marathag
Banned
A strict reading of that means Belgium shouldn't have allowed entry to British Troops either.
Perpetually means forever, no matter what
Albert Capitulates (World War I)
- Thread starter Geon
- Start date
Perpetually means forever, no matter what
AIUI the other powers are required to protect and enforce that neutrality. My guess is that this is included in the treaty.
Geon
Donor
Ironically if France does invade ATL Belgium then they have just made Germany's case. In the German "request"(ultimatum), Germany claimed the reason for wanting to pass through Belgium was to preempt an attack by France into Belgium to flank Germany! By invading the French have just proved Germany correct!
marathag
Banned
From my quick reading, nothing is said on that matter, just that they should be neutral and independent
Geon
Donor
Okay let's summarize what has been the general consensus on this thread so far.
King Albert of Belgium is offered a more or less reasonable - and less belligerent - German request to allow German troops to move through Belgium. Rather then allow Belgium to become a battlefield Albert decides to allow the German Army to pass through Belgium without any resistance. The only proviso he sets is the Germans have to behave themselves and not engage in any hostile acts against the Belgian people. The Belgian Army will be on alert to enforce this.
France (rightly unfortunately) sees Albert's actions as tantamount to sacrificing France to save his onw country. They denounce Albert's decision, declaring that he is violating prior agreements with them. France therefore declares that Belgium is a de facto co-belligerent with Germany and declares war on that nation.
Great Britain is waffling between joining the war on the side of France and staying out of the fight. A plan is developed by British generals to occupy the key ports on Belgium's coast - particularly Antwerp.
Germany on the other hand has not been delayed for several days by Belgian resistance both by their army and the destruction of rail lines. The Kaiser in response instructs his generals to "maintain an attitude of correctness and civility" toward the Belgian people during their march through Belgium. When the French meet the Germans at the Franco-Belgian border they are meeting a larger number of troops not exhausted by fighting their way through hostile territory.
So, based on this, what happens next?
King Albert of Belgium is offered a more or less reasonable - and less belligerent - German request to allow German troops to move through Belgium. Rather then allow Belgium to become a battlefield Albert decides to allow the German Army to pass through Belgium without any resistance. The only proviso he sets is the Germans have to behave themselves and not engage in any hostile acts against the Belgian people. The Belgian Army will be on alert to enforce this.
France (rightly unfortunately) sees Albert's actions as tantamount to sacrificing France to save his onw country. They denounce Albert's decision, declaring that he is violating prior agreements with them. France therefore declares that Belgium is a de facto co-belligerent with Germany and declares war on that nation.
Great Britain is waffling between joining the war on the side of France and staying out of the fight. A plan is developed by British generals to occupy the key ports on Belgium's coast - particularly Antwerp.
Germany on the other hand has not been delayed for several days by Belgian resistance both by their army and the destruction of rail lines. The Kaiser in response instructs his generals to "maintain an attitude of correctness and civility" toward the Belgian people during their march through Belgium. When the French meet the Germans at the Franco-Belgian border they are meeting a larger number of troops not exhausted by fighting their way through hostile territory.
So, based on this, what happens next?
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
and when the Belgium people start acting as francs-tireurs agaisnt the British troops?
Will the British act as they did just a few short years earlier, against the Boers?
Yes, I mentioned the same thing about franc-tireurs earlier.
There will be some kind of Belgian resistance to a german army moving through their country even if the official policy is that it is accepted. How will Albert manage his own citizens harassing german troops moving into Belgium?
I really, really doubt this. The only ones that might have a motive are those which support the annexation of Wallonia by France. An incredibly small minority without acces to weaponry.
Geon
Donor
Albert will use the Belgian Army to ensure order is maintained in Belgium by Belgians. Some may look at Albert as a turncoat here but I suspect the majority of the population will be glad the Germans are not looting and burning down their country. Any terrorists found attacking German soldiers or trying to sabotage German movements will be arrested and dealt with by the Belgians
On the other hand, if France invades Belgium to try and stop the Germans you will also have Belgian citizens conducting attacks against French soldiers. Since France declared war on Belgium and Germany did not but is actually behaving itself for the most part Albert may well decide to discretely turn a blind eye to the Belgian provocations against France as opposed to the Belgian provocations against Germany. I also suspect this may result in the French and not the Germans retaliating harshly against Belgian "terrorists". This also goes for any British invasion.
And on that note will the British become involved at this point?
Last edited:
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
I see British involvement as inevitable.
Foreign policy for around 200-years had been to deny Antwerp & the Flanders coast to a major European power, be that Spain, France or (now) Germany. Some in the government were anxious for a casus belli. OTL Germany breaching the Treaty of London by invading Belgium provided the impetus to get over the line. ATL Germany's invitation could be painted as bullying a minor power (poor little Belgium had no choice!), or Britain now sees two signatories breaking their treaty obligations. The excuse has to be just enough to turn some wavering cabinet ministers as it did OTL.
Interesting side point. In 1870 Bismarck was swift to declare Prussia's intention not to violate Belgian neutrality, forcing the French to do likewise. It earned him brownie points in Westminster and gave Britain a little nudge more towards Prussia.
Foreign policy for around 200-years had been to deny Antwerp & the Flanders coast to a major European power, be that Spain, France or (now) Germany. Some in the government were anxious for a casus belli. OTL Germany breaching the Treaty of London by invading Belgium provided the impetus to get over the line. ATL Germany's invitation could be painted as bullying a minor power (poor little Belgium had no choice!), or Britain now sees two signatories breaking their treaty obligations. The excuse has to be just enough to turn some wavering cabinet ministers as it did OTL.
Interesting side point. In 1870 Bismarck was swift to declare Prussia's intention not to violate Belgian neutrality, forcing the French to do likewise. It earned him brownie points in Westminster and gave Britain a little nudge more towards Prussia.
marathag
Banned
But how does an actual invasion of Belgium go over with the civilians, and not the warmongers?
It's going to be a hard sell to claim that to protect the Independence of Belgium, that the King and Government of Belgium must be overthrown.
Perfidious Albion, indeed
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Well, that rather depends upon whose telling the story. Sell it as a "they are acting under duress" along with "The Kaiser's aim is to see this flag (photo of Imperial German standard) flying all over the World*" and "The High Sea Fleet based on Belgian ports" scare. Or - as I believe has happened occasionally - just outright lie!
The British didn't build a global empire without occasionally being perfidious.
*This was a quote from the contemporary "The Great War" by HW Wilson. My grandmother had the original 13 bound volumes and this quote from the first volume has remained with me for over 50 years. It was interesting to read the original British version of Jutland, then in the last volume an analysis of the actual results, along with an admission that the loss of the dreadnought HMS Audacious in 1914 was known of but covered up by the British press, even though plenty of US tourists on the SS Olympic had taken photos of the foundering battleship with their box brownies.
Geon
Donor
All of this is becoming fertile ground for a germinating idea for a timeline/story.
Keep up the discussion! Now, let me ask a few more things.
First - How does not having to fight the Belgians change the fighting in France.
Secondly - Assuming the British decide to declare war and seize Antwerp could they be stopped if German and Belgian forces man the various forts and how much manpower would this draw away from the front?
Keep up the discussion! Now, let me ask a few more things.
First - How does not having to fight the Belgians change the fighting in France.
Secondly - Assuming the British decide to declare war and seize Antwerp could they be stopped if German and Belgian forces man the various forts and how much manpower would this draw away from the front?
Don't you have to sail through Dutch waters to reach Antwerp by sea? Even if the Dutch allow this, it would still look like the British are doing to the Netherlands the same as the Germans did to Belgium. And why would the Netherlands even allow this?
And if the plan is to land the forces at the belgian coast and than march on Antwerp, that should take a bit. Don't see them surprising the Belgians in Antwerp this way and without surprise I doubt they could take the city.
And if the plan is to land the forces at the belgian coast and than march on Antwerp, that should take a bit. Don't see them surprising the Belgians in Antwerp this way and without surprise I doubt they could take the city.
Then your reading was too quick indeed. The other powers were not only bound to respect Belgium’s neutrality, but also to guarantee it.
Why would Belgians act as francs-tireurs against the British when they didn’t do it against the Germans OTL? That myth has been seriously debunked by both Belgian and German historians, so why are you bringing it up?
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Speeds up the German logistic and troop movements, and 80-100k men aren't fighting in Belguim to take it over.
2nd, took the Germans almost two weeks to get thru the surrounded Forts at Antwerp, and that was with the very heavy artillery that the BEF won't have.
From the wiki
The principal line of resistance comprised a ring of 21 forts, 10–15 kilometres (6.2–9.3 mi) outside the city, which had been built after 1882. A group of two forts and three coastal batteries defended the Scheldt and there were a small number of prepared inundations.
Now look to Gallipoli. British really didn't have plans for opposed landings
marathag
Banned
So there was zero resistance?
Hmm.
But won't the actual troops be fighting to keep the capital secure?
There was resistance, but only by the army in uniform. The Belgian government was very legalistic and didn’t want at all to have what happened during the French-Prussian war. They took measures to actually disarm civilians at the beginning of the invasion