When is war justified, part duex?

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


Quislings.
Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg



EDIT: More info...

http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Le-Pa/Luxembourger-Americans.html

So much for Luxembourg independence. The ruler of the country was forced to resign by the allies. Allied armies marched through without permission on their way to Germany. Favorable economic treaties Luxembourg long enjoyed by treaty with Germany abrogated without their consent.

Luxembourg was treated like trash by the allies, but with respect by the Germans. Why? Because of the good relations between Luxembourgian royal family and German royalty.

Those who win control history and how people are viewed. You already know my views. I think the leaders of Luxembourg were far wiser that the leaders of Belgium. They kept their country safe, which was their first duty. No other obligation, by treaty or otherwise, is higher.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Ned, for heavens sake - they didn't give in - they fought and surrendered. So did denmark, norway, poland and several other countries.

True, but this only supports my point. The Belgians were offered peace on the same basis as the origian ultimatum after they lost their fortress at the Liege. They could have taken this deal and had the same relative status as all those other countries that fought for a short while then surrendered. The allies would have considered them a conquered country.

[Ned]

That article written in German was post-England's entry into the war. The German's objectives clearly changed after Belgium essentially took sides and was at war with Germany.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

So much for Luxembourg independence.

What happened to Luxembourg's independence after 1918, Ned? Did the country remain independent or not?

The ruler of the country was forced to resign by the allies.

The Duchess was forced to resign by the population. Why? Because she cooperated with the Germans. It's in the article I quoted.

Allied armies marched through without permission on their way to Germany.

1. No really!?! THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!! The Allies marched their troops through Luxembourg, just like the Germans did for 4 years! INCONCEIVABLE!!!

2. I want you to prove that they marched through the country without permission of the government.

3. The American troops were welcomed by the population:

General Impressions of the Day (Nov. 19/20):

Our troops resumed their march this morning. They were received everywhere with enthusiasm by the population, who met them with delegations, bands, and flowers. The Luxemburg border was crossed. (Intelligence Summary No. 4)

http://www.arcent.army.mil/history/march_germany.asp

Why were they greeted as liberators, Ned?

Favorable economic treaties Luxembourg long enjoyed by treaty with Germany abrogated without their consent.

Well, colour me shocked! After the government collaborated with the Germans despite an obligation to remain neutral, the country had to leave the German sphere of influence. :/

Luxembourg was treated like trash by the allies, but with respect by the Germans. Why? Because of the good relations between Luxembourgian royal family and German royalty.

Again, did Luxembourg remain independent or not, Ned? BTW, do you know what would have happened to Luxembourg if Germany would have won the war? Lets looks at the German war aims, formulated September 1914:

3. Luxemburg wird deutscher Bundesstaat und erhält einen Streifen aus der jetzt belgischen Provinz Luxemburg und eventuell die Ecke von Longwy.

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/hollweg/

Translation: "Luxembourg will become a German state and will be enlarged by parts of the Belgian province Luxembourg and maybe a part of Longwy."

Germany would have annexed Luxembourg.

Those who win control history and how people are viewed.
You already know my views. I think the leaders of Luxembourg were far wiser that the leaders of Belgium. They kept their country safe, which was their first duty. No other obligation, by treaty or otherwise, is higher.

Yes, I know your views. Sadly they are based on superficial knowledge, biased information, and on perverted definitions of justice, neutrality and duty.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


True, but this only supports my point. The Belgians were offered peace on the same basis as the origian ultimatum after they lost their fortress at the Liege. They could have taken this deal and had the same relative status as all those other countries that fought for a short while then surrendered. The allies would have considered them a conquered country.

Quite contrary - the battle of Liege made it possible to mobilize both the belgian army and allowing the brits and french to move. When the germans started the war by attacking belgium all three countries of course worked together on the goal of beating the germans.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
That article written in German was post-England's entry into the war. The German's objectives clearly changed after Belgium essentially took sides and was at war with Germany.

Belgium didn't take sides, Germany forced Belgium to defend itself.

That's not the point the article wants to make, to the contrary. The author argues that Belgium was of such strategic importance to Germany that the German High Command would have demanded an annexation even if the Belgian Army had not resisted.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
molly and blackcat, Germany's demands on Belgium for passage were a violation of the 1839 treaty.

And thus a violation of its neutrality and independence.

Both of which were guaranteed by Prussia in 1839, then again by the Germans during the Franco-Prussian War.

So is the idea that Imperial Germany could be trusted only when it was breaking treaties Ned ?

But that does not mean that has Belgium granted the access demanded she would be deemed an enemy of France and Britain.

Oh I see. Imperial Germany wants to attack France through Belgium, knowing that if if violates Belgian independence and attacks France it will bring in Great Britain in a war against itself.

Yet somehow Belgium, by facilitating a German attack on France, and acting as a throughway for German troops and materiel, would be entirely blameless.

How did you come by that conclusion ?

Luxembourg had the same kind of treaty obligations and was not considered an enemy by the allies, but instead was considered a conquered nation.

Big yawn. As we've pointed out before:

Luxembourg- very very small.

Luxembourgeois armed forces- teeny tiny- 400.

Belgium- lots lots bigger.

Belgiian armed forces- over 100 000 men.


See any notable difference ?

In WWII, Germany also took these very same countries and added Holland.

Oh well done. You have learned some history.

By giving in to Germand demands and avoiding a prolonged battle, none of these countries were considered hostile to the allies.

Mmm hmm. Have you heard of the bombardment of Rotterdam ? It's quite well known.

The capture of Fort Eben Emael ? Reasonably well-known too.

Guess what ? When Nazi Germany attacked, Dutch and Belgian armed forces resisted.

, in my opinion.

Wouldn't give you tuppence for it.

Fighting got them nothing but massive death and destruction an four years of very hostile occupation.

And fighting got the Netherlands the aerial bombardment of Rotterdam, the deportation camp at Westerbork, the destruction of Amsterdam's Jewish community...

...should I bother listing some of what happened to Belgium under Nazi occupation, or have you done 'research' on that Ned, and concluded it was 'TEH JOOZE' and 'TEH BRITZ' who were to blame for everything there ?

At the same time, just to the south, life in Luxembourg went on pretty much as normal throughout the entire war. The contrast is striking.

As are the size differences in area between Luxembourg and Belgium, and between the armed forces of the two countries.

You've sung this song before Ned, move along.

Were they heroes or Quislings?

I wonder why they'd have called members of the Grand Duchy's government 'Quislings' in 1920...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

You already know my views.

How could we not ?

To call it a partial reading of history would be an understatement.

You blithely ignore any evidence that doesn't suit your thesis, and have no concept of shame apparently- certainly not when it comes to labelling others propagandists and recycling antisemitic nonsense as 'fact'.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


True, but this only supports my point.

No, it doesn't.

Surprisingly enough, even in the face of overwhelming odds, people in Norway and the Netherlands and Denmark in World War Two were prepared to fight for what they believed to be right and in defence of their countries.


Which you don't think the Belgians in World War One should have done.

[Ned]

There is something very strange when history teaches that Albert is a hero for getting his country destroyed and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg is a Quisling for saving hers.

Bizzare.

War, as we learn here from the warmongerers, is always the right choice when the Brits are on one side and the Germans are on the other.

[Arrian]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I wonder why they'd have called members of the Grand Duchy's government 'Quislings' in 1920...

Annexationist plans by France and Belgium from political figures with an interest in discrediting her?

[Myrddin]

Check the timeline for the use of Quisling

[Ned]

Originally posted by Myrddin
Check the timeline for the use of Quisling

We know.

But the question is what people TODAY think of the Grand Duchess.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
There is something very strange when history teaches that Albert is a hero for getting his country destroyed and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg is a Quisling for saving hers.

Bizzare.

War, as we learn here from the warmongerers, is always the right choice when the Brits are on one side and the Germans are on the other.

Vague generalizations and name-calling - the last resort of those who ran out of arguments.

No comment on the fact that Germany would have annexed Luxembourg although its government collaborated?

No comment on the fact that the Entente was generous enough to let Luxembourg remain independent after 1918?

Regarding your 'interpretation' of history in this post: Albert was a hero for being so farsighted to see that collaborating with Germany wouldn't save his country from being annexed, and for defending his country against a brutal aggressor.

I don't blame the Duchess of Luxembourg for giving her troops orders to not resist, I blame her for her actions after the invasion. By cooperating with the Germans, she gave moral support to an army that had occupied her country, and made it much easier for German propaganda to cover up the true nature of Germany's war, as this thread proves. Instead of collaborating, she should have publicly announced that Luxembourg was an occupied nation that was forced to yield to German demands, but she decided to cooperate voluntarily. Such a statement would not have cost the live of a single Luxembourger.

War, as we learn here from the warmongerers, is always the right choice when the Brits are on one side and the Germans are on the other.

Germany was largely responsible for WW1, and solely responsible for WW2. Feel free to spin this into a century-spanning anti-German conspiracy theory. Don't let facts get in your way, though...