WWI, Why America?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dauphin

The Germans did not choose to wage war against Belgium so long as she did not choose to wage war against her. Twice Germany offered peace and twice she was turned down.

Albert chose sides in the war between Germany and France and was not neutral to Germany to whom she owned a duty to be neutral.

Priceless Ned, priceless.

Let us in or we knock the door down. And then it's the victim who is at fault.

Comedy gold.

This is not a question of fault. This is a question of what choice one chooses when one does have a choice to make. Germany offered Belgium a choice -- twice day they offered the same choice. Belgium did not have to choose war; they could have chosen peace.

[Dauphin]

Choice? It's called a Hobbesian choice.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Blackcat, the Germans offered to compensate the Belgians for any damage caused by their troops being in Belgium and the pay for any supplies they would requisition. By any measure, this deal is a lot better than average Belgian then the deal the action did receive for going to war against Germany.

War started? Are you ignorant of the fact that Germany gave Belgium an ultimatum that was refused and again offered peace after the forts at the Liege fell?

Belgium chose war and not peace!.

Nope, it was germany that chose war. If they hadn't made the demands in the first place there wouldn't have been a war.

When belgium didn't accept the ultimatum, the germans could just have stayed out, but they didn't.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You are ignoring that if Belgium had allowed Germany to do as it wished, it would be the same as declaring war on France. I have pointed it out to you, others have pointed it out to you.

Germany chose war for Belgium. Belgium just decided they would fight Germany instead of France.

Jon Miller

Jon, and I have replied to you that that is not true. I give you are examples in history where countries have allowed to third parties the use their territory for attacks on others against their will and have not been deemed to be at war with the party against whom the attacks were made. I gave you the example of Cambodia in the Vietnam conflict. I gave you the example of her Lebanon in the current situation where Hezbollah attacks Israel from its southern borders.

If Belgium had allowed the German troops to pass through Belgium because of the ultimatum, France would not have gone to war against Belgium and seek to destroy her. France would recognize the Belgium had no choice as France did in the case of Luxembourg where Luxembourg had no choice but to allow the Germans to pass through pursuant to a German ultimatum to Luxembourg. In fact, after Luxembourg had conceded to the German request, France still considered her a neutral party and formally asked the British to declare war on Germany because her violation of Luxembourg neutrality. This is before the issue of Belgium had arisen.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Nope, it was germany that chose war. If they hadn't made the demands in the first place there wouldn't have been a war.

When belgium didn't accept the ultimatum, the germans could just have stayed out, but they didn't.

Your money or your life?

You have a gun pointed at your head when this question is raised. What do you do? Stand on principle?

After you make your choice to stand on principal, does your widow applaud your principled stand? Do your orphaned children clap with joy that their father chose to stand up against the criminal rather than to hand him the few dollars he asked for?

What choice do you choose when the offer is made while you stand in your own house with the certain knowledge that are if you choose to fight that your house will be destroyed, your wife raped in your children killed. Don't you have some responsibility to them as well as to your own sense of principle?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Jon, and I have replied to you that that is not true. I give you are examples in history where countries have allowed to third parties the use their territory for attacks on others against their will and have not been deemed to be at war with the party against whom the attacks were made. I gave you the example of Cambodia in the Vietnam conflict. I gave you the example of her Lebanon in the current situation where Hezbollah attacks Israel from its southern borders.

These examples are worthless to say it mildly. First of all, they both happens some 70-90 years later. Second, Lebanon is more or less in a state of civil war. Third, NV didn't ask if they could go through cambodia - they did it.

If Belgium had allowed the German troops to pass through Belgium because of the ultimatum, France would not have gone to war against Belgium and seek to destroy her. France would recognize the Belgium had no choice as France did in the case of Luxembourg where Luxembourg had no choice but to allow the Germans to pass through pursuant to a German ultimatum to Luxembourg. In fact, after Luxembourg had conceded to the German request, France still considered her a neutral party and formally asked the British to declare war on Germany because her violation of Luxembourg neutrality. This is before the issue of Belgium had arisen.

Stop mentioning Luxembourgh - it's meaningless. You compare a micronation against a nation with a strong army.

Some pages ago, it was noted that if french or english troops came uninvited, the belgians would open fire. Are you saying that if they just had made an ultimatum prior, then the belgians shouldn't have shot at them and allowed them to enter freely ?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Your money or your life?

You have a gun pointed at your head when this question is raised. What do you do? Stand on principle?

After you make your choice to stand on principal, does your widow applaud your principled stand? Do your orphaned children clap with joy that their father chose to stand up against the criminal rather than to hand him the few dollars he asked for?

What choice do you choose when the offer is made while you stand in your own house with the certain knowledge that are if you choose to fight that your house will be destroyed, your wife raped in your children killed. Don't you have some responsibility to them as well as to your own sense of principle?

Your example is meaningless. Well, it makes sense in the case of Luxembourg, but not Belgium.

A more proper comparison would be Al Capone calling some local police station in Chicago demanding that his goons should have free play in the district. While the police force in that district may be weaker than Al's hordes, they can't give in to such an ultimatum.

[Ned]

Blackcat, we close in on the nub of the situation, do we not? The likelyhood of Belgian victory without substantial harm to Belgium vs. the concession to Germany which would put Belgium in technical violation of her obligations to Britain and France.

Even at the time, not one person thought that Belgium would last more than a few days against Germany. So, unless Albert was looking for an army from God, his decision had only one outcome for Belgium, the one that actually happened. One does not need 20-20 hindsight to see this as it was known at the time.

Albert chose war for his people and certain destruction for his country for a matter of pride.

The more cynical among us might suspect a bribe, but that is another story.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Blackcat, the Germans offered to compensate the Belgians for any damage caused by their troops being in Belgium and the pay for any supplies they would requisition. By any measure, this deal is a lot better than average Belgian then the deal the action did receive for going to war against Germany.

War started? Are you ignorant of the fact that Germany gave Belgium an ultimatum that was refused and again offered peace after the forts at the Liege fell?

Belgium chose war and not peace!.

Horse Hockey!

If Belgium said, sure, march through, France and Britain would have invaded themselves to fight the Germans where they were, and not in France. And they would have had every right to do so. Then Belgium would have been in the middle of three armies, none of whom would have had the feigntest regard for the Belgian people.

You're wrong, you're nuts, and you are pulling **** out of your ass, as usual.

[notyoueither]

And not only that, but the Royal Navy could have blocked any aid going to Belgian ports.

Go home, Mr Hoover. You're not wanted here.

Isn't pulling **** of your ass fun, Ned?

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Horse Hockey!

If Belgium said, sure, march through, France and Britain would have invaded themselves to fight the Germans where they were, and not in France. And they would have had every right to do so. Then Belgium would have been in the middle of three armies, none of whom would have had the feigntest regard for the Belgian people.

You're wrong, you're nuts, and you are pulling **** out of your ass, as usual.

That's what happened anyway, but for one additional factor. The Germans were trying to actually kill Belgians and destroy their towns and cities.

I'm nuts.

When Wolfe, the misanthropic "leader" of the British army in Canada, raped New France, and kept it up, do you know what the New-France born govenor did? He surrendered, but on condition that the rights of the French Catholics be respected.

He is viewed as a national hero by the French Canadians for sparing the French further devestation and for protecting their faith.

But, you contend, that anyone who sees any advantage in not subjecting his people to the horrors of war is NUTS!!!!!

I respectfully submit, NYE, that there are actions by leaders which in the present are rash, but in hindsight, were clearly insane. Albert's decision to take on the Germans was one of these.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And not only that, but the Royal Navy could have blocked any aid going to Belgian ports.

Go home, Mr Hoover. You're not wanted here.

Isn't pulling **** of your ass fun, Ned?

How did England deal with Holland in the war? Did it blockade it knowing that any shipments to Holland could easily be transhipped to Germany?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


That's what happened anyway, but for one additional factor. The Germans were trying to actually kill Belgians and destroy their towns and cities.

I'm nuts.

Yes, you are.

If Begium had betrayed the treaty that said she had to resist any invader (Germany in this case) and if the British and French had treated her as an Afghanistan, the Belgian people would have been well and truely ****ed.

No aid, and both sides shooting as if they didn't give a **** about the consequences.

When Wolfe, the misanthropic "leader" of the British army in Canada, raped New France, and kept it up, do you know what the New-France born govenor did? He surrendered, but on condition that the rights of the French Catholics be respected.

He is viewed as a national hero by the French Canadians for sparing the French further devestation and for protecting their faith.

But, you contend, that anyone who sees any advantage in not subjecting his people to the horrors of war is NUTS!!!!!

Uhmm, Ned? He ended the fighting by giving in.

For Belgium in 1914, the box of chocolates was just being opened.

Yes, you are nuts. Not only that, but you are too stupid to not realise when you don't have a hope, yet you insist on drawing parallels that are anything but.

However, nice try to 1812 the affair.

I respectfully submit, NYE, that there are actions by leaders which in the present are rash, but in hindsight, were clearly insane. Albert's decision to take on the Germans was one of these.

So you say based on the bubblings from your anus.

The rest of us await a fresh wind and something or other in support of your wild contentions.

[Jon Miller]

Nothing you have said Ned changes the fact that if Belgium had given in to German demands, that they would have broken their neutrality with France. What France does with that is up to France (and they can forgive it, like they did for Luxemburg.... however, I would point out that Belgium did have an army, and that these types of things aren't normally forgiven). It would still be an act of war.

Israel can attack Lebenon, and has, because of attacks from that country. We have attacked nations because they harbor enemies of ours. It is the way that nations work, and it makes sense.

Unlike your postings.

Jon Miller

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


How did England deal with Holland in the war? Did it blockade it knowing that any shipments to Holland could easily be transhipped to Germany?

Actually, the British did extend the blockade to include the Netherlands, a neutral. What do you think they would have done to Belgium after allowing the Germans free transit?

You may have 'Blown up the country and not gave a damn' for $100 of you ask Alex nicely.

Next!