Talk:German invasion of Belgium (1914)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links to other pages[edit]

I have in mind the addition of links to this page to the other pages in the "invasion" campaignbox and the use of this page to narrate events after the Germans had headed south into France - Belgian operations in Belgium proper, British and French forces operating in northern France and western Belgium, RN and RNAS operations on the coast, landings at Ostend etc. Any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did the deed but the lead needs expanding and the text given a CE. Suggestions welcome.Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did the lead but am short of information for a Casualties section, any help with data and sources would be appreciated. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox map[edit]

Marvellous colour but the bit to the west isn't the coast, it's land between the Escaut and the coast File:Be-map.png about another 20 miles away.Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also, the caption for 5th French Army is misleading; Joffre was the commander of all the French armies, but the general in direct command of the 5th was (initially) Lanrezac. Tbanderson (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front[edit]

The events in the section dealing with the Eastern Front have no discernible significance to the Belgian campaign, which is the subject of this article. This is not about the entire war. An explanation of their significance to the Belgian campaign needs to be made or the section should be deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the symbiotic nature of the events in the east and the west made explicit that's perfectly reasonable. Trouble is, I'm just off to bed (it's 1:30 a.m. here) would you mind waiting 24 hours? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the contents box, it's a comprehensive essay which puts the Belgian gig into the context of the beginning of the Great War; a couple of paragraphs are not excessive and are far from tenuous. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Ad Orientem, which is why I made the original edit. "Related because it's the same war after all" is an argument whose flaws should be obvious, leading to the duplication of every WWI article in every other WWI article. If someone can demonstrate a clear link from the East to the Belgian campaign or vice versa, then by all means add it. But generalist "FYI" sections with no obvious immediate connection other than "meanwhile, over here" should be excised in favour of subpages/entries to keep things about Belgium.
I'm happy to wait the 24 hours, however. Palindromedairy (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The Belgian campaign was in no way effected by the bombardment of Libau or any of the other battles on the Eastern Front. This is completely extraneous and off topic. The diplomatic background is fine along with who declared war on who. But the military campaigns in the East had zero impact on what was going on in Belgium. Happy to wait until tomorrow for your reply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be something, but I don't see why there can't be a compromise - it could easily be condensed, for example? —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept on it I thought that I could do it back-to-front, the symbiotic nature of the German operations in particular since there was a ticking clock affecting operations in Belgium and that troops would be sent to the Eastern Front regardless of the situation. I could take out most of the narrative of events in the east, tuck some in a note and conclude with the ramifications of the need to hurry such as terrorist repression of civilians [in Belgium and N France] to make up for lack of occupation forces. Strachan is quite good and Ive got Der Weltkrieg 1914 now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some tinkering but I'm struggling to find a source that dwells on the time pressure on the Germans in the west as the Russians got going so quickly, I fear that I'll need a bit more than the 24 hours I asked for.Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly willing to wait if you're actively working on it; we all have real lives. No promises I'll agree with the results, but your proposed approach sounds good and I appreciate you tackling it. Thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm still looking, I hoped that the source would be in the Schlieffen Plan article but alas not.Keith-264 (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron I have to admit after re-reading it, that the section that Pal objected to doesn't sufficiently do what I'd hoped, describe the symbiotic link between German operations in Belgium with all the other fronts they were fighting on. I've found a bit on the importance of speed to the German invasion and wonder if any of your sources are explicit about it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not trying to be a dick but I am still not seeing any reasonable rational for the inclusion of what looks like hopelessly off topic material in the article. I am not going to act on it today, but at the moment I am strongly inclined to delete all or most of the Eastern Front section. Unless I am seriously misreading this discussion there is not much support for it here on the talk page. If there is a strong argument for keeping this material it should be made... soon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have notified the Military History Project of the existence of this discussion. -16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Ad Orientem. The whole Eastern Front section should be deleted, it just doesn't fit. Samf4u (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to bring out the symbiotic nature of German operations during the invasion of Belgium, it is crucial for the understanding of German motivation and tactics but I agree that the generic nature of that section needs to be modified. A unilateral deletion will be reverted. At the moment it's the weekend and the footie's on so it is having to wait.Keith-264 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any "unilateral" deletion coming. However, as of right now there is a clear and growing WP:CONSENSUS that the section is off topic and does not belong in the article. If that does not change, it will be a perfectly legitimate basis for deleting the section. As for your defense of the section; I find it unpersuasive. Your rational would justify sections in every article about every campaign or battle in the war dealing with other campaigns and battles with little or no real connection to the subject of the articles. The listed military actions on the Eastern Front have no viable connection with the campaign in Belgium and I am increasingly convinced the section needs to go. You asked for 24 hours earlier this week which everyone was happy to agree to. But this is not going to drag on forever. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't there's a delay in additional edits. Your objection to my point is irrelevant, the time factor was crucial in determining German behaviour in Belgium because of events elsewhere. Do you agree with the edits I've already made?Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring some of the generic edits, no I don't support any of the material dealing with the Eastern Front for reasons already explained. Whether or not we agree with each others positions is of limited importance since Wikipedia operates on consensus. At the moment I don't see any support beyond your own for retaining the Eastern Front section. And given that we have had multiple editors chime in, that is a pretty good definition of consensus. That said, I for one don't plan to do anything major before Monday so others can have a chance to opine. If you want to make more changes or make another pitch to keep the section go for it. Like I said, I'm not trying to be an a**h***. But at some point this discussion is going to end. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two of us want something, which isn't a consensus, do you really not approve of any of my edits? Keith-264 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Visiting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. Agree with nom that the section provides excessive detail on the operations on the Eastern Front. My suggestion would be to convert this section to a summary paragraph (2–3 sentences), and roll into the overall section "Outbreak of war". This would provide enough context on the two-front war, but without the dedicated section which appears to be unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about this but the coup against Corbyn has begun and I'm really enjoying the spectacle so I withdraw my objection to a big edit of the EF section, as I can't do two things at once. As and when I can find the sources which describe the OHLs apprehensions about delays in the Belgian job because of events on the EF with the details (in general) I'll do it and anyone interested can look it over. Perhaps KeCoffman's idea will work? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keith-264 Thank you. I appreciate both your engagement in this discussion and your obviously sincere efforts to improve the article. And on a side note; I am also enjoying the entertainment coming out of the UK and Europe. Clearly there aren't enough fainting couches for all the talking heads and professional political types. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eythenkew! I can't procrastinate any longer because it isn't fair; apparently eight Bliarite scum have gone now. It's their last chance to rescue the Tory (Official) partei. I haven't laughed so much since Ooh-Aah Hezbollah thrashed the zionists in 2006.Keith-264 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing an amusing but hugely off topic discussion that I started. Mea culpa mea culpa... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to think, all of this could have been avoided if James II had just won the damned Battle of the Boyne, where one of my ancestors served as his aid decamp. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least we English got the republic out of it....Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Republic? I think you have the wrong battle and the wrong king. Perhaps Charles I and Oliver Cromwell? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Parliament became sovereign under the terms of the Coronation Oath Act 1688; that's why thick Eddie got the sack in 1936. Keith-264 (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All true. But Britain is not a republic. It still has a hereditary monarch as head of state and (though now powerless) an hereditary aristocracy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse myth with reality; who sacked the "hereditrary monarch" thick Eddie? The sovereign, Stanley Baldwin, an executive president, that's who. Remember the ceremonial and useful aspects of the constitution? Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of "republic." The supremacy of Parliament is neither here nor there. Britain has a hereditary monarch as its head of state. As long as that is the case it will not be a republic. It doesn't matter what power she has (and she actually does still have some constitutional prerogatives). This is why anti-monarchists are called "republicans." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Republicanism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your see and raise you de facto and de jure.Keith-264 (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of those terms. But they do not a republic make. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Swapped source for the GOH. Willing to discuss if preferred.Keith-264 (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did GB have 247,000 men? Only 80k landed in France by that time.[edit]

220k is the accepted number for Belgian troops, but GB only had 80k troops in the 6 divisions of infantry and one of cavalry sent to France at the start of the war. At the time of the fighting in Belgium, this wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)#First_World_War

Says we only had 2 corps of 2 divisions each. The 4th division and 6th division, which went on to form III corps, didn't arrive in France until 22/23 Aug and 8/9 Sept respectively.

So there is absolutely no way GB had 247,000 troops in Belgium during the German invasion.

Can someone please clarify this?

Ganpati23 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the number of men available to the British state, not the size of the Expeditionary Force.Keith-264 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change it then? It seems like the size of the BEF might be a more logical indicator. Is there are source for it?—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, the British sent most but not all of the Expeditionary Force at first, then reinforced it, then sent the Seventh Division to Belgium while the EF was retreating to the Marne and the RN Division was sent to Antwerp. If we only count troops in Belgium, we'll need a time line so perhaps we should make the meaning of the numbers clearer, that it's a gross figure not nett?Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


German ultimatum[edit]

In the first paragraph I read:

“On 2 August, the German government sent an ultimatum to Belgium, demanding passage through the country and German forces invaded Luxembourg. Two days later, the Belgian Government refused the demands and the British Government guaranteed military support to Belgium. The German government declared war on Belgium on 4 August, troops crossed the border and attacked the Belgian city of Liège.”


Remark:Belgium did not wait to refuse the demands

I tried to correct and modify as follows:

“On 2 August at at 7 o’clock in the evening, a German ultimatum was handed over to the Belgium government, demanding passage through the country. In case the demand would not be granted, Belgium would be considered an enemy country. The same day German forces invaded Luxembourg. On 3 August at 7 o’clock in the morning the Belgian answer to the ultimatum, a refusal to give in to the demands, was handed over to the German embassy. (John Keegan, p.95) Two days later the British Government guaranteed military support to Belgium. The German government declared war on Belgium on 4 August, troops crossed the border and attacked the Belgian city of Liège.”

I had to give up attempts to add references and sources in due format I leave it to someone who is more familiar with editing procedures

Sources:

John Keegan; De Eerste Wereldoorlog; Balans Amsterdam; Van Halewyck, Leuven 2001; (519 p.); ISBN 90 5018 533 9; ISBN 90 5617 306 5

Sophie de Schaepdrijver; De Groote Oorlog: het Koninkrijk Belgi tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog; Atlas Contact, Amsterdam, 2013, (383 p.); ISBN 978-90-8924-2877; D 2013 4765 29; NUR 680

Duitse_opmars_door_België tijdens_de_Eerste_Wereldoorlog

Greetings

Frans90245 (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German invasion of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atrocities section[edit]

Down the bottom of the atrocities section there is a rather clunky paragraph of histography that seems to focus almost entirely on presenting the view of one historian taking a shot at 3 previously unmentioned others. Frankly I think this paragraph needs revising to present the argument of both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:F977:9B30:CC45:A9A6 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, if you have the sources to do it justice, go ahead.Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't unfortunatly none of my books really cover this matter in detail. The atrocities yes a bit but not the historiography or historical debate on them.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:A5E2:25C3:1D19:B6D3 (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, I put Zuber in because I'd got a copy and was drawing on it for several Belgium articles; I can see that from the outside it looks odd but I didn't expect that bit to stay like that for so long. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence contradicts other parts of the section: "Zuber also wrote that there were no German reprisals in the Flemish areas of Belgium." Dendermonde, Mechelen, Leuven, are and were Flemish towns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:5449:3F00:31C8:7D19:E708:1F89 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have another look at that bit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worth getting rid of the offending paragraph entirely. If I have understood correctly, it appears to say that the civilian population deserved what it got because the Garde civique fought a guerrilla campaign against the German invaders. It seems pretty WP:FRINGE. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Hungary[edit]

Pretty sure Austria-Hungary wasn't involved in any kind of way here. Might as well say Belgium was supported by Serbia at this rate. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 08:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was an attempt to keep a sense that events here were part of events elsewhere, particularly at the start of the war when diplomacy hadn't quite been superseded by war. Notice that Britain hung back for a few days hoping that it would all blow over and that this was over Belgium as a suitable casus belli. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's interesting to see the views of the people who presumably contribute to wiki..."hung back" - the UK readied its fleet to sail on July 25 and mobilized by the 29th; they must have been channeling their inner Nostradamus, considering Germany did not enter Belgium until August 3rd. The Netherlands were not even stepped into until the 2nd. Who has that kind of foresight? --2600:1002:B004:70AA:1CA4:856:F0C3:59AF (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Austria-Hungary provided siege artillery for the Battle of Liège. It isn't exactly the behaviour of a neutral power. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it's a heavy-handed edit by bias-pedia. If we take it as a rule, then the US supplied the UK with the modern equivalent of over 50 billion dollars in military equipment, most of which was delivered while a neutral; by your logic, nearly every single battle the UK fought in should say "supported by the US"--2600:1002:B004:70AA:1CA4:856:F0C3:59AF (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to alternate proposal. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German invasion of Belgium → Invasion of Belgium (1914) – The word "German" doesn't help to disambiguate here, because Belgium was invaded again by Germany in 1940. Both events are most often called "invasion of Belgium" in reliable sources. The name "invasion" is more common than "German invasion" according to NGRAMS[1] (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German invasion of Belgium (1914) is another option which I would also support. (t · c) buidhe 15:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support that. Srnec (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the German title. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Centring[edit]

@Jay D. Easy: as it happens, I am, I think it looks better. Keith-264 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The Germans depended on Schlieffen Plan for a quick victory 165.165.141.238 (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_invasion_of_Belgium_(1914)&oldid=1207395705"