# Talk:Belgium in World War II

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)

Article is strongly POV to put it mildly... 105.0.4.213 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belgium in World War II/GA. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this one. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I feel this article has extensive problems relating to criteria 2B. Much of the article is unreferenced and it would be unsuitable to promote this article to GA status in the absence of these references. Please work on this area of the article further, as content-wise the article is quite good. I look forward to you renominating this article once these problems have been addressed, thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 08:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 

Hello, have revised the lead and added cites as suggested.Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belgium in World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 09:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Coming out of semi-retirement to review this after Brigade Piron asked, hope no one else objects. I'll do it as quickly as i can ★★RetroLord★★ 09:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
"The country was mostly liberated" I'm not sure this is completely appropriate, perhaps a bit too subjective to say "liberated"? Might need changing.
" theatres of war around the globe" The article mentions fighting in europe and africa, could we rephrase this to be a bit more precise?

On reflection, I don't think that paragraph adds much at all that is needed in the intro. I've removed it.Brigade Piron (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
While not a GA point, the lead could perhaps be re-formatted to remove those two stand alone paragraphs at the bottom.
" Fall of France" Not sure Fall should be capitalised, also, perhaps surrender? Fall seems a bit excesive.
"Belgium was run by a German military government under General Alexander von Falkenhausen until July 1944, and then under Reichskommissar Josef Grohé until liberation." Citations?

Done Brigade Piron (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"After the war, many of those who had collaborated actively with the German occupiers – including the political leaders of fascist parties and the guards at Breendonk concentration camp – were tried, imprisoned or shot." References/citations?

Rephrased and ref'd Brigade Piron (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"The resistance would aid the airmen by giving them false papers and guiding them to either neutral or Allied occupied territory." refs?

Done Brigade Piron (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Preliminary review complete. Once we've addressed those i'll use a table and get everything else. Shouldn't be too hard. Good work on the article Brigade, ★★RetroLord★★ 05:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Retrolord, many thanks! I'll work on finding some of the citations you mention. "Fall of France" and "Liberation" are pretty standard terms in history writing on the subject, I hope they don't represent POV terms. Many thanks again for your work here! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
With

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)