Talk:Belgium in World War II

Introductory sentence
The first sentence of the article reads as follows: "This article refers to the history of Belgium during the period of World War II between 1939 and 1945, from early adoption of Nazism to German occupation and through to liberation." I'm slightly bemused about how Belgium "adopted" Nazism early - if this refers to Rexism &c, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding about Rexist ideals and about their popularity. Similarly, WWII did not end in 1944 at Liberation as some 100,000 Belgians would serve in the military between then and the armistice. Unless someone can come up with something really good to substantiate this, I'm culling it and substituting my own. --Brigade Piron (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The referendum
The referendum about the return of king Leopold showed that a majority of the Belgians wanted him to return to the throne. But there were violent demonstrations against the king in the south of the country, so the result of the referendum was ignored and the king was not allowed back.

Since then, Belgium never held another referendum.

A few things
You asked how it looks. It looks like a good start, but it just doesn't have a feeling of completeness about it. One thing that makes this really noticeable is the one sentence paragraphs. For example: "Most Belgian men had been conscripted into the military in 1939 and were therefore prisoners of war. Many were kept in very poor conditions and 2,000 died before the end of the war." So there was mass conscription, but it's only mentioned here, and only incidentally, when mentioning (not explaining) the POW status and conditions. A fully complete article would go into more depth about each.

This should not give the impression that I think the article is badly done, quite on the contrary. It just isn't yet a complete treatment of the subject.

A few more specific things that I noticed:

"Most Belgian men had been conscripted into the military in 1939 and were therefore prisoners of war." There's no source for this; the one at the end of the sentence refers to 600,000 men, which doesn't sound like 'most' to me. This needs to be amended.

"After the war, many of those who had collaborated - including many of the guards at Fort Breendonk - were tried, imprisoned or shot." So far there has been no mention of Fort Breendonk, so it needs to be introduced or explained. Maybe '...of the guards at the Fort Breendonk concentration camp...' ?

I'll add more as I go. Cheers,  Oreo Priest  talk 18:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Oreo, thanks for your comments. I have tried to sort out several of the issues you raised. Please let me know any other points you find. Can you produce an overall rating for the project? --Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I finished going through it. Again, the main concern that remains is that it still doesn't feel complete. Not that it doesn't cover most topics, but it's clear that in many cases it merely touches on a topic that could be given a more complete treatment. I think it's worth a 'B' right now, but it's much, much more than a simple copyedit away from 'A' class.
 * Also, I remember hearing (perhaps it was at the Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and of Military History?) that the Nazis made an effort to divide the Belgians based on language; they would give the Flemish preferential treatment and encourage separatism. Is there any truth to this? I noticed it's not mentioned in the article. Should it be? Cheers,  Oreo Priest  talk 19:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Oreo! That's very possibly true. Unfortunately I do not have access to Flemish sources and history books so I cannot add the topic you suggested. In any case, I think it has probably been overplayed in WWII - the Flamenpolitik in WWI is more like it. In any case, thanks for your comments & I will gladly take you comments onboard!Brigade Piron (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

With

Conscription in 1939
Good article but I wonder if there could be clarification of the statement under "18 Day's Campaign of 1940" that:

''Following the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, though still following a policy of neutrality, the Belgian government introduced conscription"

My understanding was that Belgium had employed universal military service along the same lines as France, since 1912 (replacing a 19th century system combining selective conscription with voluntary enlistment). Did this lapse between the two world wars or is "general mobilization" meant instead of "conscription"? Buistr (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything to prove it (only a photograph of posters in 1939 with "Renforcement de l'armée/Legerversterking" which is pretty ambigious). I think you are probably right, and have changed it accordingly. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)