Belgium in WW1

[Lokolus]

Hi, I'm working on a civ IV: BTS scenario on the first World War and I was wondering if you can help me. I found a lot of information on Belgium in WW1 but the information is crossed. I have a map of the war in 1917 with a neutral Belgium, a map of the war in 1917 with an Entente Belgium and a text with an occupied Belgium. can someone tell me which is true or at least explain the situation?

[sydhe]

Belgium was neutral at the start of the war, then allied with the Entente after the German invasion. Germany occupied all of Belgium except for the west coast.

[philippe]

Yes, Belgium was neutral and King Albert I certainly didn't want to go to war vs Germany, but once the Germans invaded he had no other choice to fight back, the fall of Antwerp was a blow to the allied cause, the barbed wire planted to make sure the Belgians couldn't flee to Neutral Holland was horrible, and the Germans we're overrunning the Belgians who fought valiently.

The Belgian army itself had to deal with some distressing problems: the poorer Dutch speaking persons couldn't understand the commands by the Wallon officers (leading to much needless casualties), the flat area of Belgium was also a disadvantage, but the Westhoek was still Belgian due to a valiant belgian flooding the West-Flemish plains. (with the mud and the floods the advance was stalled)

but the ravages left a scar on the westhoek, still every year there are 3000 reportings of bombs of WWI or WWII in the westhoek.

[Ambidexter]

Belgian troops remained in possession of the tiny Yser River salient part of their country for four years of trench fighting.

[Jan H]

Belgium was officially neutral before the war (like The Netherlands), but of course when there were signs that a war was likely going to happen, the Belgian army was mobilized in 1914, purely for self defence. It wasn't purely so that the Belgian king and government didn't want to go to war, they couldn't, because Belgian neutrality had been one of the conditions from the neigbouring countries to accept the Belgian independence from The Netherlands. This was defined in the Treaty of London from 1839.

According to the same treaty, The United Kingdom promised to secure the Belgian neutrality against foreign aggression. At that time, it was mainly meant to keep France away, because France had been more in favour of a proposal to split Belgium up between France, The Netherlands and Prussia. France had also sent troops to assist Belgium against the Dutch during the war of independence in 1831.

In 1914, this old treaty between Belgium and the UK was used by the UK as the pretext to declare war on Germany when the Germans invaded Belgium to avoid the Maginot line along the French/German border.

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Originally Posted by Jan H

Belgium was officially neutral before the war (like The Netherlands), but of course when there were signs that a war was likely going to happen, the Belgian army was mobilized in 1914, purely for self defence. It wasn't purely so that the Belgian king and government didn't want to go to war, they couldn't, because Belgian neutrality had been one of the conditions from the neigbouring countries to accept the Belgian independence from The Netherlands. This was defined in the Treaty of London from 1839.

According to the same treaty, The United Kingdom promised to secure the Belgian neutrality against foreign aggression. At that time, it was mainly meant to keep France away, because France had been more in favour of a proposal to split Belgium up between France, The Netherlands and Prussia. France had also sent troops to assist Belgium against the Dutch during the war of independence in 1831.

In 1914, this old treaty between Belgium and the UK was used by the UK as the pretext to declare war on Germany when the Germans invaded Belgium to avoid the Maginot line along the French/German border.

I think the Maginot Line is more WWII then WWI. If I remember correctly the Germans wanted a quick victory (Scheiffien Plan, spelling?) so they invaded through Dutch, ect.

[dosed150]

Originally Posted by BEHIND_THE_MASK

I think the Maginot Line is more WWII then WWI. If I remember correctly the Germans wanted a quick victory (Scheiffien Plan, spelling?) so they invaded through Dutch, ect.

yeh the maginot line was build in the 20's or 30's, schlieffen plan called for the german army to march through belgium and attack paris from the west, knock france out of the war so germany could then turn its full force towards russia, the plan reckoned that the british wouldnt get involved

[Eran of Arcadia]

The plan reckoned that the Belgians wouldn't object to having the Germans come through, if I recall.

[dosed150]

Originally Posted by Eran of Arcadia

The plan reckoned that the Belgians wouldn't object to having the Germans come through, if I recall.

oh yeh they intended to pressure the belgians into letting them cross

[Sharwood]

Originally Posted by Eran of Arcadia

The plan reckoned that the Belgians wouldn't object to having the Germans come through, if I recall.

That was pretty well thought out. Because many nations throughout history have just calmly allowed foreign armies to march through their territory without lifting a finger in protest.

[philippe]

but they knew it was a breach of neutrality.

[Jan H]

Originally Posted by dosed150

yeh the maginot line was build in the 20's or 30's,

I'm sorry, I got some of my facts wrong

schlieffen plan called for the german army to march through belgium and attack paris from the west, knock france out of the war so germany could then turn its full force towards russia, the plan reckoned that the british wouldnt get involved

So had the Germans forgotten about the Treaty of 1839, or did they think the British wouldn't honour the treaty (maybe because it was so old)?

Later in the war, the "brutality" of the Germans of invading the neutral Belgium was one of the main propoganda items in Britain and the US for mobilizing troops to join the war.

[Eran of Arcadia]

They were counting on the British not to honor the treaty.

About the German brutality of Belgians - one of the things I remember is claims that the Germans cut off the hands and feet of Belgian civilians. After the war no evidence was found of this, but during this time - and for decades previously - Belgians had been in the habit of cutting off hands and feet of natives in the Congo. That said, the Belgians suffering under German occupation were usually not the same ones exploiting the Congolese, and regardless of the exact level of German atrocities, a German victory would not have been good for them.

[Jan H]

Originally Posted by Eran of Arcadia

About the German brutality of Belgians - one of the things I remember is claims that the Germans cut off the hands and feet of Belgian civilians.

I personally have never heard that story, but there were other incidents like the burning of the university library of Leuven

Here's a Wikipedia article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

[REDY]

Its strange, I have never heard about German atrocities againist belgians...i know that Austrians cuted my grand grandfather´s palm to not shoot. He died soon after war, in cage he was changing food for cigarettes so he had extremely bad health when war ended.

[Sharwood]

Originally Posted by REDY

Its strange, I have never heard about German atrocities againist belgians...i know that Austrians cuted my grand grandfather´s palm to not shoot. He died soon after war, in cage he was changing food for cigarettes so he had extremely bad health when war ended.

Where was your grandfather from? If he was a Czech, why would the Austrians imprison him?

There were many accusations of German atrocities in Belgium, the aforementioned mutilations, raping of nuns, etc.. I have no doubt the Germans committed some atrocities, but the widespread systematic atrocities the British reported were completely false.

[philippe]

Originally Posted by Sharwood

Where was your grandfather from? If he was a Czech, why would the Austrians imprison him?

There were many accusations of German atrocities in Belgium, the aforementioned mutilations, raping of nuns, etc.. I have no doubt the Germans committed some atrocities, but the widespread systematic atrocities the British reported were completely false.

although there were atrocities such as abuse and random executions of villagers, it's safe to safe it was grossly exagerrated by the British as propaganda tool for more support on the war vs Germany.

[Sharwood]

Originally Posted by philippe

although there were atrocities such as abuse and random executions of villagers, it's safe to safe it was grossly exagerrated by the British as propaganda tool for more support on the war vs Germany.

Ironically, 25 years later, they'd be telling the truth. Maybe it wasn't propaganda, maybe the journalists were all descendants of Nostradamus.

[Eran of Arcadia]

Originally Posted by Sharwood

Where was your grandfather from? If he was a Czech, why would the Austrians imprison him?

He might have defected (or been captured by the Russian), joined the Czech Legion, then gotten captured again.

[Sharwood]

Originally Posted by Eran of Arcadia

He might have defected (or been captured by the Russian), joined the Czech Legion, then gotten captured again.

Ah, yes, I forgot about the Czech Legion.