Talk:Belgian Expeditionary Corps in Russia

What were the vehicles?
The text says that the Corps was equipped with Minerva armoured cars. The infobox says that the vehicles were Minerva and Lanchester. The caption to the photograph says it's a Mors. One of the references says that the armoured cars were Mors and Peugeot. Can anyone introduce some consistency from some credible sources?
 * As far as I can see, there is very little difference; they seem to have used all three. In fact, most appear to have been whatever the factory knocked up according to all sorts of ad hoc plans.—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So you don't know, then? (, unsigned for some reason).
 * No.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I count four, but never mind. We've made a start. Citations to follow. The ad hoc period was over with the fall of Antwerp. The Russian Corps was much more organised. The majority of ACs were Mors chassis with Minerva engines. And I don't know why it was unsigned, either. Let's see what happens this time. Hengistmate (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts.
The force sent to Russia comprised five each of Peugeot and Mors armoured cars mounting machine guns or cannon, and two armoured but unarmed command vehicles. Whilst it is possible to find references that use the term "Mors-Minerva", I find that they are very much outnumbered by those that say simply "Mors". And in a difference of view such as this, where neither view is demonstrably wrong, the majority should carry the day. A source that supports one's contention does not "trump" a larger number of sources that oppose it. As I see it, "Mors" is greatly in the majority. I note that the museum website says "Mors-Minerva", but believe me, museums can be wrong.

Does the story of the replica in fact belong here rather than in the Minerva article? It's about the vehicle rather than the Expeditionary Force. I should have thought that a link to the Minerva site from here would be more appropriate, especially since the illustration in the museum seems to show a Minerva taking on a German Kuirassier, which places it in Belgium in 1914, not Russia in 1916.

I should be happier if this article were more reliant for its information on military historians than on a stamp collector. Hengistmate (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your additions. I think the replica should go here since it is the only one of the type in existence and is clearly in the Expeditionary Corps markings (large Russian rondel). Frankly, I'm not sure the Minerva armoured car is notable enough to merit its own article.
 * If you don't like a source (and certainly I agree it's not the best conceivable), feel free to be bold and replace it with something better.... —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I know of three detailed works on the Corps, but, sadly for me, two are in Russian and one is in Flemish. Would your Dutch be appropriate for the last mentioned? Hengistmate (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Belgian neutrality
Please explain how was it possible that by late 1915 Belgium was still a neutral country, since she had been declared upon and invaded by Germany in 1914? Was she not a member of the Triple Entente? Greetings, --Abulmiskafur (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I too question this. She was neutral up to invasion by Germany in 1914 so not one of the original Triple Entente (being UK, France and Russia). However she was not in any formal pre-war alliance with Russia.Cloptonson (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's perfectly true. Belgium considered itself to be at war with Germany, but not allied to the British/French/Russians. That's why the Belgians could maintain so much independence on the Yser Front. It's one of the reasons Belgium got so little in the postwar settlement - as an "associated power", rather than an Ally. See, for example, here pages 388-9 —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Belgium wasn't in a pre-war alliance with anyone, formal or otherwise. She wasn't allowed to be. Under the 1839 Treaty of London her neutrality was guaranteed by the Great Powers. What that meant was that if any country were to attack Belgium, the other signatories were to come to her defence. This was actually because none of the signatories trusted the others, as was the way in those days. The threat was seen to come not just from Germany but also from France and even Great Britain. It didn't stop Belgium from having a sizeable army for her own defence. Germany's invasion invoked the treaty, completing the chain reaction that began in Sarajevo. But Belgium neither declared war on Germany nor allied herself with the Entente; she merely fought alongside those that came to her assistance, which the Treaty permitted her to do. To do otherwise would have been a breach of the Treaty, eroding Belgium's victim status, which was a valuable propaganda tool, and inviting even harsher treatment from the occupying Germans. King Albert therefore decided to maintain that relationship. It was IIRC only in Sept 1918, when Germany's defeat seemed inevitable, that Belgium declared war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:83CC:EE00:1896:2A1C:B525:8221 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)