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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#136

Post by Jon Clarke » 12 Nov 2015, 17:39

Glenn239 wrote:The entire point of the thing was that Powers were to pile on collectively against the violator of Belgium's neutrality.
No that may have been the view of the 1867 guarantee on Luxembourg but there certainly wasn't the same consideration for Belgium as the quote I provided from Queen Victoria illustrated very clearly. A Guarantor could indeed act independently of the others if it so desired. You must remember that when the 1839 treaty was concluded one of the principal threats to Belgium came, not from a Great Power, but from the Netherlands. Surely you're not suggesting that had the Netherlands invaded Belgium, Britain could not act against her, if Russia (for example) declined to do so?
Glenn239 wrote:In reading about international treaties, the problem that came up for Grey in 1905 was one that occurs with international treaties routinely.
As a matter of interest, what problem came up for Grey in 1905? He only took office on 8 December IIRC and I am not aware of any immediate problems he faced.
Last edited by Jon Clarke on 12 Nov 2015, 21:22, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#137

Post by AJFFM » 12 Nov 2015, 17:53

Jon Clarke wrote:
So you haven't actually got anything that states that the Hague superseded all treaties up to that date (which is hardly surprising given that it didn't!).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.
As the author in the article above mentions, The Hague was a law making treaty in the framework of international law. The intention is to make a new law, thus precisely to overrule any previous arrangements with regards to the specifics of that treaty (in this case neutrality status).

Bilateral arrangements superseded (in some respects) The Hague in some people's views but London was multilateral and the neutrality was specifically designed towards the signators of the treaty so than Belgium is not the staging ground for one nation against another. In several cases of arbitration the arbitrators, based on The Hague institutions, ruled that The Hague superseded bilateral arrangements which means it was not as easy as it seems.

Neutrality as defined by the Hague directly conflicted with that of London and while in theory Belgium did not violate London it violated the Hague, which it ratified with Germany and France, and therefore lost its neutral status and became a co-belligerent.
Jon Clarke wrote:
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.
A country is by default neutral in an ongoing war unless it commits a military action that nullified that neutrality therefore allowing retaliation without military action. Germany had a right in sinking US shipping prior to the declaration of war during both wars and the US did not retaliate because they knew they violated international law.

The question becomes even more critical when discussing reparations and war guilt clauses which put the blame on Germany while Britain was clearly acting from the very beginning in bad faith.

Jon Clarke wrote:

Actually the article you linked to makes no such reference (or indeed any reference) to multilateral treaties, You are simply misinterpreting what it says.
The article above classified International Law treaties into three classes of which London is on par with Westphalia and Utrecht, both were multilateral not bilateral. Other Bilateral treaties (he names a few like the US original treaties after independence) also are part of this first class of treaties and therefore London is one. S


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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#138

Post by glenn239 » 12 Nov 2015, 21:36

Jon Clarke wrote: No that may have been the view of the 1867 guarantee on Luxembourg but there certainly wasn't the same consideration for Belgium as the quote I provided from Queen Victoria illustrated very clearly. A Guarantor could indeed act independently of the others if it so desired. You must remember that when the 1839 treaty was concluded one of the principal threats to Belgium came, not from a Great Power, but from the Netherlands. Surely you're not suggesting that had the Netherlands invaded Belgium, Britain could not act against her, if Russia (for example) declined to do so?
No, I'm suggesting that if the Netherlands invaded Belgium that (1) Britain wouldn't help the Netherlands and (2) Belgium wouldn't ask for help from Russia, but not ask for help from Austria.

Really, what we are talking of is a minor point of order. It's alsopossible in the excitement the Belgians just overlooked proper procedure.
As a matter of interest, what problem came up for Grey in 1905?
1st Morocco Crisis, where Britain was placed on the side of France due to the Entente.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#139

Post by glenn239 » 12 Nov 2015, 22:19

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.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#140

Post by Terry Duncan » 12 Nov 2015, 22:34

glenn239 wrote:
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.
Where was the Austrian protest at the German ultimatum, and the declaration she was throwing off the German alliance due to the violation of Belgium? Without those Belgium is sure Austria has already abetted Germany in the violation, as she cannot be allied to a state acting in such a manner and still adhering to the treaty.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#141

Post by Jon Clarke » 13 Nov 2015, 13:09

AJFFM wrote:The intention is to make a new law, thus precisely to overrule any previous arrangements with regards to the specifics of that treaty (in this case neutrality status). 
I suspect that there is little point in continuing this debate because you appear unable or unwilling to accept that the Hague convention cannot have superseded all prior treaties as you claimed. One can only bash one's head against a brick wall so many times. Both Terry & I have given examples of why this was not the case and even the evidence you provided does not support your position regarding the 1839 treaty but you persist with your own misinterpretation despite this. Oh well, to use another saying, 'you can lead a horse to water...
AJFFM wrote:A country is by default neutral in an ongoing war unless it commits a military action that nullified that neutrality therefore allowing retaliation without military action.
That wasn't what you claimed which was ''So Britain officially declares "Neutrality" on Aug. 3rd …'. I was merely pointing out that this was wrong but you now seem to have changed your argument - why?
AJFFM wrote:Germany had a right in sinking US shipping prior to the declaration of war during both wars and the US did not retaliate because they knew they violated international law. 
That's an interesting perspective and not one that would find much support anywhere. Nothing that the US did gave Germany a right, morally or legally, to sink US shipping until 4 April 1917. Germany's actions in sinking ships without warning were in direct contravention of the very Hague conventions that you have championed in this thread. The US remained a neutral until 1917 (when German actions caused it to declare war) and its status seems to have been accepted as such by both sides despite complaints from both about certain acts.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#142

Post by Jon Clarke » 13 Nov 2015, 13:16

Glenn239 wrote:Really, what we are talking of is a minor point of order. It's also possible in the excitement the Belgians just overlooked proper procedure.
What we're discussing is yet another claim of yours which imposes your double standards by criticizing one party (Belgium) for failing to meet mythical obligations which completely ignoring the failure of another (Austria) to meet their actual ones.
Glenn239 wrote:1st Morocco Crisis, where Britain was placed on the side of France due to the Entente.
Grey was not in post during most of the First Morocco Crisis as he only took up post (as I pointed out) on 8 December 1905. It was Lansdowne who in 1905 put Britain on the side of the Entente to support the recently signed agreement with France. If you are referring to the Algeciras Conference - which did not open until 16 January 1906 - Grey basically confirmed the provisional instructions already given to Nicolson by Lansdowne as Harold Nicolson points out in Portrait Of A Diplomatist:

The instructions already provisionally furnished him by Lord Lansdowne were more specifically confirmed by Sir Edward Grey. Nicolson was in all loyalty to support France to the extent provided by the Anglo-French Agreement.
Glenn239 wrote:No, that's wrong. Belgium's obligation was to treat Austria equally with the Entente Powers.
If such an obligation existed, it arose at 8am on 4 August whilst Austria's obligation arose at 7pm on 2 August. You are suggesting that Belgium should simply just ignore the prior failure of Austria to meet its obligations which is just ridiculous. Austria was in violation of its obligations from about 1878/1882 when it signed treaties requiring it to declare war on Belgium if it fulfilled its obligations by calling on Guarantor states to resist a German invasion. Details of those treaties were known prior to 1914 but you expect us to believe that Belgium is just supposed to forget about such minor details and call upon an Austria as if it had not been in breach of its obligations for years. That is a totally one-sided perspective, lacking in any understanding of how things work in real-life.
Glenn239 wrote:The problem is that the request was never made.
We are still waiting for you to produce evidence that this was required despite the failure of Austria to meet its obligation. All we've had so far (as usual) is your opinion stated as fact.
Glenn239 wrote:I never said that.
But that was the implication of what you posted. Your criticism is entirely one-sided - 'Britain MUST…' whilst 'Germany & Austria… nothing to see here, move along'.
Glenn239 wrote:Any Austrian assistance of Germany would be a violation, for the same reason as we discuss with Britain.
Except the German violation was a very real one whilst the French violation you post about is mythical. Do you really not see the difference or is your animosity towards Britain really that great?

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#143

Post by Jon Clarke » 13 Nov 2015, 13:30

Glenn239 wrote: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. 
It could not least because the Entente was actually actually a colonial understand and both governments could elect as in 1870 to restrict any conflict to the confines of Belgium. It was also possible that, in the event of a French violation, the British Government would decide that the maintenance of Belgian neutrality was more important than the Entente. That was certainly a concern of the French government hence the instructions to the military not to be the first to do so. You may argue that this was unlikely in 1914 but we'll never know because Germany chose to violate Belgian neutrality whilst France did not. I note, once again, the double standards in applying obligations only to Britain whilst ignoring those on Germany & Austria who (much earlier) concluded a treaty that was in breach of their obligations.
Glenn239 wrote:And if France were to lie? 
But they didn't, did they? Whilst dreaming up mythical British obligations, you are deliberating ignoring what was actually happening. France gave assurances, Germany refused & within 2 days issued an ultimatum to Belgium but you claim that Britain had to ignore that on the off chance that the French may have lied.
Glenn239 wrote: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 specifically criticized only Britain when discussing treaties involving Britain, France & Prussia. What possible reason is there for only singling out one country for criticism? If you had said 'naval operations were not specified' then you may have had a point but instead you chose as usual to go along with your modus operandi of Britain = bad and criticized only her.

As both France & Prussia gave assurances to Belgium regarding the 1839 treaty before any British request, clearly it mattered to them if only because they knew that Britain would not accept any violation which surely was the same position as in 1914.
Glenn239 wrote:Now, before you start in with more FOX News style charges of Anglophobia
Are you seriously trying to deny that your posting is not driven by animosity towards Britain because you make a pretty good job of suggesting otherwise. It seems to me as someone who has 'experienced' it for some years that it is at the very heart of your position on the crisis and I doubt that I would be the only poster (not just on this board) who thought the same.
Glenn239 wrote:Grey made no attempt at a repeat of 1870.
He tried to but the Cabinet declined to pursue it. Why do you continue to ignore the evidence that was presented to you on this issue? I appreciate that evidence is rather a novel concept for you but it should be the basis of any posting on this & other boards. Your claim was wrong, accept it.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#144

Post by AJFFM » 13 Nov 2015, 18:14

Jon Clarke wrote:

I suspect that there is little point in continuing this debate because you appear unable or unwilling to accept that the Hague convention cannot have superseded all prior treaties as you claimed. One can only bash one's head against a brick wall so many times. Both Terry & I have given examples of why this was not the case and even the evidence you provided does not support your position regarding the 1839 treaty but you persist with your own misinterpretation despite this. Oh well, to use another saying, 'you can lead a horse to water...
This is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I was from the very beginning pointing out that there exists conflicts between established treaties, which all belligerents ratified, that were deliberately used by one team to justify their action. Countries (not just people) will cherry-pick what interpretation suits them even if they already stated that that interpretation was wrong if someone else applied it.

Based on that and until I find a convincing legal case for the allies, which after months of searching it still eludes me, my view will remain as it is which you will be surprised changed quite a bit towards the German side over the past 3 years.

Jon Clarke wrote:


That wasn't what you claimed which was ''So Britain officially declares "Neutrality" on Aug. 3rd …'. I was merely pointing out that this was wrong but you now seem to have changed your argument - why?

The Blue Book while not mentioning neutrality in name it implied it in effect in front of Parliament and publicly (pg. 38 onwards). It was conditional of course based on violation of Belgian neutrality which happened on Aug. 4th. But as I replied earlier it was worthless because of public British commitment towards the French which was a violation of International Law as was understood and practised.
Jon Clarke wrote:


That's an interesting perspective and not one that would find much support anywhere. Nothing that the US did gave Germany a right, morally or legally, to sink US shipping until 4 April 1917. Germany's actions in sinking ships without warning were in direct contravention of the very Hague conventions that you have championed in this thread. The US remained a neutral until 1917 (when German actions caused it to declare war) and its status seems to have been accepted as such by both sides despite complaints from both about certain acts.
The Germans sank US shipping well before 1917 and the US did nothing because it did not violate the laws of war. It was the unconditional submarine warfare that justified the US declaration and that was a German violation of The Hague.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#145

Post by Terry Duncan » 13 Nov 2015, 18:40

AJFFM wrote:The Germans sank US shipping well before 1917 and the US did nothing because it did not violate the laws of war. It was the unconditional submarine warfare that justified the US declaration and that was a German violation of The Hague.
It clearly does violate the rules of the time, the so called 'cruiser rules' that even the Germans admitted breaching due to the impracticality of a submarine attempting 'stop and search' yet alone escorting a ship with contraband to a port, or if sinking it, making sure the crew were all safe in lifeboats first and provisioned with sufficient food and water. These rules applied though, both to ships and subs, and failing to obsever them was causing trouble long before the first USW campaign, which was outright illegal as it targeted all ships in an area irrespective of destination, and even of the need to identify the ship prior to engaging it.
AJFFM wrote:Based on that and until I find a convincing legal case for the allies, which after months of searching it still eludes me, my view will remain as it is which you will be surprised changed quite a bit towards the German side over the past 3 years.
Interesing. Care to point me to wherever you took an even slightly 'pro-Entente' or even neutral position on this subject as I really cannot remember seeing it?

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#146

Post by glenn239 » 13 Nov 2015, 19:58

Jon Clarke wrote:
What we're discussing is yet another claim of yours which imposes your double standards by criticizing one party (Belgium) for failing to meet mythical obligations which completely ignoring the failure of another (Austria) to meet their actual ones.
Belgium's duties to Austria were discharged by way of treating Austria identically to the others until Austria undertook a hostile act.
If such an obligation existed, it arose at 8am on 4 August whilst Austria's obligation arose at 7pm on 2 August. You are suggesting that Belgium should simply just ignore the prior failure of Austria to meet its obligations which is just ridiculous.


Austria had no obligation to act on Belgium's behalf until requested to do so by Belgium itself. (We had discussed this previously in relation to France, where the French reply to the British inquiry did not state France would await a request for assistance from Belgium before violating her neutrality in response to a German violation. )
We are still waiting for you to produce evidence that this was required despite the failure of Austria to meet its obligation. All we've had so far (as usual) is your opinion stated as fact
.

The relevant lines from the treaty is already posted - the Belgians were legally obliged to maintain neutrality (impartiality) towards all parties, and the treaty made no provision for Belgium selecting assistance from between guarantors, because the text was identical for all of them. You seem to be saying that identical legal contracts lead to un-identical legal obligations. Never heard of anything like that. The act of favoring one guarantor while omitting another would constitute an un-neutral act.
But that was the implication of what you posted. Your criticism is entirely one-sided - 'Britain MUST…' whilst 'Germany & Austria… nothing to see here, move along'.
The British could not make war on Germany while at the same time demand Germany honour the 1839 Treaty. It was one or the other. If Britain guaranteed its neutrality (like in 1870) it could DEMAND Germany and Austria honour the 1839 Treaty. If Britain would not assure its neutrality, it was in violation of the provision requiring it to be perpetually ready to join with Germany to uphold Belgium's neutrality upon request. This did not mean Germany could invade Belgium, but it did mean that when it did the subsequent British ultimatum was purely for show - the British war decision hung with France, not on a treaty that the British themselves had already decided to violate and allow violated.
Except the German violation was a very real one whilst the French violation you post about is mythical.
The French had no need to violate the neutrality of Belgium until at least August 18th-23rd. I cannot fathom why France would violate Belgium's neutrality before this was absolutely militarily necessary? Can you conjure one?

The Germans did so on 4 August, and therefore they are the ones that attacked Belgium. This fact is not in dispute.

Any British claim that the violation of Belgium caused them to enter the war is false - the British had already ruled in Cabinet prior to the German ultimatum that they themselves would allow the violation of Belgium's neutrality. The British therefore entered the war in support of France, not because of the violation of Belgium.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#147

Post by glenn239 » 13 Nov 2015, 20:17

AJFFM wrote:
The Blue Book while not mentioning neutrality in name it implied it in effect in front of Parliament and publicly (pg. 38 onwards). It was conditional of course based on violation of Belgian neutrality which happened on Aug. 4th. But as I replied earlier it was worthless because of public British commitment towards the French which was a violation of International Law as was understood and practised.
The strangest thing about the British naval pledge of 2 August 1914 was that it was made before it was necessary. In fact, it was a huge diplomatic mistake, in that it signalled the intention to enter the war before any action by Germany could justify it. Grey should have refused any naval pledge until after the German violation of Belgium. I would be quite surprised if, over beers and pool later that year, Asquith and Grey hadn't themselves noticed the error and rued not holding fast with the alternative.

The Germans sank US shipping well before 1917 and the US did nothing because it did not violate the laws of war. It was the unconditional submarine warfare that justified the US declaration and that was a German violation of The Hague.
And I would add, when the United States singled out USW as a casus belli, unlike Grey with Belgium, they were clear that if Germany obeyed their instructions, they would remain neutral. That is different than Britain, which demanded Germany adhere to the treaty while at the same time making no commitment that Britain wouldn't attack Germany anyways.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#148

Post by Jon Clarke » 14 Nov 2015, 12:11

Glenn239 wrote:Belgium's duties to Austria were discharged by way of treating Austria identically to the others until Austria undertook a hostile act.
Yet again we have a repeat of the double standards you apply - Belgium must fulfil the obligations you claim she had towards Austria who had been in breach of hers towards Belgium for many years. In reality, once Austria joined the Triple Alliance, Belgium was perfectly entitled to assume that Austria had waived its rights & obligations as a Guarantor state once it became known that her Triple Alliance obligations required her to act against Belgium, not the violator.
Glenn239 wrote:Austria had no obligation to act on Belgium's behalf until requested to do so by Belgium itself.
Rubbish. Nothing in the treaty required a Guarantor state to wait before moving to assist Belgium. It was the practicalities of the situation that meant that the British (for one) would wait until Belgium requested assistance. That was a matter of policy not obligation. At the very least Austria should have protested against the ultimatum and advised Germany that it would break the Triple Alliance if it proceeded with its invasion. Did it do so? Did Austria do anything in respect of Belgium other than declare war on her for resisting the German invasion?
Glenn239 wrote:The relevant lines from the treaty is already posted
And do NOT say what you claimed them to say.
Glenn239 wrote:the Belgians were legally obliged to maintain neutrality (impartiality) towards all parties, and the treaty made no provision for Belgium selecting assistance from between guarantors, because the text was identical for all of them.
Neutrality is NOT impartiality - a fairly basic error on your part. Also the treaty made no provisions about how Belgium was to deal with its Guarantors - you are simply posting an opinion solely to excuse the German & Austrian actions.
Glenn239 wrote:The act of favoring one guarantor while omitting another would constitute an un-neutral act. 
The act of favouring Guarantors who were prepared to fulfil its obligations while omitting another who was in breach the same obligations is not an un-neutral act. Once again your view is incredibly one-sided.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#149

Post by Jon Clarke » 14 Nov 2015, 12:12

Glenn239 wrote:The British could not make war on Germany while at the same time demand Germany honour the 1839 Treaty.
Of course it could and I have already provided evidence (unlike you) to this effect. It is actually what happened in the OTL so I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with the concept.
Glenn239 wrote:If Britain would not assure its neutrality, it was in violation of the provision requiring it to be perpetually ready to join with Germany to uphold Belgium's neutrality upon request.
Total & utter garbage - a ridiculous claim. Once again you are claiming imaginary obligations for Britain in order to blame her for German actions. Indeed a logical extension of these so-called obligations (sic) would have prevented any war between the Guarantor states so clearly all those books on the Crimean, Austro-Prussian & Franco-Prussian wars are regarded as works of fiction in 'Glenn's World'.
Glenn239 wrote:The French had no need to violate the neutrality of Belgium until at least August 18th-23rd. I cannot fathom why France would violate Belgium's neutrality before this was absolutely militarily necessary? Can you conjure one? 
The French had no plans to violate Belgian neutrality first and had given assurances to that effect whilst the British were faced (since 29/30 July) with a very real German intention to violate Belgium neutrality but according to you the British had to ignore this and plan to attack a France respecting that neutrality. That's just plain silly.
Glenn239 wrote:Any British claim that the violation of Belgium caused them to enter the war is false
Another strawman argument - who on this thread has suggested otherwise? I have never done so, nor do I believe Terry has. Britain went to war in 1914 in defence of what she considered to be British interests, one of which was Belgium.

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

Re: Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

#150

Post by glenn239 » 14 Nov 2015, 18:31

Jon Clarke wrote: Yet again we have a repeat of the double standards you apply - Belgium must fulfil the obligations you claim she had towards Austria who had been in breach of hers towards Belgium for many years.
Austria was not in breach of the 1839 Treaty, until either until at war with Russia on 6 August or until her 305mm howitzer crews crossed the border into Belgium, (take your pick). Neither event had yet occurred when Belgium decided to omit Austria from its appeal.
Rubbish. Nothing in the treaty required a Guarantor state to wait before moving to assist Belgium
Speaking of rubbish. The act of a guarantor moving to "save" Belgium from a threat that Belgium had not even asked to be saved from would be an act of aggression. That's what AFFM is talking about when he said that France moved into Belgium after the German invasion without Belgium's permission.
At the very least Austria should have protested against the ultimatum and advised Germany that it would break the Triple Alliance if it proceeded with its invasion.


Upon request for assistance from Belgium, at the very least Austria should do was to promise not to make war on France and Britain, refrain from a DOW on Russia, and offer all diplomatic assistance within its power (while withdrawing its 305mm guns). The problem, again, is that Belgium made no such request for assistance to Austria, probably because Belgium had made the decision to side with the Entente.
Neutrality is NOT impartiality - a fairly basic error on your part.
Neutrality is impartiality and the 1839 Treaty demanded impartiality from Belgium towards its guarantors.
The act of favouring Guarantors who were prepared to fulfil its obligations while omitting another who was in breach the same obligations is not an un-neutral act. .
The act of discrimination against one guarantor was an un-neutral act.

Note that no one is blaming Belgium's decision to join the Entente after Germany invaded on 4 August 1914. Germany did invade Belgium, so Belgium going with the Entente (and not the 1839 Treaty) was a perfectly reasonable response.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”