard France for a moment.

Why ? They were the target of the Schlieffen Plan and Imperial Germany had aims to permanently reduce them, in territory and economically.

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

Yes, how clever of the British to devise the Schlieffen Plan for the Germans and force them to give a 'blank cheque' to Austria-Hungary and force the Ottomans into making a secret treaty with the Germans.

Which Austrian territory did the British Empire sequestrate, by the way ?

I think you're being a bit obtuse.

Hilarious. Is this some kind of weird extended ironic approach ?

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.

Well, duh.

The United States was free to trade with whomsoever it liked; as were other neutral countries. Which is precisely why Imperial Germany didn't occupy the Netherlands and Denmark, in the hope that trade through those countries' ports could come to Germany through the land borders.

[molly bloom]

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 Belgians knew that the great powers of the time had guaranteed Belgian independence and neutrality. This is hardly a secret.

The obligation to come to Belgium's aid rests more in the moral and legal spheres than in the military sphere.

If there were joint military plans they don't seem to have been known to the Belgian, French or British armies.

Imagine: a treaty or plan so secret, even the signatories don't know about it.

Brilliant thinking, Ned.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Other's here apparently agree that he could count on their aid.

Who 'others' ?

All anyone else appears to have said is that Albert was aware that France and Great Britain also guaranteed Belgium's independence in 1839.

There is no 'counting on' without a dedicated joint military strategy for the British, French and Belgian armies to cooperate in the face of an attack on Belgian territory.

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

He chose independence and neutrality.

Imperial Germany chose to violate an international agreement it was a guarantor of, and deliberately ignore Belgian neutrality after attempting to hoodwink, harass and cajole Belgium into letting German forces use Belgium as a base for an attack on France.

Only you could make that into Belgium choosing to go to war with Germany.

Who acted upon whom, Ned ?

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.

He chose neutrality- the Germans chose otherwise for him. Good heavens...

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.

Blah blah blah...

He lets the Germans through and so effectively sides with them in a war against France. He has violated Belgian neutrality and sided with Germany against France and Great Britain. I suspect Great Britain and France might feel justified in going to war against Belgium too.

How would this be any better than what occurred ?

Oh, I know- this way you get to pretend again that the Germans are the good guys, and the Entente are BAD.

Absurd beyond belief.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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

Nope, not even close.

We're arguing about facts and your unwillingness to face up to them.

What was the substance of this 'secret treaty' ?

Who made it, where and when ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Molly even pointed out Britain's 1912 request to intervene without a formal request by Belgium.

I did ? Where ?

I think Albert knew what Britain was going to do

You can think what you like, and evidently do unfortunately.

We're asking for facts to back up your assumptions and suppositions, and all you're giving us is 'I think' 'He may have thought' 'Why else would...' et cetera.

I think it may be quite cold tomorrow.

It may not be.

'Thinking' does not guarantee an outcome nor may it be taken for any kind of guarantee of causal linkage.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


For the same reason the Entente were 'happy' to fight Germany on more than one front.

For the same reason the Germans devised the Schlieffen Plan.


Good grief.

No, Molly. You are being obtuse.

Germany sent the note not because she intended to attack the US, but because she feared a US DOW.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


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.

There is something very strange about this conversation. We agree with the essentials, but you still refuse to admit that we agree. I don't get it.

You say that Belgium knew it could count on British and French support at the time it decided to fight Germany. You say that the reason for this was the treaty of 1839.

I say I agree.

You say even though I agree that you still disagree with me.