When is war justified, part duex?

[Ned]

And, just to make the point even clearer, the Prince of Luxembourg made the same decision as did the mayor of Brussels and allowed the Germans to pass through. His country was saved even as Belgium was destroyed. I assume the population of Brussels was larger than the whole country of Luxembourgh.

The same problem can present itself to mayors, to princes, to Kings and to commanders in small rubber dinghies.

[BlackCat]

Quite right, and the prince of Luxebourgh made the obvious choice - same did the king of Belgium.

[BlackCat]

Just out of curiosity - why did the Irish act as stupid as they did fighting the Brits ? They were hopelessly outnumbered and their arms - well, I guess the brits had their laughs.

You seem pretty fond of the way the germans acted in Belgium - would you approve if the brits did similar in Eire ? Not the peevish actions they did but a real tough action.

[Ned]

When one is outnumbered, outgunned and outsupplied by a large margin, one melts his army into the hills, the forests and the villages to conduct a guerilla campaign. That is what the Irish did and are doing. That is what Saddam did and his troops are doing.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

That is what the Irish did and are doing.

Even allowing for the sheer stupidity and ignorance of your contention (ever been to Belgium ? It has rather dense forests) the 'logic' you so inaccurately applied to the Belgium armed forces and defensive structures would apply even more so to the poorly-armed and supplied revolutionaries of Easter 1916- who largely fought in Dublin, which is not a bog, mountain, hills, or a forest, but a city which had a fair bit of Georgian architecture.

By the way, who are 'the Irish' at war with ?

As far as I'm aware the armed forces of the Irish Republic see service with the United Nations occasionally.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
When one is outnumbered, outgunned and outsupplied by a large margin, one melts his army into the hills, the forests and the villages to conduct a guerilla campaign. That is what the Irish did and are doing. That is what Saddam did and his troops are doing.

Totally forgot this thread - sorry.

Why are you talking about guerilla warfare - that hasn't until now been an option.

It might be true that the brits and yanks isn't doing that well against such. Are you suggesting that they should apply the german way of handling such situations ? (that is rounding up civilians and shoot them ?). According to your previous postings, it seems like you are in favour to this.

[Ned]

Re: Iraq, I think we should build up the Iraqi armed forces and vanish. I have said this from day 1, not day 2 or day 3 or day 785 or whatever.

The Belgians did try a bit or guerilla warfare and, as noted, the Germans were very harsh in their reprisals. All this means is that the best option for the Belgians from day one would have been to stand aside like Luxembourg.

Nearly 100 years later, I wonder what they teach the kids of Luxembourg to explain what their government did versus the government of Belgium? Was their prince right and King Albert wrong?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


The Belgians did try a bit or guerilla warfare and, as noted, the Germans were very harsh in their reprisals.

Ned proving he never gets tired of repeating German propaganda, even when he has been corrected.

There is little doubt that the German soldiers often fired because of the fear of francs-tireurs, but there is no convincing evidence that they were actually fired upon; indeed, no serious effort seems to have been made judicially to establish the fact.

Official Report by U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, Brand Whitlock, to the U.S. Secretary of State, 12 September 1917

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/germanatrocities_usreport.htm

When you repeat something after it has been disproved, you're knowingly reproducing a falsehood.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
Nearly 100 years later, I wonder what they teach the kids of Luxembourg to explain what their government did versus the government of Belgium? Was their prince right and King Albert wrong?

That is a totally irellevant question - one country had a honour guard, the other had a strong army including fortifications.

You still haven't answered my question wether the irish would have stopped fighting if the brits instead of mere police actions had used german military "tactics".

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Ned proving he never gets tired of repeating German propaganda, even when he has been corrected.



Official Report by U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, Brand Whitlock, to the U.S. Secretary of State, 12 September 1917

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/germanatrocities_usreport.htm

When you repeat something after it has been disproved, you're knowingly reproducing a falsehood.

Disproved? What a load! Your own reference says there is no proof one way or the other.

What your position on this is: I don't believe a word the Germans say. It's all propaganda.

But what IS true is that the Brits were engaged in propaganda of their own. This is a fact. There is even a growing consensus that it was Brit propaganda, joined by the likes of Teddy R., that got America into the war. It was, and still is, it seems, very effective.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That is a totally irellevant question - one country had a honour guard, the other had a strong army including fortifications.

You still haven't answered my question wether the irish would have stopped fighting if the brits instead of mere police actions had used german military "tactics".

No it is not.

What actually happened to Belgium demonstrates the futillity of their military position. Most at the time thought that Belgium had no chance and were surprised she held out as long as she did.

Surprised!

The governor of New France is honored as a national hero for surrendering on terms to the savage Brits rather than let his people suffer more. I think the Prince of Luxembourg shares that same honor.

But somehow, King Albert is still revered here in this forum for destroying his country. He was a madman, not a hero.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Disproved? What a load! Your own reference says there is no proof one way or the other.

It says nothing of the sort.

I didn't say by the way, that only Whitlock's report disproved your repeated lies.

...but there is no convincing evidence that they were actually fired upon

compares rather well with your ASS-ertion:

The Belgians did try a bit or guerilla warfare

which had no evidentiary proof with it.

Undoubtedly you'll now scrabble around for something from the German White Book of 1915 for justification.

Sad, but pretty much in character for you.

What is important about the Bryce Report is (a) it legitimates the accounts of attacks against civilians and cultural sites and (b) it contextualizes them as proving violations of the conventions governing warfare (which Germany had signed) and as crimes against humanity.

The Bryce Report is important as a formal indictment of the Terror Campaign of the Germans.

http://www.gwpda.org/comment/bryce.html

The last time you made the claim of Belgian guerillas or civilian combatants being the justification for German war crimes, I quoted at length from an article in 'History Today', vol. 52(4) of April 2002, entitled:

'German Atrocities 1914: Fact, Fantasy Or Fabrication ?'

by John Horne.

And what did you say ?

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

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163795&perpage=30&pagenumber=6

Among the errors you made in your rush to excuse Germany of just about anything were:

But never do any of them witness a civilian being mistreated let alone shot for no reason.

and yet the source you used said:

People have been shot by hundreds, and those not killed are being driven from the town.

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Belgium/Diary_01.htm

What your position on this is: I don't believe a word the Germans say. It's all propaganda.

No Ned- based on repeated experience, I have sound reasons to doubt or disbelieve nearly everything you say.

Especially when you can't even read the sources you cite to supposedly help you....

There is even a growing consensus that it was Brit propaganda, joined by the likes of Teddy R., that got America into the w

Oh blah blah blah.

Where is this growing 'consensus' ?

Name names.

Like those vague, scholarly opinions and historians you mention but never refer to by name, this is just more smoke and mirrors on your part.

Most at the time thought that Belgium had no chance and were surprised she held out as long as she did.

And yet you don't quote or attempt to quantify this 'most'.

No shock. Belgium was of course never entirely conquered, and Belgium's forces managed to delay the Germans and throw a spanner in the works of the Schlieffen Plan.

Still, what's a few facts in the path of the steamroller of Ned's Revisionism 101 ?



I like ElTigre's comment:

Is your statement a deliberate lie, or didn't you bother to read your own source?

Bit of both, is my considered opinion.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

But somehow, King Albert is still revered here in this forum for destroying his country.

Leaving aside your ad hominem attack on King Albert (I take it you aren't a qualified practitioner in psychiatry ?)
it was the German Army which overran parts of Belgium which did the destroying.

But don't whatever you do lay the blame where it should lie.

That would be so out of character....

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


No shock. Belgium was of course never entirely conquered, and Belgium's forces managed to delay the Germans and throw a spanner in the works of the Schlieffen Plan.

Still, what's a few facts in the path of the steamroller of Ned's Revisionism 101 ?

Because of the Belgian resistance, the Brits were able to hold Ypres. In a history channel special last night about the trenches around Ypres, the commentator said that Brit high command at the time thought that if Ypres fell, they would lose France.

So yes indeed, Albert save Britan an France from losing the war at the cost of devastation of his own country. The Brits should pin a medal on the man (which they probably did.)

His own people, though, should wonder just who Albert was working for as he didn't seem to care very much about Belgium.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


In a history channel special last night about the trenches around Ypres, the commentator said that Brit high command at the time thought that if Ypres fell, they would lose France.

I'm so glad you can devote so much time to watching television.

It is such a great substitute for proper learning.

His own people, though, should wonder just who Albert was working for as he didn't seem to care very much about Belgium.

Blah blah blah.

More of the same spoilt schoolgirl taunts, snide insinuations about King Albert, a real patriot.