Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Discovery UK" channel.

@invisibleman4827 Which international law did the invasion of Belgium break? Do you mean "immoral" or " illegal"?
1
@invisibleman4827 If one makes an extraordinary claim, one should also be able to provide the evidence for this claim. Which international law? Name the law, the clause, or paragraph, please. I'll save you the trouble... Reality: The was no "international law" yet, and there still isn't which makes waging war illegal.
1
@invisibleman4827 The laws you quoted were about the conduct of war not its outbreak, and these laws did not dictate to powers when or why they should wage war. I suggest reading these yourself (pdf files are on the www), or reading a good historical review. It was within the sovereign right of each power to wage war, if the own safety was threatened, and it was the Westphalian Principles which determined a few guidelines. No, the Treaty of London did not "forbid" anything. Every signatory merely vowed (per signature) to honor Belgian neutrality for its own forces. It was NOT any kind of "defense pact" or treaty (like NATO). That was all. Berlin broke this obligation, because of the Russian and French contigency plans which theatened the "2-front war"-scenario for the Central powers, but this did not dictate to any country how they should react to such an invasion. London's decision to go to war was entirely the OWN choice, making Britain's declaration of war a "preventive war" for GB/Empire.
1
@invisibleman4827 Yes, that is correct. London went to war "preventively", because if Germany went through Belgium, there was the threat of the "short war" and a rapid collapse of France. If Berlin could be convinced not to go through Belgium, it would be a "long war" with German forces bogged down in the mountanous region further south, with narrow gauge railways, bad infrastructure and many natural and military barriers. All of that as the "Russian steamroller" rolled towards Berlin, only 100 miles from the border in Prussia. While all of that was going on, London could steer the war with their own pre-war contigency war plan: that of an economic warfare plan, while sitting "on the fence, eating popcorn and chips" (which is not a joke of course, but an actual strategy of power). The last to join, when every other combatant had exhausted itself, the "fence sitter" could swoop in and "march over the ruins" to dictate own very favorable terms.
1
@invisibleman4827 You might find it far more than simply "interesting", once you find out how it fits into the "big picture". If you wish to know who the biggest "losers" of history were, because they fell into the UNDERTOW of their OWN "divide and rule"-strategy of having to submit to the imperialism of a bigger power, then please go to the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary) and choose "latest comments first" (three little bars at the top of each comments section). Great Britain and France did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had tried to set up in Europe after around 1900, and the British Empire did not gain by the own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system. Britons and French (average citizens) also lost BIG TIME. Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be a non-falsifiable theory, if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, that video comments section has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans were 1) once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers. I left a comment there for you, right at the top of the comments section. If you have time we can gladly discuss further there. rgds
1