WWI, Why America?

[Ned]

Molly, sorry, but this: was from a El Tigre post, #110 in this thread:

"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."

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=4832283#post4832283

[ElTigre]

You kept referring to a 'secret alliance' between Belgium, France and Great Britain. I assume this is off the table now?

Furthermore, I don't think it is correct that you formulate the Treaty of 1839 in a way that makes it sound anti-German, and pro-British/French. The same treaty would have resulted in a Belgian-German Alliance in case the Allies had violated Belgium's borders instead of Germany in 1914.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I did ? Where ?



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.

I tend to agree that British support was not 100% certain early on, but that changed. Not long before the war broke out, the British cabinet apparently voted to stay neutral in the war. But 10 hours before the Germans gave Belgium the ultimatum. when Albert made his recommendation to fight, the Brits has already made their decision to intervene.

"
[August 2, 1914]
Britain.
==[morning] > Lansdowne and Bonar Law offer Asquith unconditional Conservative Party support for British intervention
==[1100.AM-200.PM] > In a grueling British Cabinet meeting, Asquith and Grey force the neutralist faction to declare they will support British intervention if Germany attacks the French north coast or invades Belgium - British intervention becomes inevitable "

Belgium.Germany.
==[720.PM] > German Minister Below hands Belgian Foreign Minister Davignon the German twelve-hour ultimatum to Belgium, demanding the passage of German forces -

Britain.
==[evening] > Grey learns of the imminent German invasion of Belgium and convinces Asquith that mobilization is necessary - Haldane is temporarily reappointed War Secretary - the British Cabinet confirms it’s earlier stance on intervention, but strong dissension continues

Belgium.Germany.
==[900.PM-400.AM] > The Belgian Council of State meets: King Albert opens with “Our answer must be ‘No,’ whatever the consequences.” - Belgium resolves to resist Germany - ~belated orders are issued to put the Liège forts in a state of defense

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Wars/JulyCrisis/JulyCrisis05.htm

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by ElTigre
You kept referring to a 'secret alliance' between Belgium, France and Great Britain. I assume this is off the table now?

Furthermore, I don't think it is correct that you formulate the Treaty of 1839 in a way that makes it sound anti-German, and pro-British/French. The same treaty would have resulted in a Belgian-German Alliance in case the Allies had violated Belgium's borders instead of Germany in 1914.

Indeed, the treaty was originally designed to protect Belgium's integrity from France. France annexed Belgium in the early 1790s and kept it until 1814. Many Frenchmen throughout the 19th century considered Belgium the rightful property of France.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre
You kept referring to a 'secret alliance' between Belgium, France and Great Britain. I assume this is off the table now?

Furthermore, I don't think it is correct that you formulate the Treaty of 1839 in a way that makes it sound anti-German, and pro-British/French. The same treaty would have resulted in a Belgian-German Alliance in case the Allies had violated Belgium's borders instead of Germany in 1914.

No doubt, it wasn't anti-German at all way back when. In that Gibson diary link, he at one point comments on all the forts built by the Brits and Germans in Belgium against the French. But, as German power grew, British attitudes changed. So did Belgiums.

If anything, I would have to say that Belgian foreign policy was the same as Britain to the extent of the perceived threat.

From the sequence of events on August 2, it was clear that the British vote for war that day did not come without protest in their own cabinet. But it did come before Albert's decision. Had British vote gone the other way, Albert may have chosen a different path.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


No doubt, it wasn't anti-German at all way back when. In that Gibson diary link, he at one point comments on all the forts built by the Brits and Germans in Belgium against the French. But, as German power grew, British attitudes changed. So did Belgiums.

If anything, I would have to say that Belgian foreign policy was the same as Britain to the extent of the perceived threat.

Of course it did - it was a neutral country. Being neutral doesn't mean that you give in - it means that you prepare against all potential enemies, and when germany became a such, it's obvious to prepare for an attack.

If anything, I would have to say that Belgian foreign policy was the same as Britain to the extent of the perceived threat.

Why shouldn't they have the same policy if the had the same view about potential threats ?

From the sequence of events on August 2, it was clear that the British vote for war that day did not come without protest in their own cabinet. But it did come before Albert's decision. Had British vote gone the other way, Albert may have chosen a different path.

Why ? If he had chosen otherwise he would have been a german ally.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

I'm not at all- Japan and Mexico were both 'invited' to attack the United States, so that the U.S. would have to fight in the Pacific and Atlantic and on land.

After all, by the time of the telegram, fighting in the Pacific was over.

The Japanese response:

Japanese Prime Minister Count Terauchi on the Zimmermann Telegram

The revelation of Germany's latest plot, looking to a combination between Japan and Mexico against the United States, is interesting in many ways.

We are surprised not so much by the persistent efforts of the Germans to cause an estrangement between Japan and the United States as by their complete failure of appreciating the aims and ideals of other nations.

Nothing is more repugnant to our sense of honour and to the lasting welfare of this country than to betray our allies and friends in time of trial and to become a party to a combination directed against the United States, to whom we are bound not only by the sentiments of true friendship, but also by the material interests of vast and far-reaching importance.

The proposal which is now reported to have been planned by the German Foreign Office has not been communicated to the Japanese Government up to this moment, either directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, but should it ever cone to hand I can conceive no other form of reply than that of indignant and categorical refusal.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. V, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923


The telegram:

To the German Minister to Mexico

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 endeavour 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.

Zimmermann
(Secretary of State)

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.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Belgium 'knew' that Great Britain and France were co-guarantors of the treaty.

It did not know for certain that Great Britain or France would actually commit armed forces to defend Belgium.

Just as it did not know for certain that Germany would violate Belgian neutrality- until the Belgian border was crossed by German forces.


You are thus extrapolating from a treaty's moral/legal obligation some kind of secret alliance between Belgium, France and Great Britain against Germany where none existed, and that only this alleged secret agreement dictated the Belgian government military and monarch's moves.

As has been demonstrated quite plainly, the Belgians seem to have been rather scrupulous in their neutrality and not favoured Germany or the Entente powers.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I tend to agree that British support was not 100% certain early on, but that changed. Not long before the war broke out, the British cabinet apparently voted to stay neutral in the war. But 10 hours before the Germans gave Belgium the ultimatum. when Albert made his recommendation to fight, the Brits has already made their decision to intervene.

Yes.

'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.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

If anything, I would have to say that Belgian foreign policy was the same as Britain to the extent of the perceived threat.

Really ?

Based on what precisely ?

Phases of the moon ? A feeling in your lower gut ?

Reading the liver of a slaughtered goat ?

From the sequence of events on August 2, it was clear that the British vote for war that day did not come without protest in their own cabinet. But it did come before Albert's decision. Had British vote gone the other way, Albert may have chosen a different path.

Can you demonstrate that King Albert knew of the British decision ?

That without the cabinet's decision he would not have gone to war ?

That the British informed Albert of their decision and he then acted upon this ?


If not, all is mere unfounded speculation.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

I tend to agree that British support was not 100% certain early on, but that changed. Not long before the war broke out, the British cabinet apparently voted to stay neutral in the war. But 10 hours before the Germans gave Belgium the ultimatum. when Albert made his recommendation to fight, the Brits has already made their decision to intervene.

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:

[August 2, 1914]

==[1100.AM-200.PM] > In a grueling British Cabinet meeting, Asquith and Grey force the neutralist faction to declare they will support British intervention if Germany attacks the French north coast or invades Belgium - British intervention becomes inevitable

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.

[Colon™]

I'm actually kind of enjoying Belgium's new-found status as aggressor-nation.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

From the sequence of events on August 2, it was clear that the British vote for war that day did not come without protest in their own cabinet. But it did come before Albert's decision. Had British vote gone the other way, Albert may have chosen a different path.

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:

Belgium.Germany.
==[900.PM-400.AM] > The Belgian Council of State meets: King Albert opens with “Our answer must be ‘No,’ whatever the consequences.” - Belgium resolves to resist Germany - ~belated orders are issued to put the Liège forts in a state of defense

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?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Colon™
I'm actually kind of enjoying Belgium's new-found status as aggressor-nation.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Indeed, the treaty was originally designed to protect Belgium's integrity from France. France annexed Belgium in the early 1790s and kept it until 1814. Many Frenchmen throughout the 19th century considered Belgium the rightful property of France.

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.