Jon Clarke wrote: One party (Belgium) MUST stand by its obligations even though the other party (Austria) chooses not do so.
No, that's wrong. Belgium's obligation was to treat Austria equally with the Entente Powers. If Belgium asked France for assistance, Belgium asks Austria for assistance. And, if Austria responded by providing assistance, to take that in good faith. Once the request was made, the ball was in Austria's court and Belgium had discharged its duties.
The problem is that the request was never made.
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?
I never said that. Once Austria was to assist Germany in its violation of Belgium (by providing crews for the 305mm howitzers, for example), that's a total violation of the 1839 Treaty. Any Austrian assistance of Germany would be a violation, for the same reason as we discuss with Britain.
What's the difference? The difference is that the British were acting on a pretext by way of Belgium, so were sensitive to appearances, whereas the Austrians couldn't have cared less about the 1839 Treaty.
If that were the case, Germany could not have even have begun planning the violation of Belgium.
Wow, let's hope the wives never catch wind of this new doctrine where thinking about going to the strip club is now to be construed as
actually going to the strip club....
Britain's ability to meet its treaty obligations under the 1839 treaty remained unaffected by the change in policy.
Britain couldn't possibly have an Entente with France and also a war with France over a French violation in Belgium at the same time. This was the nub of the British problem - strictly maintaining the 1839 Treaty meant the neutralization of Belgian territory, which meant Germany could hold off France in the west and crush Russia in the east. That was certainly not the British intention back in 1839!
Who said that the obligation fell away on French mobilization? The British sought & obtained assurances from France...
And if France were to lie?
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.
Yes, we're talking about Britain because only Britain pretended to care about the 1839 Treaty by 1914 - the Continental Powers were going to have at it, and the status of Belgium was only interesting insofar as it may signal what Britain intended to do.
You said that, in your opinion, Grey should have repeated the example of the 1870 treaties.
N I said that he COULD HAVE gone down that road, if he wanted. He did not wanted. In terms of 1870
and Entente? I've said all along it was
one or the other. For Grey, it was Entente.
Now, before you start in with more FOX News style charges of Anglophobia, understand that there was nothing wrong with Britain acting as an ally of France. But don't be telling me the British came in for Belgium, because they came in for France.
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.
Grey made no attempt at a repeat of 1870. The German 1 August neutrality offer he kept from Cabinet for fear they may be tempted.
Nobody mentioned anything about Grey pursuing a neutralist policy.
Correct. Grey's position in his own words were that if Britain pursued a neutralist party it would be with some other foreign minister, not him.