Belgium is both a nation and a road

The POD is going to have to come well before WWI. Belgium knows that Great Britain is guaranteeing their neutrality and sovereignty. If that could be the POD, then Belgium has real incentive to allow the German Army to pass through their country.

No, I think Belgium needs a terrific incentive to allow the Germany Army to pass through their country. If they agree they better all start collectively praying the Germans win the war.

If the Allies win they will be entirely within their rights, since Belgium aided and abetted the Germans, to dismember the nation or send Albert off into exile.
 
No, I think Belgium needs a terrific incentive to allow the Germany Army to pass through their country. If they agree they better all start collectively praying the Germans win the war.

If the Allies win they will be entirely within their rights, since Belgium aided and abetted the Germans, to dismember the nation or send Albert off into exile.
I agree Belgium can't let the German pass it would made it de facto a CP ally.
 
Random thought but didn't the Germans seize a large amount of nitrates from one of the Belgian ports that was fairly vital to bridge the gap in their supplies until the Haber process came fully up to speed? Now they could just bully the Belgians into selling or 'donating' it to them but assuming that for one reason or another that they don't gain access to them what does that do to Germany's position?
 
Random thought but didn't the Germans seize a large amount of nitrates from one of the Belgian ports that was fairly vital to bridge the gap in their supplies until the Haber process came fully up to speed? Now they could just bully the Belgians into selling or 'donating' it to them but assuming that for one reason or another that they don't gain access to them what does that do to Germany's position?

If the Belgians pass on any such supplies it would be seen as violating their neutrality stance - that is as long as the Germans are outside their borders. Every action and decision of the Belgian Government has to be under close scrutiny once the declarations of war start flying.
 

Cook

Banned
If the Allies win they will be entirely within their rights, since Belgium aided and abetted the Germans, to dismember the nation or send Albert off into exile.
I agree Belgium can't let the German pass it would made it de facto a CP ally.
Belgium would be neither aiding nor abetting; issuing diplomatic protests and withdrawing the Army to a securable national redoubt is not a belligerent move against either side in the war, it is a realistic strategy based on the extremely limited capacity of the Belgian Army. The fiery ‘nation not a road’ speech and subsequent deployment of Belgian forces was based entirely on a delusional assessment of the resistance the Belgian army could provide.
 
I thought that the British themselves were planning to break Belgian neutrality and it was just luck that Germany issued their ultimatum first, alliance notwithstanding.
 

Cook

Banned
I thought that the British themselves were planning to break Belgian neutrality and it was just luck that Germany issued their ultimatum first, alliance notwithstanding.

No. During the Second World War the British Expeditionary Force crossed the border into Belgium when their headquarters received first intelligence reports that the German offensive had commenced, prior to any request from Belgium. The Belgian border guards didn’t know the Germans had invaded yet so the British had to ram a border gate.

During the First World War no such ideas were in the offing, everything happened too quickly. The British were only just starting to make preparations for an Expeditionary Force which would land in French ports well back from Belgium and the French plan was to attack Germany through Alsace and Lorraine. An earlier French plan had called for an invasion via Belgium but that had been dropped by 1914.
 


Belgium would be neither aiding nor abetting; issuing diplomatic protests and withdrawing the Army to a securable national redoubt is not a belligerent move against either side in the war, it is a realistic strategy based on the extremely limited capacity of the Belgian Army. The fiery ‘nation not a road’ speech and subsequent deployment of Belgian forces was based entirely on a delusional assessment of the resistance the Belgian army could provide.

Even a token form of resistence would be important, both to Britain and France, and to the Belgian people. The death of one Pommerian Grenadier would be a tonic for the national spirit. Another vital thing to do would be to destroy bridges and railway lines as the Belgian Army retreated.
 

Cook

Banned
Even a token form of resistence would be important, both to Britain and France, and to the Belgian people. The death of one Pommerian Grenadier would be a tonic for the national spirit. Another vital thing to do would be to destroy bridges and railway lines as the Belgian Army retreated.

That is failing to accept the German ultimatum and puts Belgium at war with Germany. The point of the thread is if Belgium acquiesced.
 
That is failing to accept the German ultimatum and puts Belgium at war with Germany. The point of the thread is if Belgium acquiesced.

Nothing much different happens. The Moltke (aka Schlieffen Plan) would still fail - nothing is going to make it work. Tho the Entente would be justified is taking a severe stance against Belgium at Versailles. The British would be justified is lodging a diplomatic complaint that Belgium can not even consider 'friendly neutrality' in regards to the Germans - it must maintain an 'absolute neutrality'. The British Cabinet will also have no reason to believe that the Belgians won't permit the Germans access to Antwerp. The problem here is that Belgium is a small power and it will have to choose its sides wisely.

The long term ramification would be that if the French are able to complete the Maginot Line they will complete that portion along Belgian's border and leave Belgium to deal with the German Army alone in the Second World War.

Your early examples of Egypt and Greece are bad. Egypt was governed by the British and militarialy dominated by them. Greece was neutral until the Allies forced a change of Greek government and king at gun point to enter the war.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
Your early examples of Egypt and Greece are bad. Egypt was governed by the British and militarialy dominated by them. Greece was neutral until the Allies forced a change of Greek government and king at gun point to enter the war.

Egypt was a neutral country under the protection of the British and fully occupied by them, but it was still neutral throughout. The fact that newspapers in Cairo were free to publish details of the British preparations for the invasion of the Dardanelles is an indication of the limitations and difficulties the British had dealing with the locals. The Turks attacked across Sinai against the British, they made no declaration of war against the Egyptians and the Egyptians were not obliged to declare war on Turkey.

Greece was neutral, that is my point, but neutral Greece provided Imbros and Lemnos to the British in 1915 for use in the Gallipoli Campaign and allowed British forces to land in 1915 at the neutral Greek port of Salonika to fight the Bulgarians. The Coup you are referring to did not happen until 1916 and Greece did not enter the war until 1917. Greece’s position was very similar to that of Belgium; both were militarily weak but strategically important locations.

Persia was the other example, militarily weak but vitally important. The British occupied the oil producing province of Khuzestan to protect their assets there while the Russians occupied the north to protect their left flank. The Turks invaded simply because the British and Russians were there. At no time did either side see the need to declare war on Persia and all parties departed following the end of the war.
 
Last edited:
Top