When is war justified, part duex?

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom

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

Real patriot: Hero of the British Empire.

Belgium's obligation of neutrality was to Britain, not to her own people. Albert lead his people into battle on behalf of the British Empire and got a lot of them killed to protect Britain. What kind of patriot is that?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Real patriot: Hero of the British Empire.

More innuendo, no facts. Still not getting the hang of this history thing Ned ?

Why did Belgium have its troops split up to anticipate attacks from the French, British and Germans on the eve of war ?

Because the Belgians were preparing to defend their country from all-comers.

They weren't acting in concert with the British.

Belgium's obligation of neutrality was to Britain, not to her own people.

I've no idea what that is meant to mean. Belgium's neutrality was guaranteed by international treaty, by the Russians, British, French, Austrians and Prussians.

This neutrality was again confirmed in the Franco-Prussian War.

Belgium's neutrality would have been violated were its territory to have been used as a staging post for a German attack on France.

Why you persist in being unable to see this, well, it defies reason.

Albert lead his people into battle on behalf of the British Empire

He did ? Where's your evidence for this grotesque distortion of history ?

Where were his orders to 'defend the British Empire' ?

Gentlemen:

Never, since 1839, has a more solemn hour struck for Belgium: the integrity of our territory is threatened.

The very force of our righteous cause, the sympathy which Belgium, proud of her free institutions and her moral victories, has always received from other nations, and the necessity of our autonomous existence in respect of the equilibrium of Europe, make us still hopeful that the dreaded emergency will not be realized.

But if our hopes are betrayed, if we are forced to resist the invasion of our soil, and to defend our threatened homes, this duty, however hard it may be, will find us armed and resolved upon the greatest sacrifices.

Even now, in readiness for any eventuality, our valiant youth is up in arms, firmly resolved, with the traditional tenacity and composure of the Belgians, to defend our threatened country.

In the name of the nation, I give it a brotherly greeting. Everywhere in Flanders and Wallonia, in the towns and in the countryside, one single feeling binds all hearts together: the sense of patriotism.

Address by King Albert to the Belgian Parliament, 4th August 1914

Hasn't mentioned the British Empire's integrity so far.

Sorry you don't like the way history actually occurred, Ned, but that doesn't give you the right to impugn the motives of people like King Albert without showing any evidence for your biased view of him and the Entente.

got a lot of them killed to protect Britain.

Astonishing- I thought the job of the Belgian army was to protect Belgium- apparently so did they and Albert.

They killed quite a few Germans too... without leaving Belgium. Are you suggesting Belgium was secretly part of the British Empire ?

What kind of patriot is that?

You mean the Belgian soldiers weren't real 'patriots', unlike those Irish rebels in Easter 1916, vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the superior British forces, but who chose to rebel anyway, knowing that death and destruction would follow ?

Tcha.

[Ned]

molly, every nation has a right to defend it borders even from civilian interlopers. I do not deny this. But when we were discussing Beligium's obligation of neutrality, that obligation was not to itself, but to Holland, to Germany, to France and to the Brit Empire. If it was fight for "neutrality" it was a fight on behalf of one or more of those countries/empires, the beneficiaries of the obligation.

So what did Belgium fight for? To keep the Germans out of Belgium or for neutality? I say the latter, primarily. It is actually in Albert's speech. Why don't you quote it for us?

[BlackCat]

Just out of curiosity - what is wrong to defend ones neutrality ? Both the swedes and the swiss are prepared to do such.

[Ned]

What do you mean, "Defend one's neutrality?" One is or is not neutral.

In the case of Belgium, the she had a duty to remain neutral, not a right to remain neutral. There is a difference. Her duty was to Britain, to Germany, to France and to Holland. When she chose to fight Germany, to the extent she did so to remain "neutral", she did so in fuffilling her duty to Britain and to France. She was fighting for them.

In the case of the German foederati in the OP, the German leader could have fought the Huns just to keep them out of his territory. But, since the Huns only wanted to move on and had promised to pay for any damage caused on their way through, fighting the Huns to prevent such passage makes no sense whatsoever given that fighting would result in utter devastation of the German leader's country.

This exposes the real reason the German leader would fight the Huns. He would do so because he owed a duty to fight to the Romans.

[BlackCat]

Ned you really have a weird view on the concept of being neutral.

Why do you think that the swedes and the swiss has so strong armies as they have ? They have that so they can protect themself against any attacker - just as Belgium.

Being neutral doesn't mean that you are a doormat anyone can step on if they want (oh, and please don't bother to mention Luxembourg - it's a micronation that in no way can be compared to Belgium).

When Belgium "chosed" to fight against the german attack, it was to protect Belgium - not to fight on the side of France and Britain. It was Germany that chose to attack Belgium, not the other way.

[Ned]

BlackCat, you are cutely ignoring the fact that Germany only wanted to pass through Belgium, not to conquer it. Germany did not "attack" Belgium with a view to conquering her or defeating her in a war. Quite the contrary.

The Swedes and the Swiss have strong armies to ward off conquerors. The Belgian army was entirely unnecessary as she had the guaranteed support of four powers, three of them great powers.

BTW, today the Belgians have the same guarantee and are openly talking about disbanding the military entirely. Not so?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

But when we were discussing Beligium's obligation of neutrality, that obligation was not to itself,

I've no idea who suggested that Belgium had to 'neutral to itself', nor do I have the faintest notion of what 'being neutral to onself' is meant to entail.

neutral to Holland, to Germany, to France and to the Brit Empire.

So how does Belgium allowing Imperial Germany to occupy or move across Belgian territory entail it being neutral in a war between Germany and France and Great Britain ?

It doesn't of course. It would have to allow the same privilege to France and Great Britain at the same time, and act as a staging post or throughway for all the armies and navies of the Alliance and Entente.

Daft nonsense.

If it was fight for "neutrality" it was a fight on behalf of one or more of those countries/empires, the beneficiaries of the obligation.

No it wasn't!

Oh, good grief, do you even understand the concept of neutrality ?

So what did Belgium fight for?

Its territorial integrity- which was violated by Imperial Germany, quite wilfully, in a war against France.

To keep the Germans out of Belgium or for neutality?

Both. They are not contradictory in any way.

It is actually in Albert's speech. Why don't you quote it for us?

I quote lots, and am not a mindreader.

Your turn.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
BlackCat, you are cutely ignoring the fact that Germany only wanted to pass through Belgium, not to conquer it. Germany did not "attack" Belgium with a view to conquering her or defeating her in a war. Quite the contrary.

No, I'm not ignoring that. Try read the old thread and you will see that I and others several times has said that if the belgians had allowed such it would have been a severe violation of their neutrality.

It doesn't really matter that the germans just wanted free passage. The fact is that when they were denied that, they attacked belgium.

The Swedes and the Swiss have strong armies to ward off conquerors. The Belgian army was entirely unnecessary as she had the guaranteed support of four powers, three of them great powers.

Except one of those broke that agreement and invaded the country - they apparently needed an army to ward off conquerors after all.

BTW, today the Belgians have the same guarantee and are openly talking about disbanding the military entirely. Not so?

Could be, but I haven't heard about such. Any references ?

[Ned]

molly and blackcat, Germany's demands on Belgium for passage were a violation of the 1839 treaty. But that does not mean that has Belgium granted the access demanded she would be deemed an enemy of France and Britain. Luxembourg had the same kind of treaty obligations and was not considered an enemy by the allies, but instead was considered a conquered nation.

In WWII, Germany also took these very same countries and added Holland. By giving in to Germand demands and avoiding a prolonged battle, none of these countries were considered hostile to the allies. They too were considered conquered nations.

Belgium would have had the same status in WWI as all these other examples, in my opinion. Fighting got them nothing but massive death and destruction an four years of very hostile occupation. 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 I said, I would be interested to see just how the school kids of Luxembourg are taught about the actions of their government in WWI as compared to the actions of the government of Belgium. Were they heroes or Quislings?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
molly and blackcat, Germany's demands on Belgium for passage were a violation of the 1839 treaty. But that does not mean that has Belgium granted the access demanded she would be deemed an enemy of France and Britain. Luxembourg had the same kind of treaty obligations and was not considered an enemy by the allies, but instead was considered a conquered nation.

Please stop using luxembourg as a comparison - using a micronation as a measurement is idiotic.

In WWII, Germany also took these very same countries and added Holland. By giving in to Germand demands and avoiding a prolonged battle, none of these countries were considered hostile to the allies. They too were considered conquered nations.

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

Belgium would have had the same status in WWI as all these other examples, in my opinion. Fighting got them nothing but massive death and destruction an four years of very hostile occupation. 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 I said, I would be interested to see just how the school kids of Luxembourg are taught about the actions of their government in WWI as compared to the actions of the government of Belgium. Were they heroes or Quislings?

You should refresh you geographical knowledge - luxembourg is mainly east of belgium.

About the belgiums fighting and having severe losses, well, why did the germans fight and having even worse losses when they where sure to loose ? Why did the germans do such a stupid thing ?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned


As I said, I would be interested to see just how the school kids of Luxembourg are taught about the actions of their government in WWI as compared to the actions of the government of Belgium. Were they heroes or Quislings?

Quislings.
Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg

She was highly interested in politics and took an active part in the government and the political life of the Grand Duchy. During World War I, she enjoyed a rather cordial relationship with the German occupiers, for which she was harshly criticized after the end of the war. Although not having done anything unconstitutional, voices in Parliament began to demand her abdication in January 1919.At the same time, prominent political figures in both neighbouring France and Belgium espoused annexationist plans towards the Grand Duchy and thus had a vested interest in discrediting Marie-Adélaïde. After consulting with the Prime Minister, she abdicated on January 14, 1919 and was succeeded by her younger sister Charlotte.

EDIT: More info...

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

Led by William's daughter, the Grand Duchess Marie Adélaïde, the grand duchy cooperated with the Germans in their unlawful violation of Luxembourg's neutrality during World War I (1914-1918). Disliked by her people and severely criticized by the victorious Allied Powers in 1919, Marie Adélaïde was forced to abdicate in favor of her sister Charlotte.

[ElTigre]

Apparently the only thing that guaranteed Luxembourg's independence after 1918 was the fact that both Belgium and France wanted to annex the country!

Link to PDF: THE LUXEMBURG QUESTION AT THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE AND AFTER

They were in whole-hearted agreement on only one
point : that the international status of Luxemburg must be revised.
By this, they meant the legal status whereby the Grand Duchy had become a German satellite.

[...]

Long before the war ended, it was clear to the Allies that Lu-
xemburg must be removed from the German orbit but that she could
not stand alone and must enter into some sort of union with another neighbouring state, either Belgium or France.

So much for your claim that the Entente considered Luxembourg's cooperation with Germany as honorable neutrality, Ned!

[ElTigre]

Found another interesting PDF-file:

The Question of Neutrality and Belgium's Security Dilemma during the First World War

Rather than see neutrality as an obstacle to their country's independence, most Belgians adhered to the view, most notably articulated by the mid-19th-century Liberal statesman, Walthère Frère-Orban, that Belgian independence was inseparable from neutrality and indeed dependent upon it. 5 Belgium's monarchs shared this view and never ceased advocating a strong army and system of fortifications to defend both neutrality and independence.

[...]

Despite the seeming failure of the security system of 1839, certain Belgian statesmen and diplomats, such as Charles Woeste, 10 prewar leader of the Catholic Party's right wing and notorious antimilitarist; Léon Arendt, 11 prewar Director General of Policy at the Foreign Ministry; and Edmond Carton de Wiart, 12 former private secretary of King Leopold II and Director of the Société Générale holding company, opposed an abandonment of permanent neutrality
even after the German invasion. For these observers, the regime of 1839 did not fail because, once Germany had violated Belgium's neutrality, Britain joined France and Russia and came to Belgium's rescue, and, in the end, the country was liberated.

As a violated neutral, moreover, Belgium benefited from sympathy around the world and was able to occupy the moral high ground, a position that would not have been possible had Belgium been bound by an alliance. Indeed, the defenders of neutrality, including King Albert I, often pointed to Belgium's geographical situation and its internal political divisions as arguments against not only abandonment, but also alliances and military agreements, particularly with either France or Germany. 14 For a country which was considered, prior to the outbreak of war, as Francophile or Germanophile depending on the prejudices of the observer, an unneutral Belgium would have had a difficult time convincing its two powerful neighbors that a policy of friendship with one should not be considered one of hostility to the other.

[ElTigre]

Another article debunking Ned's nonsense! This time it's in German (written by a German), but luckily there's an English summary.

Link

POWER-POLICY AND CONTINENTAL IMPERIALISM INVESTIGATION INTO THE MOTIVES OF THE GERMAN BELGIUM-POLICY 1914-1918

by Dr. Frank WENDE

SUMMARY
This article aims at answering the question why Belgium became the first objective of the German war-planning immediately after the outbreak of World War I, although in the prewar period no signs were traceable indicating plans to subject the country to the German domination.
It appears that the "Belgian question" must be viewed in connection with the striving of the German empire to acquire a strong position as an equal "World-power" among the great powers, which striving had also been brought about by structural crises in the field of internal policy.
The imperialistic doctrine, believed in by both the Empire and the neighbouring states, implied the establishment of a colonial empire as the basis for this position of a world-power. Here, however, Germany came upon boundaries which had arisen through her late access to the circle of the great powers. Confronted with the fact that the territory for the colonial empire to be created, was already largely in the hands of others, the idea of power-policy grew increasingly dominant in German politics : the prejudice could be removed only by force.

This fundamental conviction gave rise to the idea of the formation of a continental power-basis as the starting-point for the maritime expansion aspired to. Thus Europe itself was subject to imperialistic thinking. The continental imperialism which was taking roots in Germany, also determined her war planning : the sense and the success of the war were measured by the extent to which it proved to realize the continental basis for the future position of a world-power. Consequently, Belgium was given a key-function as the real object of the issue between Germany and England : the control of this country decided whether the German conception of the war-objectives could be realized in the West or not. The conviction — which was found in all strata of the population — that the survival of the Empire depended only on victory or defeat blurred all sense of injustice. The existence of Belgium, which was based on the law of nations, was sacrified on the altar of power-policy.

So much for your claim that Germany only wanted to pass through Belgium, Ned...