"Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

[Terry Duncan]

http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h ... eopold.htm

Attrition wrote about Belgian Congo,not about the Congo Free State,and said that the situation in Belgian Congo(1909-1960) was worse than in occupied Poland in WWII.

The link mentioned up here is about the Congo Free State (1885-1909).The same for the other two links .

Attrition actually wrote;

The Belgian state which ran Congo only marginally less ruthlessly than Leopold? People who could make the Generalgouvernment in occupied Poland in the 40s look like a birthday present aren't Ruritanians.

He did not specify the 'Belgian Congo' or any dates, only the area administered by the Belgian state, which of course would include areas ruled by the ruling dynasty. Please do not claim other posters have said something they clearly have not. As for;

The link mentioned up here is about the Congo Free State (1885-1909).The same for the other two links .

The Congo Free State was ruled by the ruling dynasty in Belgium and the Belgian state benefitted from this territory, and the links show the atrocities committed by the areas Belgian rulers.

[Attrition]

The point I made was to disagree with woneil about the amount of attention that two of the pre-war states paid to Europe.

Perhaps I should have added that it's easy to damn history's losers; they commit atrocities, when the winners behave the same, it's a mistake.

[ljadw]

"The Belgian state which ran Congo" :this Congo is Belgian Congo,a Belgian colony .The other Congo,the Free-State,was run by Leopold with the help of a few whites(mostly non-Belgians) and the Belgian state had NO juridical responsability for what happened in the Free State .

The same happened with other colonies : individuals created merchant companies who colonized territries,and later,the state took over .exemple : the Dutch East India Company started the colonisation of what is now Indonesia,and later Holland took over .In november 1908,the Belgian state,very unwillingly,took over the Free State .

[South]

Good morning Ljadw,

Re: "started the colonisation of what is now Indonesia";

Your point above in para 2 is understood and accepted.

However, the demanding historical accuracy many of us require.....includes you too...... refutes the above quote.

The initial presence was not Dutch but Portuguese. They started at Timor and later added Ocussi. The Dutch got the whole venture going and thriving but "started" relates to Portugal.


Warm regards,

Bob

[ljadw]

Correction accepted,but the argument remains : the East Indian Company (there also was a West Indian Company) arrived first,the Dutch state later,and the Dutch state can not be held responsible for what the EIC was doing previously .

Other point is that the only thing the Free State (which was a juridical construction for something that was essential a commercial enterprise)and the Belgian state had in common,was that they had the same head of state .As no one will hold Canada(which had the same head of state as Britain) responsible for atrocities committed by British soldiers in Kenya,one should do the same for Belgium and the Free State .

[Attrition]

~~~~~Other point is that the only thing the Free State (which was a juridical construction for something that was essential a commercial enterprise) and the Belgian state had in common,was that they had the same head of state. As no one will hold Canada (which had the same head of state as Britain) responsible for atrocities committed by British soldiers in Kenya, one should do the same for Belgium and the Free State.~~~~~

Canada wasn't a "juridical construction for something that was essential[y] a commercial enterprise". Did formal Belgian rule end the atrocities? What about the Force Publique, was it disbanded or continued under new management? You may have a point but from the point of view of the victims it looks like sophistry.

Canada of course is blamed for Celine Dion.

[ljadw]

I could reply that there is no difference between a legal argument and sophistry,but a lawyer would say that this is sophistry .

[ljadw]

As the Cobgo Reform Association dissolved itself in 1912,considering its aim as accomplished, one could,no ,one should say that after Belgium took over the Congo,the atrocities disappeared .

[Attrition]

I could reply that there is no difference between a legal argument and sophistry,but a lawyer would say that this is sophistry .

Celine Dion?

[Terry Duncan]

Whilst off-topic here is another moment of Belgian guilt, if only for the jacket alone!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A97FQKzQ444

[Robert Brockmeier]

I guess I missed something in the song.
RObert Brockmeier

[ljadw]

[quote="Terry Duncan] To suggest the German actions on 31st July/1st August have no connection with the earlier Austrian declaration of war is to agree with Bethmann's policy that it was possible to localise a war between Austria and Serbia, which of course ignores that other nations considered they had an interest in the Balkans - and that the Austrian Note admitted this when mentioning the Serbian promise to the Powers as a group in 1909.

Other than that it would require a German decision to go to war irrespective of actions taken by Russia, including acceptance of the Austrian attack on Serbia.[/quote]

1)Of course it was possible to localize a war between Austria and Serbia,but Germany did not want such localization .

2)there was NO serious Russian reaction after the Austrian DOW on Serbia : no recall of its ambassador, no rupture of the diplomatic relations, no ultimatum,no DOW,and,if Russia did not react, no onewould react .


3)Of course,there was a German decision to go to war irrespective any action by Russia : if Russia intervened, Germany would declare war, if Russia only was mobilizing, Germany would declare war (there WAS a German DOW in the OTL),if Russia did nothing, Germany still would declare war : the reason is obvious : the German DOW on Russia had NOTHING to do with what was happening in the East :Germany declared war on Russia,because this would give her the occasion/pretext to start a war in the West .

[Don71]

As always nothing but biased claims without any hard facts or sources from you ljadw.
You have failed to proof your claims and will fail the next 1000 years.

[ljadw]

Why wasGermany declaring war on Russia and immediately attacking Belgium;Luxemburg and France ?


By accident ?

Was it compelled ? No one has given a proof that on august,Germany was in danger and was obliged to declare war on Russia and to attack Belgium,Luxemburg and France .


Remains : Germany did intentionally declare war on Russia and intentionally invaded Belgium,Luxemburg and France .

Was Germany threatened by Belgium,by Luxemburg ,by France ? The answer is NO .

Was Germany threatened by Russia ? The answer is : NO .

[Don71]

Was Germany threatened by France ? The answer is NO .

Was Germany threatened by Russia ? The answer is : NO .

The answer is YES and you know it!

Both Russia and France mobilized before Germany after primary sources.

You can deny this or do your biased claims the next 1000 years the time of mobilization are hard facts from primary sources from France, Russia and Germany and all your babbling is simply bullshit.