Talk:Rape of Belgium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Needs work

The sole reference is a dead link and, given the outlandish nature of some of these accusations, we really need to get some better sources here. I've linked to this article from the WWI main article, so hopefully we can get some interest going. Haber 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title is not NPOV

I agree that the Germans did some awful things to Belgium, but calling this article the "Rape of Belgium" violates a neutral point of view. Shouldn't it be "German Invasion of Belgium?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.48.99 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

The mere term "invasion" does not imply war crimes, as in the mass killings of civilians claimed. The "Rape of Belgium" was a specific term of art describing German killings and other warcrimes directed against Belgian civilians. The perception of these war crimes were a powerful incentive for the entry of Britain and the US into the war, beyond what the mere fact of an invasion would have generated. There are countless references to it in newspapers of the era. To look at one paper for which I have online access, the New York Times alone printed articles with the phrase "rape of Belgium" 24 times during world war 1. Examples are 1)"THE GERMAN "WHITE BOOK" REJECTED.; Futile as an Apology for the Rape of Belgium and Worthless as a Document of Facts -- How the Evidence Was Taken. By A. J. CARNOY. Professor of Philology, Louvain University.A. J. CARNOY. New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jun 4, 1915. pg. 10, 1 pgs. 2) "REASON UNSTRUNG. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jul 23, 1915. pg. 8, 1 pgs. Says "..the moral horror with which the world regards the rape of Belgium." Germany justified the shooting of women and children in a document. They claimed that resistance to the invasion of a neutral nation by civilians was contrary to international law. 3) "Says German Note Repudiates Liner Pledge; James M. Beck Points Out Amazing Contradiction and Calls Submarine Controversy a Discreditable Chapter in Diplomacy. By James M. Beck, Formerly Assistant Attorney General of the United States and Author of "The Dual Alliance vs. the Triple Entente" and "The Evidence in the Case.". New York TimesNew York, N.Y.: May 28, 1916. pg. SM5, 3 pgs. "The idea that it was of modern origin is largely due to the fact that the horrors of the Thirty Years' War, with its sack of Magdeburg and other atrocities, which are a parallel to the rape of Belgium, caused the great philosopher and jurist, Grotius, to present in his classic treatise this principle of humanity, which in times of war marks the chief line of demarkation between savagery and civilization." 4)"Spirit of the Nobler American Now Awake; Former Critic of the President Says There Are Practically No Dissenters From President Wilson's Clarion Call to Duty."By James M. Beck, Author of "The Evidence in the Case.". New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Feb 11, 1917. pg. SM3, 1 pgs: "the house of Hohenzollern...added the rape of Belgium to that of Silesia.." 5)"WAR OF DEMOCRACY; RECENT BOOKS ON THE WAR." New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Feb 11, 1917. pg. BR1, 2 pgs: "...it was not... the rape of Belgium that precipitated the cataclysm, but the greed and mutual fear and jealousy of two European empires..." 6) 'GOMPERS DENOUNCES MASKED PEACE WORK; Says People's Council Is Engaged in "Nefarious Propaganda of Treachery."' New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Aug 16, 1917. pg. 2, 1 pgs: "Not even at the behest of the so-called People's Council will the organized workers of America prostitute the labor movement to serve the brutal power resonsible for the infamous rape of Belgium..." 7) "THE BLOND BEAST. New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jun 23, 1918. pg. 52, 1 pgs: "What follows is familiar to everyone who has read of the rape of Belgium and the invasion of northern France. The drunkenness, the shameless looting, the bayoneting of women, children and prisoners, the outrages commited on young girls, the attack on a hospital and murder of the wounded and of the French surgeon who was helping the German doctor with the injured of both nations- these are matters of historical fact, which need no assistance from fiction." 8)"UNCOMPROMISING LOYALTY." New York Times.New York, N.Y.: Jul 25, 1918. pg. 10, 1 pgs:"..such crimes against humanity as the rape of Belgium." For more recent scholarly use of the term see the book "The Rape of Belgium: The Untold Story of World War I [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover) by Larry Zuckerman, Hardcover: 350 pages Publisher: New York University Press (February 1, 2004) ISBN-10: 0814797040 ISBN-13: 978-0814797044 per Amazon.com. Edison 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
While I agree on the title, it seems to me some context is missing to what extend war crimes really happened and what the Allies claimed had happened. Additionally a problem is also what might constitute "legal" but morally questionable policing operations. I once read that counterinsurgency methods of the day were very crude back then so the German actions were condemned as inhumane even though in part being the same any other European army would have done when facing insurgents in an occupied territory. I came here from the general WW1 topic and there it summarizes war crimes adding up to maybe 1000-2000 dead Belgian civilians including women and children. While obviously a war crime it is definitely not the sign of a coordinated policy either. More details on that would be helpful, Mangalore 11-29-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.108.47 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same term as said in my history class.

I'm currently in a US History class at IUPUI, and my professor referred to it as the "Rape of Belgium". I think it's more a common known term for the events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.167.61 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I changed it to what you asked

But now the article needs some revision, i will get to it later if someone else does not do so. --Bladesofhalo 03:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did work

Hello everyone. I have rewritten this article because it truly smelled of propaganda. Hope you find my work somewhat more balanced.Bas Veenema 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The rape of Belgium was simply war propaganda and the lie was running throw the century supported for the 40's nazi horror. Please again, the nazi regime lasted for 13 years, and Germany is (and was and will be) greater and better than Hitler & friends was 80.34.202.139 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Next time please read all the provided material and other discussions. Events in Belgium between 1914 and 1918 (mostly 1914) were real, they were also used for propaganda purpouses, but that doesn't make the entire events propaganda. I won't comment on the greater and better bit.--Caranorn 11:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss *BEFORE* attempting to move the article again

This article is about the series of atrocities that the Germans committed in the opening months of WWI. This is well-known under the name "Rape of Belgium". There may be a place within Wikipedia for an article named, "Invasion of Belgium", but it doesn't necessarily have to get started by stealing this article. Please discuss further before disrupting Wikipedia by a move. Haber 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be best if we started an article named German invasion of Belgium or something related to that and then listing atrocities under it. Thats what I was meaning to do today. --Bladesofhalo 00:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, you must be really angry?

The article was rewritten by me only because the title was changed and now did not meet the content anymore. The 'Rape of Belgium' by that way is only "known" since the Versailles Treaty and was subsequently used to summon germany for huge payments. Just like "boiling corpses for fat to smear their guns" most of the rape accusations are post-war propaganda. I am not saying the germany did not commit collective punishmenst and violated international laws, but I am saying that these kind of articles about attrocities are written mostly by Belgians and smell of propaganda! The Dutch-Flemsih version on Wikipedia even has the headliner "Arm, klein, dapper België"(Poor, small, brave Belgium). Well, there is historical objectivity for you.Bas Veenema 15:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually you seem to be misinformed, the term "Rape of Belgium" is a WWI period term, not post WWI. The propaganda surrounding these events is also from WWI itself and not after WWI. Lastly the actual destructions (Louvain for instance) in Belgium during that war were real and absolutely justified the demands for reparations. Lastly the topic is not just a Belgian one, it was a well known one in Britain and France at least during the war.--Caranorn 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we might just have a simple misunderstanding of English here. "Rape of Belgium" does not refer to sexual assault. The use of "rape" is a bit archaic, and means "4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside."[1] A sexual assault in the early 1900s would more likely be called an "outrage". To this day the atrocities committed by Germany in Belgium are still collectively known as the "Rape of Belgium", even though if a similar thing happened today it would probably be called by some other name, that we'd consider more NPOV. As for the other balance problems, if you disagree with something else please change it. But you can see how a move followed by a complete rewrite might draw a response, can't you? Haber 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok.Bas Veenema 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There must be a better word out there than rape cause no matter the meaning some people will attribute it to violating a NPOV. --Bladesofhalo 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We can't just rename events because we think the titles are POV or outdated. Encyclopedias don't do that. Haber 13:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Per a reference I added above under the first topic "Title is not NPOV", actual rape of women and girls was part of the claimed pattern of war crimes. Not that mass reprisal killings of civilians and burning of towns was anything to sneeze at. The title should stay, because it has great usage in books and papers from 1914 to the present (many of them pre-Google unfortunately, but accessible through other library search engines. Edison 17:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure there were books and papers before Google? If this is true then there could be a whole world of information that Wikipedia is missing! Haber 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herzstein

Interesting that Kiebie's piece was deleted. "In his book "Roosevelt & Hitler" Jewish author Robert E. Herzstein considers the Rape of Belgium itself only to be part of war-time propaganda. (p.8) "The Germans could not seem to find a way to counteract powerful British propaganda about the 'Rape of Belgium' and other alleged atrocities." Let's see if it stays this time, or is again censored.

You're misinterpreting the quote. He's not saying that atrocities didn't happen, he's only reporting them as "alleged atrocities". This is a common way many authors attempt to sound neutral. From that quote, we can't know whether he believes in the atrocities or not. He merely asserts a) atrocities were alleged, b) British propaganda used them, c) Germany had no answer. Also, it's bad form to talk about "Jewish author". You might as well refer to other sources as "Christian author" or "Atheist author". Haber 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read the rest of the book, you will see that he justifies some serious doubts about the whole thing. Not that many awful things had happened to Belgium, the did of course, but he puts them into perspective. Not many people know about the deal between France's general Poincaré and the Belgians to let France pass through (something the Germans did know and wanted to beat the French to it by striking the first blow. Belgium replied in a letter to Germany that it had no such plans... yet we now know that this was only cosmetic because France was mobilizing north bound and not east bound... which would have been the more logical manouvre if they wanted to go to Germany. Only when Germany noted the north-bound move, did they decide to go though Belgium. About me calling the author Jewish... well, if you don't then people who write something positive about Germany always get called Revisionist... or worse !!

Bas Veenema 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You say that Poincaré and the Belgians had a free passage agreement. Give some reliable sources ! This is the argument that the Germans always used to excuse their movement. France was NOT mobilised North bound which you can see to the results of the battle of the frontiers. Their main armies where fighting in the Elsace. Please do some more research before writting such things. Before doing further discussion, read the book of Larry Zuckerman "the rape of Belgium". He has done some serious and profound investigations about the matter. H.Trappeniers 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French

should it really read "...in fear of French guerrilla fighters..."? or was it more likely Belgian snipers? thank you -anon 81.242.82.11 06:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

There should be a section in this article about English propaganda implying the Germans impaled babies on spiked helmets and nailed kittens to church doors. Kingturtle (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)