Precarious Neutrality in World War I
That the Netherlands was able to stay out of World War I was little less than a miracle, beset as it was by so many dangers and difficulties. A small country and militarily weak, it nevertheless possessed important colonial territories in both Asia and America. The livelihood of many of its people was gained from the operation of a merchant fleet which was one of the largest in the world. A large transit traffic, especially with the German industrial hinterland, was of great importance in the economic life of the country. Geographically the country was precariously situated. Its eastern and southern borders were of a character to invite aggression in case of hostilities between its neighbors. A tongue of Dutch territory jutted downward between Germany and Belgium, extending half the distance to the Luxembourg border. A narrow strip of territory south of the Scheldt gave the Netherlands control over a river which is essentially Belgian and on which is situated the great ocean port of Antwerp. In the Rhine, Holland controlled the mouth of another international river— one of the utmost importance to one of the major belligerents. Still another international river, which emptied into the seas from Dutch territory, was the Meuse. After the occupation of Belgium the Netherlands had to guard its entire land frontier against belligerent violation. Across a comparatively narrow sea lay another belligerent, England, whose fleet dominated the seas.
Relations with Germany: Failure of Neutrality
The Dutch policy of neutrality was largely based on the assumption that the chief, if not exclusive, threat to Netherlands security came from the side of France. With Belgium’s permanent status of neutrality guaranteed by the great powers and with England’s known interest in maintaining an independent Netherlands, the Dutch felt fairly secure.
Capturing Crime in the Antipodes: Colonist Cultural Representation of Indigeneity
This chapter adopts a Southern criminological lens, which allows the authors to explore how colonialism has been constructed and depicted in museums within both regional and urban Australia. By studying spatial and historical silences in Australian museums, this chapter offers a consistent frame to chronologically chart Anglo-Australian depictions of Indigeneity, imperialism and violence wielded by the state. As this chapter will argue, museums can often reflect Westernized (white) conceptualizations about Indigeneity and the state violence involved in colonization, which actively re-enforces popular views and influences sociopolitical visions of identity, the state and justice.