This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion(?) 08:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be one common name for this battle. It is sometimes referred to as the "Battle of Morhange-Sarrebourg" (David Stevenson's 1914-1918 and Correlli Barnett's The Swordbearers). The Dictionary of the First World War calls it the "Invasion of Lorraine". Neither Keegan nor Tuchman seem to call it anything in particular. "Lorraine Offensive" is probably as good as any if there is a compelling reason to change. Gsl 08:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Wasn't there a "Battle of Lorraine" in World War II, a tank battle in which better trained American tankers defeated German tanks, which technological superiority was outweighted by their green crews? thestor (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
"...that it was seen as a British protectorate..."
replacing it with the text,
"...and that the British would fight to protect Belgian independence."
A protectorate is a territory that stands under foreign control, with limited sovereignty. For example, the Middle Eastern territories formerly under Ottoman control up to the end of WWI were given over to the French and the British by the League of Nations as protectorates. They were not truly independent or sovereign. I don't think the original author of the article meant to say that Belgium stood under British control of her internal and foreign policy.
Of course, if the community believes that this edit is inappropriate, I will conform to their opinion.
Greetings, it comes from Strachan "By 1912 the Belgians reckoned that Britain saw Belgium's neutrality as a protectorate established in Britain's interests, not their own." Perhaps I could have phrased it better?Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No, if you're quoting the source directly, you've made no mistake. But I'm curious in that case to see the original source and see the context. As I noted, a protectorate is something very specific, and it sounds like the meaning is being stretched.
Perhaps you could give Strachan a wigging? ;O) As it was, the treaty of 1839 was agreed to appease Britain. I assume that Strachan was pointing out that the Belgians were aware that their interests weren't necessarily the same as those of Britain (the boss classes that is)Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)