The Belgian Question

This one is World War One oriented.

Basically, the Germans originally promised the Belgians that they were just going to walk through Belgium to get at the French and had no intention of going to war with Belgium.

France planned on invading Belgium if the Belgians granted the German army transit through Belgium.

The Belgians resisted, Germany attacked Belgium, and Britain entered the war against Germany.

-----------

Now. What if Belgium had agreed to Germany's request and France declared war upon Belgium as planned?

Would Britain have entered the war as an enemy of France?

Stayed out of it? Because I'm pretty sure the requested transit means the Belgians giving up neutrality.
 
This one is World War One oriented.

Basically, the Germans originally promised the Belgians that they were just going to walk through Belgium to get at the French and had no intention of going to war with Belgium.

France planned on invading Belgium if the Belgians granted the German army transit through Belgium.

The Belgians resisted, Germany attacked Belgium, and Britain entered the war against Germany.

-----------

Now. What if Belgium had agreed to Germany's request and France declared war upon Belgium as planned?

Would Britain have entered the war as an enemy of France?

Stayed out of it? Because I'm pretty sure the requested transit means the Belgians giving up neutrality.

We still go to war.

The real problem was that we couldn't allow Germany to stomp France and unite the continent against us. That would still be valid, Belgium or no Belgium.
 

Susano

Banned
And Britain would even have a casus belli. Belgium was obliged to neutrality. If it violates that obligation thats a valid casus belli against Belgium. And against Germany, too, of course.
 
If we let the German pass it would have been a violation of our neutrality. I doubt we would have agree.
 
If we let the German pass it would have been a violation of our neutrality. I doubt we would have agree.
Yes, as Susano noted above: accepting it effectively means that you exchange Germany for Britain and France as enemies. To me, that doesn't seem like all that good of an exchange - well, for Belgium, Germany would probably be quite happy with it (although, to be fair, the Germans probably thought that Britain would stay out on the 'scrap of paper' logic).
 
The thig was a bit more complex: french, british and belgian government had an agreement on military cooperation which, between other things, set up the possibility for french troops to pass through/land in belgium.
the agreement was technically secret, but actually well known, and the german government claimed that it voided the whole belgium neutrality issue.
 
this one stange things of History
The Belgium King Albert I. and German emperor Wilhelm II. are relatives
by House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha !
so hat happen if King Albert I. gave his cousin the German army transit through Belgium ?
the answer is simple :

Belgium is consider as Central Powers by Allied

an interesting turn in History....
 
And Britain would even have a casus belli. Belgium was obliged to neutrality. If it violates that obligation thats a valid casus belli against Belgium. And against Germany, too, of course.

Exactly, under the, IIRC, Hauge Convention neutrals have a legal obligation to prevent belligerents from using their territory to attack other belligerents. If memory serves the convention states that neutrals must use all means at their disposal.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
this one stange things of History
The Belgium King Albert I. and German emperor Wilhelm II. are relatives
by House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha !
so hat happen if King Albert I. gave his cousin the German army transit through Belgium ?
the answer is simple :

Belgium is consider as Central Powers by Allied

an interesting turn in History....

Errr. All of European royalty was related. Have you ever seen a picture of Tsar Nicholas and King George?
 
The thig was a bit more complex: french, british and belgian government had an agreement on military cooperation which, between other things, set up the possibility for french troops to pass through/land in belgium.
the agreement was technically secret, but actually well known, and the german government claimed that it voided the whole belgium neutrality issue.


When and where was it signed, and by whom precisely? I've never heard of such a treaty before, and it sounds like urban legend to me.

Britain and France had been holding military conversations since 1906, but Belgium was never a party to them.
 

Susano

Banned
Exactly, under the, IIRC, Hauge Convention neutrals have a legal obligation to prevent belligerents from using their territory to attack other belligerents. If memory serves the convention states that neutrals must use all means at their disposal.

That would be news to me, and that isnt what I meant.

What I meant is that Belgium specifcially was required to remain neutral, as part of the treaty that formed it (that is, internationalyl recogniced it), one of the Treaties of London. In fact, Prussia (and hence in succession Germany) was one of the guarantee powers of it, which made the thing all the worse. And France and the UK were other guarantee powers, hence the UK would have a casus belli for Germany and Belgium violating that treaty obligation.
 
Errr. All of European royalty was related. Have you ever seen a picture of Tsar Nicholas and King George?

yes I know that picture of Queen Victoria family

back to Belgium
so how gonna react Great Britian on The German army traverse Belgium ?

The Triple Entente: a alliance treaty between Great Britian, the French Third Republic, and Russia
so GB have to Join force with France and fight the Central Powers this include Belgium in that case
Because they made the attack on France possible in the first place

The 1919 Treaty of Versailles gona ugly for "defeated" Belgium
the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha has to abdicate from Belgium trone
France annexed the French speech area of Wallonie als Departemens
Vlaandern become a independent republic but with Military restrictions.
 
That would be news to me, and that isnt what I meant.

What I meant is that Belgium specifcially was required to remain neutral, as part of the treaty that formed it (that is, internationalyl recogniced it), one of the Treaties of London. In fact, Prussia (and hence in succession Germany) was one of the guarantee powers of it, which made the thing all the worse. And France and the UK were other guarantee powers, hence the UK would have a casus belli for Germany and Belgium violating that treaty obligation.


Though we never declared war on Luxemburg, which behaved in precisely that way.

As I understanmd it, merely failing to put up armed resistance isn't abreach of neutrality, but of course you must be evenhanded. If Belgium lets German troops through unopposed, she must likewise let Alied ones through unopposed should the tide of war swing that way. So if she doesn't defend Liege against he Germans , she can't defend Antwerp against a British landing - though of course the Germans can if they reach it in time.
 
The biggest question if it DID happen is whether the British government can seriously declare war. Not only is it obviously declaring simply in defence of France, but it is obliged to consider Belgium an enemy! There's no plucky little Belgium here, there's no last minute conversion of some of the pacifists into ok-then positions, if Asquith tries to declare war he is going to split the party and probably collapse the government - a political crisis that will probably allow the Germans to wheel their way into Paris before the British can get themselves sorted out and into the war

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The biggest question if it DID happen is whether the British government can seriously declare war. Not only is it obviously declaring simply in defence of France, but it is obliged to consider Belgium an enemy! There's no plucky little Belgium here, there's no last minute conversion of some of the pacifists into ok-then positions, if Asquith tries to declare war he is going to split the party and probably collapse the government - a political crisis that will probably allow the Germans to wheel their way into Paris before the British can get themselves sorted out and into the war

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Well, some pacifists might still go into ok-then positions, what with it being not exactly in defence of France - Britain has a clear and obvious casus belli (unless that agreement mailinutile2 cited actually existed) on Germany.
 
Take it a little farther: suppose the Belgians offered the most minimal token resistance? It was presumed that they might simply line up Belgian troops along the roadsides, more or less ensuring the Germans didn't veer off into the countryside. If that happened, technically the Germans didn't pass unimpeded, but the Belgians did nothing to slow them down, either.

In that event, one might well conclude that the British stay neutral since both the Belgians and the Germans violated the spirit of the neutrality agreement.
 
The biggest question if it DID happen is whether the British government can seriously declare war. Not only is it obviously declaring simply in defence of France, but it is obliged to consider Belgium an enemy! There's no plucky little Belgium here, there's no last minute conversion of some of the pacifists into ok-then positions, if Asquith tries to declare war he is going to split the party and probably collapse the government - a political crisis that will probably allow the Germans to wheel their way into Paris before the British can get themselves sorted out and into the war


That assumes the BEF was decisive in saving Paris.

This is highly doubtful. The French could still win the FBotM even without Britain, though the Germans might do somewhat better in the "race to the sea".
 
When and where was it signed, and by whom precisely? I've never heard of such a treaty before, and it sounds like urban legend to me.

Britain and France had been holding military conversations since 1906, but Belgium was never a party to them.

I'm referring to the Jungbluth-Bridges conversations of 1912
You can find details on official propaganda documents (both sides) : the (german-backed) book "the neutrality of belgium", the belgian grey book and the french yellow book and (I think also) the second german white book.
of course, interpretations diverge on the issue whether the clauses would actually void the belgian nautrality or not: belgian-french presented it ans a self-defence or an informal agreement, while german presented it as a de-facto secret alliance.
probably neither of the interpretations is honest (propaganda being a weapon), but they quarreled on the clauses and the interpretarion of the agreement, not on the fact that the agreement existed
 
Last edited:
Top