Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#121

Post by Terry Duncan » 10 Nov 2015, 20:37

glenn239 wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:
Only because your reading of it is wrong. Belgium had no neutrality once Germany attacked it, it could either cease to exist or seek help in trying to restore its sovereign territory. Of course, you could always provide a direct quote from any law or convention that forbids neutrals to defend themselves or seek help if attacked?
Belgium had no duties towards Germany once Germany attacked it. But it's duties towards Britain, France, Russia and Austria under the 1839 Treaty remained in existence.
Ok, the treaty is posted on this site, so please point me to the relevent section that says how Belgium must act once attacked, especially the part saying she had to appeal to all signatories, even those allied with the violator?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#122

Post by Terry Duncan » 10 Nov 2015, 20:48

glenn239 wrote:There is no basis whatever for a neutral Power to take possession of international waters at its fancy. The fact that dreadnoughts could reach to British shores from international waters with their main guns is irrelevant - today, a Russian submarine with 2,000nm cruise missles can do the same thing from the Barents Sea, and there is no legal basis to prevent such submarines plying these waters.

The dreadnought in question would have to bombard the British coast before the British could declare war, then operate in international water, just like Goeben did with Russia.
Any power can use international waters to prevent a potentially hostile navy from launching a surprise attack, such as requesting they turn back, or simply by blocking them from advancing. The British statement effected nothing unless the Germans decided to act in a certain way, and it was caused by the agreement over the Med which would take time to withdraw from, so at the time the statement was made it was perfectly correct. I could later be reversed if Britain gave the French the chance to shift forces back to this area first, re-establishing the situation prior to the agreement, but as the entire situation was changing so fast this was no going to be contemplated until the situation clarified itself. Britain stood by an agreement with a potential ally, against a likely enemy, until the situation was clarified, though the attempt to gain British neutrality by Bethmann had pretty much clarified it unless Germany reversed policy.


AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#123

Post by AJFFM » 10 Nov 2015, 22:31

Terry Duncan wrote:
You seem to not understand that the moment Germany violated Belgian neutrality, that neutrality ceased to exist as such, the only option for Belgium was to hope other nations would evict the German armies from Belgian territory and restore the neutral status.
If you return to the discussion with Mr. Clarke above you will see that according to International Law a neutral country remains in effect neutral even if its neutrality is breached provided that it does not take sides in the conflict and limit its involvement to pure defensive action.

Mr. Clarke's opinion is that The Hague and London kept Belgium's neutrality status even when it joined the other allies based on technicalities (having their separate command structure, paying for their own bills etc.).

That Belgium lost its neutrality once war broke out and Joined the allies there is no difference. The difference between me and Mr. Glenn on the one hand and Mr. Clarke on the other is when did Belgium cease to be neutral, was it immediately after the invasion began on Aug. 4th when it lost its neutrality only against Germany but for the rest of the parties of the war, Treaty of London or The Hague it was still a fully neutral power or it lost its neutrality when it called on signators of London, excluding Austria which is in itself significant, for protection which while not violating London it violated The Hague.
Terry Duncan wrote:

It is also the RN's right to keep potentially hostile forces at a distance where they are unable to launch a surprise attack on British territory, so you would then have a British fleet blocking a German fleet, still without a state of war existing. The Germans would have every right to try and push through, but by doing so they risk having to start a war, and as it wasnt even attempted, we can only guess what would happen here. This was also part of the deal covering the Med, so in a war where Britain was not going to take part at all, it would be possible to give notice to France that Britain was withdrawing from the agreement, and giving them time to station ships in the area themselves.
Other than a UN mandate, like the one in the case of Somalia, the understanding of the time as is today and the precedent has always been that international waters are sacred. China in the recent case of the South China Sea did nothing against US shipping demonstrating in force on high seas in front of Chinese Islands. In WWII the US engaged German shipping only when it breached National Waters and vice versa.

Countries had the right to patrol their National waters, which in the case of Britain were immense given their control over the North Sea and the Islands of the Channel. Britain had no right to patrol international waters preventing free shipping across the Channel nor it had any right to patrol French coasts while France was in a state of war.

Terry Duncan wrote:
Belgian neutrality as existed pre-German attack no longer existed, what existed was the Belgian desire to return to the status quo where she was neutral. She had to accept the status of co-belligerent with the Entente forces as this was the only way she had any hope of surviving in the pre-1914 form, especially as the German intent was to create a puppet state as part of their 'customs union' which would not be representitive of the previous incarnation of Belgium.

There is no requirement in the Treaty of London 1839 that says Belgium has to call on all signatories, that is pure invention, the treaty is posted in full on this site if you want to check it. Also as a nation allied to another nation that was violating Belgium, Austria had already failed to not be part of an alliance enacting such a violation, and as such had abandoned her own obligations as per the treaty. Fighting for Belgium was optional for A-H, but remaining allied to Germany was not optional the moment Germany delivered the ultimatum. There is also the small matter of Austria sending all those nice Skoda 30.5cm howitzers to destroy Liege (they did more damage than the more famous 'Big Bertha's, which proved somewhat inaccurate) which the GGS had requested over a week earlier.
Since the Belgian-German conflict was a separate affair Austria was de facto neutral unless it takes hostile action according to customary laws of war. Belgium had the chance to enforce a treaty that it claims was violated since the treaty clearly implied by text that all, not some, were to be asked. It did not.

Now I am basing my understanding on the English translation (not from google translate) of the original French text. I do not know French so I might be wrong in because the translator might have not done a good job in translating the specifics of the text and as you know, it's all about the fine print.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#124

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Nov 2015, 01:33

AJFFM wrote:[If you return to the discussion with Mr. Clarke above you will see that according to International Law a neutral country remains in effect neutral even if its neutrality is breached provided that it does not take sides in the conflict and limit its involvement to pure defensive action.

Mr. Clarke's opinion is that The Hague and London kept Belgium's neutrality status even when it joined the other allies based on technicalities (having their separate command structure, paying for their own bills etc.).

That Belgium lost its neutrality once war broke out and Joined the allies there is no difference. The difference between me and Mr. Glenn on the one hand and Mr. Clarke on the other is when did Belgium cease to be neutral, was it immediately after the invasion began on Aug. 4th when it lost its neutrality only against Germany but for the rest of the parties of the war, Treaty of London or The Hague it was still a fully neutral power or it lost its neutrality when it called on signators of London, excluding Austria which is in itself significant, for protection which while not violating London it violated The Hague.
A nation remains neutral certainly, as long as it end up on the winning side and returns to the status quo anti-bellum. However, the moment its neutrality is violated by an attack, it is allowed to join with any nations willing to try and uphold its neutrality. The Belgians maintained they were fighting only to restore their territory from German occupation, and did not join the Entente forces in any other enterprise other than to liberate their own soil, which was acceptable, so Belgium acted in accordance with the laws. For their part, Britain and France were fighting to restore Belgium to its pre-war condition, not to enhance it, as well as fighting a common war against Germany, again, perfectly ok within the laws. With regards Austria, her alliance with Germany was hardly secret pre-war, and her failure to renounce the alliance when she heard of the ultimatum to Belgium leaves her also in violation of Belgium due to the alliance, and then co-belligerent status with Germany, not to forget also in violation of the same neutrality by sending guns to destroy the Belgian fortresses at Liege. Do you imagine the Belgians were ignorant of the total lack of action from Austria over the German ultimatum and violation, and therefore somehow unable to grasp reality and realise Austria was not going to lift a finger to help?
AJFFM wrote:Other than a UN mandate, like the one in the case of Somalia, the understanding of the time as is today and the precedent has always been that international waters are sacred. China in the recent case of the South China Sea did nothing against US shipping demonstrating in force on high seas in front of Chinese Islands. In WWII the US engaged German shipping only when it breached National Waters and vice versa.

Countries had the right to patrol their National waters, which in the case of Britain were immense given their control over the North Sea and the Islands of the Channel. Britain had no right to patrol international waters preventing free shipping across the Channel nor it had any right to patrol French coasts while France was in a state of war.
So when the US intercepted Confederate shipping during the ACW, or when the US and Britain intercepted each others shipping in the War of 1812, or on any number of occasions during the Napoleonic Wars from all sides, they were somehow all not entitled to act in this matter as 'international waters were sarcred'? How do you think Wilson's desire to enshrine a 'Freedom of the Seas' law during and after WWI ever came about if this was even vaguely accepted by nations? Britain has the right to act in accordance with agreements she has been party to, such as the Anglo-French agreement to deploy their fleets in an optimal manner, and to do so until such actions were untenable. Even then, there would probably have been a need to impose a delayed withdrawal from the agrement in order to allow French forces to take up station on the NW coast where they would have been before the agreement took place. Not allowing France some time to react to Britain renaging on the agreement would have been rank bad faith, and poisoned relations between the two nations.
AJFFM wrote:Since the Belgian-German conflict was a separate affair Austria was de facto neutral unless it takes hostile action according to customary laws of war. Belgium had the chance to enforce a treaty that it claims was violated since the treaty clearly implied by text that all, not some, were to be asked. It did not.

Now I am basing my understanding on the English translation (not from google translate) of the original French text. I do not know French so I might be wrong in because the translator might have not done a good job in translating the specifics of the text and as you know, it's all about the fine print.
Being allied with the nation commtting the violation removes Austrian neutrality in the Belgo-German war, as Austria is displaying tacit approval of the German actions. There is nothing at all in the treaty requiring Belgium to ask all signatories to aid her, I have bumped the Treaty topic so it is easy to find, as Glenn has long operated under this very delusion, and also never been able to cite the part of the treaty saying Belgium must act as he wants to believe. Good luck in finding such a requirement.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#125

Post by Attrition » 11 Nov 2015, 10:59

~~~~~so Belgium acted in accordance with the laws~~~~~

One reason why the Belgians resisted the British proposal to integrate their armies in 1915.

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#126

Post by AJFFM » 11 Nov 2015, 19:49

Terry Duncan wrote:

A nation remains neutral certainly, as long as it end up on the winning side and returns to the status quo anti-bellum. However, the moment its neutrality is violated by an attack, it is allowed to join with any nations willing to try and uphold its neutrality. The Belgians maintained they were fighting only to restore their territory from German occupation, and did not join the Entente forces in any other enterprise other than to liberate their own soil, which was acceptable, so Belgium acted in accordance with the laws. For their part, Britain and France were fighting to restore Belgium to its pre-war condition, not to enhance it, as well as fighting a common war against Germany, again, perfectly ok within the laws. With regards Austria, her alliance with Germany was hardly secret pre-war, and her failure to renounce the alliance when she heard of the ultimatum to Belgium leaves her also in violation of Belgium due to the alliance, and then co-belligerent status with Germany, not to forget also in violation of the same neutrality by sending guns to destroy the Belgian fortresses at Liege. Do you imagine the Belgians were ignorant of the total lack of action from Austria over the German ultimatum and violation, and therefore somehow unable to grasp reality and realise Austria was not going to lift a finger to help?
No. A country remain neutral as long as it uphold the conditions of neutrality. That is not siding with anyone or allowing a belligerent from a separate war to use its lands for military action against another. Belgium did, which is not wrong by the way, but it cannot do that and still claim neutrality. It was a co-belligerent.

Terry Duncan wrote:



So when the US intercepted Confederate shipping during the ACW, or when the US and Britain intercepted each others shipping in the War of 1812, or on any number of occasions during the Napoleonic Wars from all sides, they were somehow all not entitled to act in this matter as 'international waters were sarcred'? How do you think Wilson's desire to enshrine a 'Freedom of the Seas' law during and after WWI ever came about if this was even vaguely accepted by nations? Britain has the right to act in accordance with agreements she has been party to, such as the Anglo-French agreement to deploy their fleets in an optimal manner, and to do so until such actions were untenable. Even then, there would probably have been a need to impose a delayed withdrawal from the agrement in order to allow French forces to take up station on the NW coast where they would have been before the agreement took place. Not allowing France some time to react to Britain renaging on the agreement would have been rank bad faith, and poisoned relations between the two nations.
The Confederacy was a rogue nation without recognition or rights. Legally speaking it did not exist nor Ships registered to her belonged to her. Indeed if anything it was similar to piracy at high seas in that they took what was not their own. They became the property of the United States. The arbitration on this issue was clear and British paid dearly for it.

As for what the British did in 1812, who will even dare to stop the Royal Navy at the time? They did it because they can do it not because it was legal to do it.

As for Wilson's wishes, everyone violated the laws of the seas in WWI, as everyone did in WWII and as every great power will do when international law becomes an inconvenience to them. Wilson knew that such violations of international law, or let's be honest, the law between the great powers of the world, would lead to a world war, which happened 21 year later, and he wanted to ensure this did not happen.

Terry Duncan wrote:



Being allied with the nation commtting the violation removes Austrian neutrality in the Belgo-German war, as Austria is displaying tacit approval of the German actions. There is nothing at all in the treaty requiring Belgium to ask all signatories to aid her, I have bumped the Treaty topic so it is easy to find, as Glenn has long operated under this very delusion, and also never been able to cite the part of the treaty saying Belgium must act as he wants to believe. Good luck in finding such a requirement.
Based on what? The Treaty of Alliance between A-H and Germany was clear in that only the Great Powers were to be in the A-H cross-hairs. Legally Speaking until such a declaration of war came A-H was just as neutral as Britain and France.

As for Mr. Glenn's opinion, I found no delusion. The treaty spoke in the collective and the interpretation was that it was the collective responsibility with the obligation on Belgium and the support to it optional. His arguments are perfectly sensible.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#127

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Nov 2015, 20:18

So you will be having no problem in posting the section of the treaty outlining where Belgium is obliged to act as you and Glenn seem to believe. Unless you can do so it is perfectly safe for anyone reading this to conclude that you are wrong.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#128

Post by glenn239 » 11 Nov 2015, 22:20

Terry Duncan wrote: Ok, the treaty is posted on this site, so please point me to the relevent section that says how Belgium must act once attacked, especially the part saying she had to appeal to all signatories, even those allied with the violator?
It was literally just a minor violation. Why all the fuss?

Anyways, the parties were -

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, His Majesty the King of the French, His Majesty the King of Prussia, and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, taking into consideration, as well as His Majesty the King of the Belgians

The signatures were -

(L.S.) Palmerston.Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary

(L.S.) Senfft.Senfft von Pilsach, Austrian Minister

(L.S.) H. Sebastiani.H. Sebastiana, French commander during Napoleonic wars. French Minister at the signing of the treaty.

(L.S.) Bulow.Gabriele von Bulow, Prussian Minister

(L.S.) Pozzo di Borgo.Carlo Andrea Pozzo di Borgo, Russian Diplomat

(L.S.) Sylvan van de Weyer.Sylvan van de Weyer, Belgian Ambassador to the United Kingdom.


The contractual obligations were identical because it's all the same contract and there were no distinctions made between the guarantors within the contract. They were all equal. Belgium's duty was,

Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other States.

Belgium's contractual obligation was neutrality, which means impartiality. By appealing to three of the remaining guarantors and omitting the fourth, Belgium departed from that impartiality. (Given that she'd been invaded, it makes perfect sense that she'd join the Entente, but the preference for the Entente would have been logical before the ultimatum as well, since Belgium's most sincere champion was Great Britain).

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#129

Post by glenn239 » 11 Nov 2015, 22:34

AJFFM wrote: Britain had no right to patrol international waters preventing free shipping across the Channel nor it had any right to patrol French coasts while France was in a state of war.
As a neutral Power Britain had no such right. As a belligerent Power she could do as she pleased. Where the passive-aggressive character of Sir Edward Grey's policies came into play here is the idea Britain would be a neutral Power while still exercising in a purely anti-German manner the rights in international waters only available to a belligerent Power. The 2 August declaration was, in effect, a defacto blockade of Germany done by an ostensibly neutral country.
Since the Belgian-German conflict was a separate affair Austria was de facto neutral unless it takes hostile action according to customary laws of war. Belgium had the chance to enforce a treaty that it claims was violated since the treaty clearly implied by text that all, not some, were to be asked. It did not.
If Belgium had asked Austria for assistance, and if Austria had accepted this call (the treaty did not state the assistance given had to be military in character), then it would create complications for a subsequent British and French DOW on Austria-Hungary, since the Austrian position would undermine the entire rationale by which Britain entered the war.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#130

Post by glenn239 » 11 Nov 2015, 22:51

AJFFM wrote:
As for Mr. Glenn's opinion, I found no delusion. The treaty spoke in the collective and the interpretation was that it was the collective responsibility with the obligation on Belgium and the support to it optional. His arguments are perfectly sensible.
The treaty, in fact, is incomprehensible unless one takes the position that its intention was to fix the attitude of the guarantor Powers in a Great Power war where one of the warring parties invaded Belgium. The entire point of the thing was that Powers were to pile on collectively against the violator of Belgium's neutrality. It is often argued that Britain's foreign policy required a free hand. I don't disagree with the concept, but tough luck, Chuck. Because it was Britain that signed the treaty in the first place. No one forced them to bind themselves, they did it of their own free will. The treaty said Britain was on tabs to uphold Belgium's "perpetual" neutrality, a word no doubt carefully chosen to demand the obligation extends into the future.

Britain's foreign policy could not have a free hand and the 1839 Treaty at the same time, because a free hand required flexibility for any course of action in the future, and the 1839 Treaty bound Britain in a serious manner in any continental war. In reading about international treaties, the problem that came up for Grey in 1905 was one that occurs with international treaties routinely.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=nrukUF ... es&f=false

rebus sic stantibus - the doctrine of changing circumstances. The intentions of the Powers in the original 1839 Treaty changed, making the treaty stale dated. This was the German position at the inception of hostilities ('a scrap of paper'), but Germany had never withdrawn from the treaty on that basis either.

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 00:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#131

Post by Jon Clarke » 12 Nov 2015, 17:25

Glenn239 wrote:This allowed Joffre to plan freely, but did not bind the British to comment on those plans before war was impending. Zuber (Myth of the Schlieffen Plan) interpreted the French 2 August 'Belgian' variant as the intention to march into the Ardennes, as it was taken before the German ultimatum to Belgium. 
If that were the case you would have had no problem posting details of those plans but in the past you have been strangely unable to do so when requested. Perhaps you'd care to do so now? I hope that you won't try to adopt the argument you used on the defunct History Channel forum namely that Joffre drew such plans up himself, never consulted or involved anyone else & kept them secret from everyone (but you obviously).

As for Zuber, he states in The Real German War Plan that:

At 1400 on 2 August 1914 the French government gave Joffre 'complete freedom of movement' and Joffre implemented the 'variant' at 1930 the same day, which was the first day of mobilisation for both the French and German armies.

Leaving aside the fact that 'complete freedom of movement' did not include moving troops to the Belgian border, the time he gives for when the variant was called is 7.30pm which means that you are wrong to claim that 'it was taken before the German ultimatum to Belgium'. Moreover Joffre did not give the Belgian ultimatum as the reason for calling the variant but rather the invasion of Luxembourg that had occurred that morning (2 August). Despite having a military background, Zuber seems strangely reluctant to recognize what was clearly apparent on 2 August 1914 even to a clerk (appropriately named Clerk!) in the British Foreign office:

It is impossible for the German troops to get out of Luxemburg without crossing Belgian territory except through a narrow bottle-neck into France

Of course, Zuber is known to be very sympathetic to the German actions in 1914 so it probably isn't that surprising that he chose to overlook the ramifications of the German move into Luxembourg.

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 00:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#132

Post by Jon Clarke » 12 Nov 2015, 17:27

AJFFM wrote:While not discussing the matter specifically it does however discuss the conflict between bilateral and multilateral treaties and international treaties in the frame of international law (specifically the Hague) and generally agrees with the Opinion I mentioned earlier.
So you haven't actually got anything that states that the Hague superseded all treaties up to that date (which is hardly surprising given that it didn't!). The footnote you referred to on page 576 only to bilateral treaties which required one of the parties to carry out certain acts prohibited under the convention. In contrast, the 1839 treaty was multilateral, not bilateral and made no provision other than Belgium should be perpetually neutral.
AJFFM wrote:So Britain officially declares "Neutrality" on Aug. 3rd while pledging to a belligerent full protection of it costs by the world's largest Navy on international waters (breaking God knows how many treaties) and this is not a threat to national survival? Like it or not Britain entered the war on Aug. 3rd by giving that promise and if the Germans knew about that pledge (I do not know that they did) they would be idiots not to invade Belgium. It was a bare knuckle fight from the beginning. 
Britain did NOT declare neutrality (officially or otherwise) on 3 August. In fact at no point did it do so - the whole thrust of British foreign policy over the previous however many years was not to make such a statement.

The Germans actually did know about the pledge but oddly enough did not regard it as a declaration of war or indeed as significant principally because they had no plans to do anything that would activate it. The pledge had no bearing on the German decision to invade Belgium, the first plans for which date from around 1896/97. In 1914 the ultimatum had already been written & delivered before the Germans were aware of the pledge.
AJFFM wrote:The article I linked to above shows that the understanding of that era was that the Hague superseded all bilateral and multilateral arrangements before. Therefore there was no leg to stand on for Belgium to claim neutrality once it asked other powers to join.
Actually the article you linked to makes no such reference (or indeed any reference) to multilateral treaties, You are simply misinterpreting what it says.

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 00:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#133

Post by Jon Clarke » 12 Nov 2015, 17:32

Glenn239 wrote:Perfect, so no more mention of Otte then.
Why should that be the case? Otte is a respected historian who specializes in the diplomatic & political history of the period. Why are we expected to ignore his opinion simply because you do not agree with it? Personally I would regard his opinion on the diplomatic & political aspects of the crisis more highly than some others who don't have his background (such as yourself). Clearly you believe otherwise & that your opinions have more merit although that your background & experience compares to his.
Glenn239 wrote:My opinion is that by not appealing to the remaining guarantors collectively Belgium was expressing a bias against the omitted party that contravened its duty to strict neutrality.
So you have no evidence as usual and are simply giving us the 'benefit' of your opinion. Anyway once again we see your double standards on show. One party (Belgium) MUST stand by its obligations even though the other party (Austria) chooses not do so. You also seem to believe that the treaty means that Britain cannot ally with a country who might in the future violate Belgian neutrality but allows Austria to remain allied to a country that actually did. Why are you treating British & Austrian obligations under the treaty so differently?
Glenn239 wrote:Treaties are the setting of policy in stone.
If that were the case, Germany could not have even have begun planning the violation of Belgium. The reality is that any government may choose to alter its policies but it is then their responsibility to ensure its treaty obligations reflect that change. Britain's ability to meet its treaty obligations under the 1839 treaty remained unaffected by the change in policy. The same cannot of course be said for Germany but you continue to ignore their failings in favour of attacking the British for meeting their obligations.
Glenn239 wrote:Because the French army could invade Belgium after mobilizing. It's an odd argument to say the obligation of the treaty fell away at the moment the French mobilized and could execute the violation of Belgium. Can you explain your reasoning?
Yet another strawman argument! Who said that the obligation fell away on French mobilization? The British sought & obtained assurances from France - why should they then make plans to attack her? It is a very silly argument even for you.
Glenn239 wrote:Because the absence of any detailed planning left the canvas blank.
But the same could be said for the French or Prussian navy but oddly enough you only chose to mention the Royal Navy in your criticism. It is yet another example of the Anglophobia that seems to be at the basis of much of what you post.
Glenn239 wrote:A neutralist policy was nowhere in his picture, so I cannot fathom on what basis you suppose he pressed hard for one.
 

Oh dear, the strawman arguments seem be becoming the norm with your posting nowadays. You said that, in your opinion, Grey should have repeated the example of the 1870 treaties. I pointed out - with evidence to back up what I said - that he had tried to do so but the Cabinet declined to take up the option. Nobody mentioned anything about Grey pursuing a neutralist policy.

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 00:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#134

Post by Jon Clarke » 12 Nov 2015, 17:34

AJFFM wrote:In the footnotes on pg. 576 the author clearly mentioned that with respect to signatories of The Hague the status of neutrality is negated when Articles V and XIII are not followed to a letter due to previous treaty obligations due to the fact that it was understood by scholars of internal law at the time that The Hague superseded any previous arrangement with regards to this specific issue, neutrality.
The footnotes refer to a specific aspect of neutrality, rather than neutrality as a whole:

The Hague Conventions undoubtedly have superseded numerous bilateral treaties, thus treaties requiring one signatory when neutral to furnish a limited aid to the other when belligerent by contingents of troops, passage of troops across territory, embargo of arms, or use of ports for replenishing cruisers (see Oppenheim, op. cit., 2: 372), undoubtedly conflict with the fifth and thirteenth Hague Conventions of 1907 which require neutrals to observe impartiality and to prevent the un-neutral use of their territory by belligerents.

As there were no such requirements in the 1839 treaty, then the above does not apply. In any case the 1839 treaty was not bilateral but multilateral.
AJFFM wrote:According to the Hague only the neutral power has to obligation to defend itself in order to keep its neutrality.
I'll ask again - where exactly does the Hague convention say only the neutral power has an obligation to defend itself?
AJFFM wrote:With respect to neutral's obligations specifically, the understanding was that The Hague superseded all bilateral and multilateral arrangements made by the signators of that treaty. All WWI parties ratified The Hague and thus did not update it. 
As even the source you provided does not mention multilateral treaties, I wonder how you made the leap of faith to include them in your statement. There was no such understanding, otherwise why has nobody ever mentioned such a scenario before in relation to 1914? Why did the Germans not say in 1914 when the 1839 treaty was mentioned 'but that was superseded by the Hague conventions!'? I am afraid that you have simply misinterpreted the position in international law.

You are also wrong to claim that all WWI parties ratified the Hague convention. The Hague convention was not a single document but a series of sections which countries choose to sign up to. Even then such signatures were not valid unless the relevant convention was subsequently ratified. I have already given examples where this did not happen so I am puzzled why you chose to make such a clearly incorrect claim.

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 00:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#135

Post by Jon Clarke » 12 Nov 2015, 17:37

AJFFM wrote:Even if we were to accept that special treaties superseded the Hague if both were signed by the same parties then Belgium again lost its neutrality because it was impartial with respect to Austria-Hungary, a party of the treaty.
So you agree with Glenn that such obligations were one-sided and did not apply to Germany or Austria? Belgium is obligated but Austria is not. There is also the inconvenient fact that Austria was required by treaty to declare war on Belgium as Berchtold pointed out in his note to the Emperor on 26 August 1914:

Though by the Treaty of the Triple Alliance we should have been obliged to declare war on Belgium, as soon as Germany was in a state of war with that country [my emphasis], we have not broken off diplomatic relations with Belgium, in spite of the great difficulties under which our representatives. have to suffer, because this has not been demanded by Germany and also because with regard to the great demand of our forces in Servia and Russia we are not in a position to send troops to the western frontier.

The Triple Alliance was originally concluded in 1882 and the details of it were published prior to 1914 (1880s/1890s IIRC). It follows therefore that Belgium would have been well aware that Austria was no longer prepared to meet its obligations under the 1839 treaty (indeed was prepared to act in direct contravention of them) and therefore was entitled to leave her out of any appeal for armed assistance.
AJFFM wrote:Partiality was not permitted by London, Belgium chose not to include A-H in it. You might say that A-H would have rejected the call for help which is true but London was clear. Asking A-H for help was obligatory, A-H fighting for Belgium was optional.
Given that the Austrians decided to place the alliance with Germany above all other treaty considerations, it would be more accurate to say that for Austria fighting Belgium, not assisting her was obligatory.
AJFFM wrote:Based on what? The Treaty of Alliance between A-H and Germany was clear in that only the Great Powers were to be in the A-H cross-hairs. Legally Speaking until such a declaration of war came A-H was just as neutral as Britain and France.
Please see the quote from Berchtold - even the Austrians did not agree with you. Belgium would have been aware of Austria's (conflicting) treaty obligations and knew that she would never abandon her alliance with Germany, the terms of which meant that Belgium could not appeal to the other Guarantors in the event of a German invasion without incurring an Austrian DOW.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”