LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 04-20-2007, 01:16 PM   #21
Qynvtlur

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
407
Senior Member
Default
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?
Qynvtlur is offline


Old 04-20-2007, 10:41 PM   #22
foI3fKWv

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
523
Senior Member
Default
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.
foI3fKWv is offline


Old 04-21-2007, 12:27 AM   #23
Nmoitmzr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
717
Senior Member
Default
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?
Nmoitmzr is offline


Old 04-21-2007, 02:01 PM   #24
Vcwdldva

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
430
Senior Member
Default
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?
Vcwdldva is offline


Old 04-22-2007, 02:18 AM   #25
Cibirrigmavog

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
386
Senior Member
Default
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!
Cibirrigmavog is offline


Old 04-22-2007, 03:46 AM   #26
SpyRemo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
390
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by ElTigre


Quislings.
Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg



EDIT: More info...

http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Le...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.
SpyRemo is offline


Old 04-22-2007, 06:07 PM   #27
wmzeto

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
463
Senior Member
Default
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.
wmzeto is offline


Old 04-23-2007, 01:11 AM   #28
fotodemujerahldesnugdo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
462
Senior Member
Default
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.
fotodemujerahldesnugdo is offline


Old 04-23-2007, 01:27 PM   #29
ThzinChang

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
508
Senior Member
Default
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'.
ThzinChang is offline


Old 04-23-2007, 01:34 PM   #30
Penisvergroesserung

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
610
Senior Member
Default
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.
Penisvergroesserung is offline


Old 04-23-2007, 08:15 PM   #31
sesWaipunsaws

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
362
Senior Member
Default
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?
sesWaipunsaws is offline


Old 04-23-2007, 09:06 PM   #32
Mister.levitra

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
493
Senior Member
Default
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.
Mister.levitra is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity