glenn239 wrote: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.
Being allied to a nation violating Belgian neutrality is in breach of the terms in the 1839 treaty and the general conventions on nations that had declared themselves perpetual neutrals, whereeven being allied to a nation planning such an action is not permitted. So Austria must throw off the German alliance either when the ultimatum delivered, or at the latest when Germany declares war or crosses the border, whichever is first.
glenn239 wrote: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.
I can assure you, the rubbish is entirely from your side here. Under the status of perpetual neutral, and with guarantor states, Belgium does not have to ask for aid, indeed if Belgium had decided to allow the Germans to pass through unopposed, the other signatories would have the right under the 1839 treaty to act and prevent Belgium being party to violating her own neutrality. This is all rather simple, and iirc covered quite well by Albertini which you have access to.
glenn239 wrote: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.
There is nothing in the 1839 treaty or Hague Conventions on Perpetual Neutrals that requires Belgium to act as you suggest. The very least Austria has to do is issue diplomatic protests the moment Germany issues an ultimatum, notify Belgium that she withdraw from the German alliance if Germany does declare war, and cease loaning Germany artillery only needed to attack the Belgian fortresses.
glenn239 wrote:Neutrality is impartiality and the 1839 Treaty demanded impartiality from Belgium towards its guarantors.
Not even slightly. Belgium can make colonial agreements with any power she needs to, she can trade or not trade with whoever she wants, there is no requirement to be impartial, only to remain neutral and not ally with other powers etc.
glenn239 wrote:The act of discrimination against one guarantor was an un-neutral act.
As this particular 'guarantor' was already in dereliction of its duties all too obviously, no discrimination was shown, Austria had already picked sides when she did nothing about the German intentions or actions.
glenn239 wrote: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.
Belgium went with the 1839 treaty and the Hague Conventions pretty much to the letter, suggestions otherwise are relying purely on opinion despite several requests for supporting evidence to be quoted. The notion Belgium cannot make war along side the Entente in common cause is utterly absurd, even in the war she was a power associated with the Entente and not part of it, fighting only to retain or liberate sovereign Belgian soil.