When Did Belgium Decide

[PhilB]

I read that, not long before WW1, the French decided not to enter Belgium until the Germans had (or were imminently to) because they did not wish to risk Belgium taking offence and throwing in their lot with the Germans. When did Belgium decide which side it would be on in the event of war?

[Ian Riley]

I thought the point was that Belgium was neutral until invaded.

[welshdoc]

I think they decided about 3 seconds after the Germans invaded.

[Chris_Baker]

Aha! At last, a subject I have studied in depth. Phil, if you ever see it advertised again, come along and see my talk on the Belgian Army in the Great war. I've flogged it around the WFA branches for years now so chances are drying up!

Belgian was, as Ian says, technically and actually neutral. It was fighting against its invader, not as a formal Ally of other belligerent nations.

[centurion]

Belgian was, as Ian says, technically and actually neutral. It was fighting against its invader, not as a formal Ally of other belligerent nations.

In which case why did it send an armoured car squadron to Russia?

[Chris_Baker]

The politics of the intervention in Russia are a different matter. Belgium went in for the same colonial, anti Bolshevik, reasons that the Allies did. You might ask the same sort of question about its role in Africa. These wre not formal alliances, but partnerships of convenience.

[Robert Dunlop]

Further to Chris' point, immediately prior to the war the Belgian forces were disposed to cover 'invasion' from Germany, France or Britain. This created major problems of course. When the German invasion started, the Belgian forces were not concentrated. It was expected that the fortress systems would enable the forces to be re-orientated. In the event, the Battle of the Gette was fought behind the defensive line of the forts.

Robert

[centurion]

The politics of the intervention in Russia are a different matter. Belgium went in for the same colonial, anti Bolshevik, reasons that the Allies did. You might ask the same sort of question about its role in Africa. These wre not formal alliances, but partnerships of convenience.

Anti Bolshevik? - the Belgian squadron went out in 1915 well before the 1917 revolution! It was as a result of an official request of the Czar to the King of the Belgians - definitely formal at the highest level. Belgian wasn't neutral she was a co belligerent in the same way that, for example, the USA and Italy were co beligerents

[PhilB]

It seems unrealistic to think that Belgium could resist whomever invaded in a war which was clearly going to be between Germany/Austria and the British/French. If France had invaded 2 minutes behind Germany, they`d side with France or vice versa? Surely, as Britain entered the war nominally to aid Belgium, there must have been more to it than that?

[centurion]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 14 2008, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems unrealistic to think that Belgium could resist whomever invaded in a war which was clearly going to be between Germany/Austria and the British/French. If France had invaded 2 minutes behind Germany, they`d side with France or vice versa? Surely, as Britain entered the war nominally to aid Belgium, there must have been more to it than that?

Given that Germany made a formal declaration of war against Begium (after invading) the latter cannot be regarded as neutral any more than the US was neutral after Pearl Harbour.

[CROONAERT]

Anti Bolshevik? - the Belgian squadron went out in 1915 well before the 1917 revolution! It was as a result of an official request of the Czar to the King of the Belgians - definitely formal at the highest level.

Indeed it was - the Corps des Autos-Canons-Mitrailleuses Russie ,in the main, actually returned to Belgium at the time many allies were sending units out there for the anti-red operations.

Wearing a mix of Belgian and Russian uniforms and equipment, wasn't it also under Russian command (9th Army)?

Dave.

[PhilB]

Did Britain enter the war nominally in support of the Treaty of London 1839 without any subsequent pact with Belgium?

[Chris_Baker]

On 3 August the Belgian High Command issued orders for Belgian troops to fire on soldiers of any other nationality that crossed the frontier. That neutral enough?

Of course Belgium was fighting against Germany when the latter invaded and declared war. That does not make her an Ally of other nations that were also at war with Germany. This is the crux of the position and why both French and British were at times driven to distraction by Belgium's stance.

Centurion, my apologies - I jumped to the incorrect assumption that you were referring to the intervention force.

[centurion]

The issue wasn't what alliances Belgium had or had not but whever she was neutral - as a co belligerent she wasn't neutral. Many of the countries fighting the Central Powers were not formally in alliance (ie by treaty) with each other but they certainly were not neutral.

BTW there was certainly no firing on the British troops that advanced into Belgium!

[centurion]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 14 2008, 03:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did Britain enter the war nominally in support of the Treaty of London 1839 without any subsequent pact with Belgium?

And in support of the secret Anglo Belgian Treaty of May 1894 which covered a number of things including military cooperation in case of an invasion of Belgium, relationships in Africa (again including mutual defensive arrangements etc etc).

Although its many years since I formally studied this period from memory I believe that although the detail was secret Germany was made aware of its existence as a deterent for any attack on France via Belgium (which was underconsideration at the time).

[PhilB]

Guaranteeing Belgian neutrality seems a good way of ensuring that Britain was drawn into a European continental war which was likely to involve France or Germany invading the other with Belgium as a favoured invasion corridor. What did the British see as the benefits of the Treaty of London?

[Frank_East]

Belgium became an independent state in 1830 having been part of the Netherlands since 1815.

As regards its royal family, there is German blood there for the first King of the Belgians was Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg.He was elected by the National Congress in 1831 and was succeeded by his son Leopold 11 in 1865, who in turn was succeeded by his nephew, Albert in 1909.

The forementioned treaty of April 14, 1839 established the status of Belgium as independent and neutral kingdom with Leopold 1 being its first king.The new kingdom of Belgium had its independence and neutrality guaranteed by Great Britain and by Germany.

When Germany invaded Belgium in the execution of its Schlieffen Plan,there was little that Belgium could do to resist it.It had refused permission, in response to Germany's ultimatum, to allow German troops safe passage through Belgium.Great Britain came to their aid in order to protect their neutrality as guaranteed by the 1839 Treaty.As Germany overran most of Belgium during the Great War,I believe, Albert, transferred his capital to Le Havre.

Most interesting, France in planning their border defences post Great War, never included the Franco/ Belgium border in its installation of fixed defences, dwelling on the assumption that Germany would not violate Belgium neutrality for a second time.The other point in 1940, was that time was lost to stem the invasion of Belgium by the Germans until Leopold, King of the Belgians had sanctioned the presence of the BEF on Belgian soil.

[centurion]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 14 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guaranteeing Belgian neutrality seems a good way of ensuring that Britain was drawn into a European continental war which was likely to involve France or Germany invading the other with Belgium as a favoured invasion corridor. What did the British see as the benefits of the Treaty of London?

In 1832 Germany (which was years away from existing as a country) wasn't much of an issue as far as Britain was concerned but the idea of the Belgian ports in French hands was - after all it was only about 18 years since Britain and France had been on opposite sides of a world wide war and France was once more building up her navy. The guarantee of neutrality provided Britain with the legal reason to respond to any French pre emptive action in Belgium. Much later (in 1894) Germany was seen as the threat hence the reinforcement of Britain's support of Belgium.

The Treaty of 1894 does seem to have created an Anglo British alliance if Belgium was ever invaded - presumably why one of the memorials near the Palais de Justice in Brussels is referred to as the Anglo Belgian Alliance memorial.