More to it than thatMarch 15 2004 at 2:58 AM
|David Maynard (no login)|
from IP address 220.127.116.11
Response to Im curious what you think.
Britain was a signatory of a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, which was of course violated by the German invasion. We didn't need any atrocity stories to get involved. The Belgians were also entitled to defend their country against aggression. In addition, Belgian independence would undoubtedly have disappeared in the event of a German victory.
The German policy of reprisals was not ad hoc, it already existed, and grew out of their experience of franc tireurs after the Franco-Prussian wars. Some of the civilian killing undoubtedly took place after blue on blue incidents, which are inevitable in the chaos of war. Which hardly justifies killing over 500 people at Dinant, for instance.
British involvement in the First World War was inevitable as staying out would leave the Germans in a better position to defeat the French. And then left Britain alone in the face of single continental super power.
- True. - Vil Elliott on Mar 15, 2004, 3:10 AM
- Strategic question... - gilles Thomas on Mar 15, 2004, 4:43 AM
- Entangling Alliances - mike foncannon on Mar 17, 2004, 6:07 PM
- Not enough - Mario Wens on Jul 12, 2004, 7:54 AM