Moltke's rejection of defensive Western front

[Jon Clarke]

The demand for the fortresses was dropped in the German 1 August 1914 neutrality offer, both externally and internally. 

After making the offer, the Kaiser told the Austrian ambassador that he would demand a 'Faustpfand' (bargaining chip) from France, now I wonder what that might be…

Oddly enough the German offer makes no mention of such a condition so he was not being honest with the British. He also said that he was determined 'to settle accounts with France' by which I suspect he didn't mean that he pay his bills but rather that war was only being postponed to Germany's advantage.

[Jon Clarke]

The 1839 Treaty had to compel the Powers to defend Belgium collectively, otherwise the treaty made no sense.

No it didn't. The obligation under the 1839 treaty was individual otherwise surely the actions of Britain, France & Prussia in 1870 would have been in contravention of it as its only involved three of the Guarantor states. IIRC Crowe's famous memorandum made the point that Britain was required to intervene even by itself. Maartje Abbenhuis in An Age of Neutrals: Great Power Politics, 1815-1914 writes that Queen Victoria made this same point to her ministers in 1866 in her usual forthright manner:

There is no doubt that these tensions threatened general war - so much so that Queen Victoria pushed her ministers
to action to protect Belgium against French or Prussian aggression:
'England MUST show the World that... she is determined to fulfil her obligations, and (even singlehanded if need be) to defend the Independence Of Belgium with the whole strength of the British Empire.'

Moreover as the obligation on the Guarantor states was individual, then it follows that any appeal to the Guarantor states didn't have to be collective.

Belgium had to seek such assistance with the non-violating Powers collectively. The Powers could not choose to make war on defenders of Belgium, nor could the Powers assist violators of Belgium, and Belgium could not choose to let these guarantors rescue it, but not that guarantor.

Pure gibberish. Odd though how you continue to insist on obligations for everyone but the Germans & Austrians. Double standards again.

You are correct that there is no evidence Belgium did so, but Belgium`s troop deployments (the absence of troops in the Ardennes to resist a French move through Belgium to Germany) suggests at least the possibility of some collusion with the French.

Why would the Belgians 'waste' troops in the largely unoccupied Ardennes to cover a fictitious French move that you simply made up? Please provide the evidence you have that the French intended to invade Belgium that way & that the Belgians were aware of it. In reality, the Belgian deployment were intended (to their detriment as it turned out) to assure Germany that they were being even-handed as Selliers (the Belgian chief of Staff) recorded on 31 July:

His Majesty approved my plan of concentration in principle; however, anxious not to give Germany any pretext for declaring herself threatened by our army, the Sovereign thought that the plan was too visibly aimed at that Power and might awaken its susceptibilities. Accordingly, His Majesty expressed the desire to withdraw the position of our concentration by about the distance of one stage to the west, i.e. towards the interior of the country…By these changes of detail in my concentration plan His Majesty hoped to produce the impression of threatening France as much as Germany.

IIRC didn't Belgium continue to deploy troops on the French border & to guard against a possible British landing right up until the Germans invaded?

The failure to honour the letter of the 1839 Treaty with Austria-Hungary being made even more puzzling thereby.

Is it your claim that Belgium had to appeal to all Guarantors including Germany? The obligation wasn't only one-way although you seem to think that it is. Where was the Austrian assurances over Belgian neutrality? Where was the Austrian protest to the Germans over the their ultimatum? It is noteworthy that the Austrian documents on line only include one document sent only to the minister to Belgium - their declaration of war which gave as grounds the Belgian resistance to the German violation! Indeed the only Austrian response to the Belgian invasion was to send Germany heavy artillery (& I believe the accompanying troops) to assist them with that violation!

[Jon Clarke]

Which one, the London Treaty of 1839 or the Hague Convention of 1907?

Both.

The formal request happened of course, however there were French forces present on Belgian soil on Aug. 4th (Cavalry recon. if I am not mistaken) before the formal request was processed legally.

What is your source for this claim please? I hope it's not Alexander Fuehr whose 1915 was essentially German government propaganda.

The Hague Convention is the International law, it supersedes any other treaty prior to it. 

What evidence have you for such a strange & unbelievable claim? The Hague Convention did NOT supersede every treaty prior to it - such a thing would be impossible as no territorial provisions were included. It was not even binding on all parties, it firstly had to be signed and then ratified for it to bind a country. Britain for example did not ratify Convention X on Maritime Warfare even though it was a signatory and therefore considered itself as not bound by it. Presumably Italy felt the same way about the convention on land warfare which it signed but didn't ratify. Other countries might sign up & ratify sections but reserve its position in respect of elements of it.

Another contradiction in respect of the Hague conventions is that Britain did not ratify the convention on the rights of neutrals but went to war ostensibly to uphold those rights!

I think that you should also try to avoid thinking about the Hague Convention from a modern perspective but consider how it was regarded at the time which generally wasn't very highly. Whereas today we might think 'wow! the Hague Convention', before 1914, the general thinking appears to have been more along the line of 'meh the Hague convention'. Certainly some countries had no problem signing up to it whilst planning to do the opposite. Germany for example signed & ratified the convention respecting the rights of neutrals whilst actively planning to invade two neutral countries.

Belgium technically kept its neutrality under London but lost it, by siding with co-belligerents, according to the Hague.

Please quote the section in the Hague Convention that says that a neutral country cannot form alliances with other interested states to resist an invasion. I will remind you that Belgium was not a co-belligerent but an 'Associated Power' - in other words it joined with the Entente to resist the German invasion only and not take part in the general conflict.

Unfortunately the Hague was quite clear. Taking part in active military Operations with one side of the war against another takes you off the neutrals list even if you did not declare war which technically Belgium did not.

Again where does the Hague convention actually say this? Also when exactly did Belgium take part in military operations on the western front that contravened its right under the Hague convention to resist invasion? You might have a case for saying 1918 but then again given its effort was solely in Belgian territory, it was probably still allowed.

[glenn239]

Oddly enough the German offer makes no mention of such a condition so he was not being honest with the British. He also said that he was determined 'to settle accounts with France' by which I suspect he didn't mean that he pay his bills but rather that war was only being postponed to Germany's advantage.

Possible, but all speculative. The fact is the terms of acceptance sent to Britain mention nothing about the fortresses and the deal between the Chancellor and the generals also had nothing about them.

[glenn239]

No it didn't. The obligation under the 1839 treaty was individual otherwise surely the actions of Britain, France & Prussia in 1870 would have been in contravention of it as its only involved three of the Guarantor states.

The obligations were collective. That is to say, if in 1870 France invaded Belgium and Prussia defended it, Britain could choose to intervene militarily or not against France, but what Britain could NOT do was invade Belgium herself or ally with the violator France against the upholding guarator Prussia. Parents are to to defend their children, not help strangers abduct them. So the treaty meant that the act of someone attacking Belgium fixed the remaining guarantors in their attitude towards the violator(s) and the upholder(s).

So, in 1914, let's say the British pledged their fleet to France on 2 August, and then unexpectedly the Germans stated their respect of Belgium, (which I think was the better move for the Germans at that point), and then the French invaded the Ardennes on 18 August. If that happened, on 18 August the British would have to withdraw their fleet pledge to France (so that the German fleet could come down the Channel and protect the Belgian coast against the French violation). If the fleet pledge was not reversed at the point it was clear it was in defense of a violator of Belgium, Britain would stand in violation of the 1839 Treaty.

IIRC Crowe's famous memorandum made the point that Britain was required to intervene even by itself

Crowe's conclusion reads, (underlined is mine).

I conclude that Sir E. Grey's questions should be answered by the following proposition:

Great Britain is liable for the maintenance of Belgian neutrality whenever either Belgium or any of the guaranteeing Powers are in need of, and demand, assistance in opposing its violation.

E.A.C. C[ROWE]
Nov[ember] 15, 1908.

Minutes

The liability undoubtedly exists as stated above, but whether we could be called upon to carry out our obligation and to vindicate the neutrality of Belgium in opposing its violation must necessarily depend upon our policy at the time and the circumstances of the moment. Supposing that France violated the neutrality of Belgium in a war against Germany, it is, under present circumstances, doubtful whether England or Russia would move a finger to maintain Belgian neutrality, which [sic] if the neutrality of Belgium were violated by Germany it is probable that the converse would be the case. - C.H.

I am much obliged for this useful minute; I think it sums up the situation very well, though Sir. C. Hardinge's reflection is also to the point. - Edward Grey.

Odd though how you continue to insist on obligations for everyone but the Germans & Austrians...

The Germans most certainly had obligations.

Why would the Belgians 'waste' troops in the largely unoccupied Ardennes to cover a fictitious French move...<snip>

The Belgians left half their country - south of the Meuse- undefended. This region is where Joffre's army would have moved through the Ardennes to Germany, if Joffre secured permission from the civilian government to do so. Where the Belgian army concentrated all its forces, the French had no intention of going. A happy coincidence?

Please provide the evidence you have that the French intended to invade Belgium that way & that the Belgians were aware of it.

So you do understand what primary evidence is after all? I thought from that Otte stuff, you assumed your citing yours or Otte's opinion is the same thing at all as period documents and eyewitness testimony. Yet here you understand the difference. Interesting.

Anyways, there no primary evidence I'm aware of that the French and Belgian colluded on the Belgium mobilization plan before the war. Nor is there any primary evidence that the British colluded with the Belgians with respect to selling out their neutrality for an invading Power marching through the Ardennes. It just happens to the be the case that the British cabinet decided to do this, and seemed unconcerned to the point of being oblivious that doing so may cause Belgium to ally with Germany.

IIRC didn't Belgium continue to deploy troops on the French border & to guard against a possible British landing right up until the Germans invaded?

The Belgians concentrated all their divisions north of the Meuse around Antwerp and Brussels. South of the Meuse is what I'm interested in. Would have to look into it - there might have been companies, or platoons, in the Ardennes. But nothing major.

Is it your claim that Belgium had to appeal to all Guarantors including Germany? The obligation wasn't only one-way although you seem to think that it is. Where was the Austrian assurances over Belgian neutrality? Where was the Austrian protest to the Germans over the their ultimatum? It is noteworthy that the Austrian documents on line only include one document sent only to the minister to Belgium - their declaration of war which gave as grounds the Belgian resistance to the German violation! Indeed the only Austrian response to the Belgian invasion was to send Germany heavy artillery (& I believe the accompanying troops) to assist them with that violation!

The Belgians were required to appeal to the guarantors collectively. Germany, the violator, was obviously no longer a guarantor. Belgium omitted Austria. Why? Perhaps because the British and French told them to, but there is no primary evidence that this is so.

[glenn239]

(double post)

[glenn239]

Jon ClarkeI see that you are now twisting the timelines of events in 1870 to try and support your claim which lest we forget was that in 1870 Britain 'offered its neutrality on condition of the 1839 Treaty'.

I see your bone of contention now. I said "offered" whereas the British actually didn't bargain for their neutrality, they stated it outright.

The problem, as I have I already pointed out, is that these treaties signed some three weeks after Britain had declared its neutrality in the conflict. So Britain's neutrality was not on offer but rather the treaties set out & limited the British response should either country violate Belgian neutrality during the conflict...

The 1870 policy contained two unique features that were incompatible with the 1914 Entente policy. First, the declaration of neutrality in July 1870 (which Grey could not offer without ending the Entente policy) and second, the treaty with Prussia in August 1870 to make war on France in Belgium should France invade Belgium (also which Grey could not offer without ending the Entente policy).

There was no conditionality in this statement nor did Granville made any mention of Belgium (even though the Netherlands were also a party to that treaty).

Prussia and France were unaware of Britain's treaty obligations to Belgium from 1839? You're saying the Prussians and French thought the July 1870 treaty abrogated Britain's obligations under the 1839 treaty? Can you produce any primary evidence suggesting the French or Prussians thought any such thing as daft as that?

The first paragraph to the 9 August treaty states that the only place British forces would campaign in the current war would be in Belgium if its neutrality were violated as per 1839, and the second part states that French armed forces would cooperate with Britain while doing so.

Correct. The British would campaign against the violator of Belgium. What the Royal Navy would do is left unstated.

I fail to see the relevance of this to your claim other than an attempt to obscure the fact that your actually have made little or no attempt to research or support your actual claim. In any case, didn't you claim differently earlier in the thread, arguing that Britain could not fight in Belgium without being fully at war with the violator?

Let's say France invaded Belgium in September 1870 after defeating Moltke in August. Under the treaty signed with Prussia in August 1870 the British army would then land in Belgium and fight the French alongside the Prussians. The precise guarantee the Prussians would have at that moment is that the British army in Belgium would fight onwards until the French were ejected. After that point, the British retained the right to exit the conflict. What actually would happen, whether the Royal Navy would blockade France, the British go into a war fever, that was all still left up to the British to decide.

No it couldn't because the circumstances & timescales were very different which is why the Cabinet refused Grey permission to follow Granville's course of action.

Terry mentioned this point. To be clear, it's irrelevant even while being misleading. The British government took on a policy before Germany sent an ultimatum to Belgium that was in contravention to its obligations to Germany and France under the 1839 Treaty. How that decision was made does not matter. It only matters that it was made.

The misleading part is "refused Grey permission". Grey never asked for such permission nor tried to leverage it. Saying Grey was "refused" permission is like saying that my nephew's parents refused him permission for he his friends to not raid their liquor cabinet while they were away. No Devin, when we are away, you must drink the vodka in the liquor cabinet.

Whereas in 1870 both parties were willing to enter into further agreements because it cost them nothing to do so, in 1914 Germany's only operational plan, developed in the knowledge that Britain would intervene, depended upon attacking through Belgium.

[/quote]

We literally just covered this. The Germans altered their operational plan to conform with French neutrality just shortly before sending acceptance to London of the neutrality proposal.

[AJFFM]

What is your source for this claim please? I hope it's not Alexander Fuehr whose 1915 was essentially German government propaganda.

I try not to use propaganda as much as possible (although sometimes it might actually turnout to be true). I am trying to pinpoint the unit but I know for a fact that Sordet's cavalry group moved into Belgium on the night of 4th/5th of August where as the plea for help if I am not mistaken came almost at midnight of Aug. 4th making such authorisation hard to reach cavalry without wireless communications deployed on the Frontiers.

In an interesting find, it seems that "neutral" Britain guaranteed protection for the French coast (Aug. 3rd) against the German navy despite the fact the the Germans had every right to sail international waters and use them against a country which is in a state of war with.

We may have an argument about Belgian neutrality and whether it was right or wrong but intervention in the High Seas by a "neutral" on the side of one belligerent is an even more blatant violation of international law.

What evidence have you for such a strange & unbelievable claim? The Hague Convention did NOT supersede every treaty prior to it - such a thing would be impossible as no territorial provisions were included. It was not even binding on all parties, it firstly had to be signed and then ratified for it to bind a country. Britain for example did not ratify Convention X on Maritime Warfare even though it was a signatory and therefore considered itself as not bound by it. Presumably Italy felt the same way about the convention on land warfare which it signed but didn't ratify. Other countries might sign up & ratify sections but reserve its position in respect of elements of it.
 

The Hague was an international convention convened precisely to normalise irregularities in written and unwritten treaties and laws that have caused so much trouble in the past. There is a reason where there are other Hagues and Genevas later on, old treaties were supposed to be updated to reflect the new realities (as is the case today) but that did not happen in the case of London. The victors of course will say that the London should not be updated but the Hague was clear in its definitions and there were conflicts with London and it was later understood (as then) that The Hague superseded any previous treaty especially in defining clear terms such as neutrality.

Another contradiction in respect of the Hague conventions is that Britain did not ratify the convention on the rights of neutrals but went to war ostensibly to uphold those rights!

Interesting! Who said these conversations are of no value .

So Britain was picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which not too and people think Germany is the only guilty side in all of this?

I think that you should also try to avoid thinking about the Hague Convention from a modern perspective but consider how it was regarded at the time which generally wasn't very highly. Whereas today we might think 'wow! the Hague Convention', before 1914, the general thinking appears to have been more along the line of 'meh the Hague convention'. Certainly some countries had no problem signing up to it whilst planning to do the opposite. Germany for example signed & ratified the convention respecting the rights of neutrals whilst actively planning to invade two neutral countries.

I know that our modern understanding doesn't apply which is the argument of other colleagues that these things were just paper to be discarded or used at the great powers convenience.

From this standpoint Germany had every right to violate the treaty because the other actors were acting, as demonstrated up and in other posts, in bad faith. It was a matter of national survival.

Please quote the section in the Hague Convention that says that a neutral country cannot form alliances with other interested states to resist an invasion. I will remind you that Belgium was not a co-belligerent but an 'Associated Power' - in other words it joined with the Entente to resist the German invasion only and not take part in the general conflict.

The Hague has a strict definition of a neutral state and its obligations. Once that definition is violated, in the case of allying with France (Strangely not the UK), A country at war with the aggressor on Belgian neutrality before the aggression took place according to the convention. The violation of Acts 2 (France moved troops into Belgium with Belgian consent), 3 (Brits controlled Wired communication lines and used them for military purposes) and 4 (The Belgians fought in coordination with the French giving them quarter and housing) of Part V of the treaty is clear.

[glenn239]

In an interesting find, it seems that "neutral" Britain guaranteed protection for the French coast (Aug. 3rd) against the German navy despite the fact the the Germans had every right to sail international waters and use them against a country which is in a state of war with.

There was no provision for neutral countries to police international waters in a time of war, so the policy was one of a belligerent" Power. The timing - sooner no doubt than the British would have preferred - appears necessary to cover France's sea flank during the French mobilization.

From this standpoint Germany had every right to violate the treaty because the other actors were acting, as demonstrated up and in other posts, in bad faith. It was a matter of national survival.

The argument is more precise than that. It was not Belgium's fault that the British were playing games with their obligations in order to be in the Entente. So the Germans violated the neutrality of Belgium and were responsible towards Belgium for doing so. But, the German violation of Belgium did not entail a German violation of obligation towards Britain, because the British decisions taken to violate those obligations themselves relieved Germany of any obligation towards Britain.

The violation of Acts 2 (France moved troops into Belgium with Belgian consent)

I assume you meant "without consent". Read the French reply to the British inquiry on Belgian neutrality in late July. I states,

French Government are resolved to respect the neutrality of Belgium, and it would only be in the event of some other Power violating that neutrality that France might find herself under the necessity, in order to assure defence of her own security, to act otherwise.

Notice that France did not say here it would need Belgian agreement that her neutrality had been violated, or that it would await Belgium's permission to move. FYI - there was a declaration made by the French minister in Belgium that was even more wide ranging, to the effect that France may move into Belgium upon there being a menace to that neutrality. That condition said, essentially, that Germany didn't even have to put his hand on Belgium's knee for France to defend her honor, he just had to have his hand near Belgium's knee.

[AJFFM]

If you read Act 2 mentioned above it is clear:

Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Act 5 is the relevant one in our case:

A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

Belgium did not give consent to Germany (which it argued would violate its neutrality) but gave all the consent in the world for France and Britain which violates the Hague convention (although not London).

[glenn239]

If you read Act 2 mentioned above it is clear:

Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Act 5 is the relevant one in our case:

A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

Belgium did not give consent to Germany (which it argued would violate its neutrality) but gave all the consent in the world for France and Britain which violates the Hague convention (although not London).

I see the thrust of your argument. In 1870 it was established that the Great Powers could campaign in Belgium in order to restore its neutrality, when Britain signed a pair of treaties to do just that in case the matter came up. It was not established that Belgium could conspire with some of the Powers beforehand, but there is no primary evidence that it did so. Secondly (and more importantly), at the point Belgium appealed to the remaining guarantors (except Austria), Belgium was no longer a neutral Power. She had been invaded by Germany and was against her will a belligerent Power.

IMO, there was nothing in the 1839 Treaty that required Belgium to roll over and take it from Germany once invaded!

[Jon Clarke]

The Belgians left half their country - south of the Meuse- undefended. This region is where Joffre's army would have moved through the Ardennes to Germany, if Joffre secured permission from the civilian government to do so. Where the Belgian army concentrated all its forces, the French had no intention of going. A happy coincidence?

You have been asked many times over the years to provide evidence that France intended to violate Belgian neutrality anyway. IIRC all you have been able to put forward is a comment from Joffre that it would be nice if he could but in doing so you consistently ignore his other comments to the effect that it was not possible politically. Has anything changed?

The quote I provided from Albertini (I forgot to mention that) showed the Belgians (contrary to your claim) decided to concentrate their army in such a way so as to not upset the Germans. Belgium instead concentrated on the traditional routes into Belgium as Hew Strachan points out in The First World War: To Arms:

On this basis the defensive powers of Namur and Liege alone would be enough to secure the frontiers, and the field army should be massed in central Belgium. The implications were that units would begin their concentration while still mobilizing, that the concentration itself would be completed 60 kilometres back from the frontier, and that the border strongholds would be held only by over-age garrison troops. As late as i August 1914 de Selliers de Moranville was pushing for a concentration in central Belgium that was compatible with a war against France as well as against Germany.

As to further evidence that the Belgians continued to treat France & Germany as possible enemies, the following from Strachan is also relevant:

The main Belgian forces concentrated on the River Gette, but two divisions of the field army were pushed forward to cover Liege and Namur respectively.

Namur was of course on the border with France, not Germany. Are you suggesting that Belgian troops on the French border were deployed against Germany rather than France?

[Jon Clarke]

So you do understand what primary evidence is after all? I thought from that Otte stuff, you assumed your citing yours or Otte's opinion is the same thing at all as period documents and eyewitness testimony. Yet here you understand the difference. Interesting.

Where did I say that Otte's opinion was primary evidence? All I said was that it was Otte's opinion and even stated on more than one occasion that I did not agree with it in some aspects so how could (or would) I present that as primary evidence. It is strange that you of all people, whose posting consists mainly of his own opinion stated as fact, objects to my posting the opinion a respected historian offering a different perspective on the events of 1 August. I can only assume that this is a poor attempt to hide the fact that, yet again, when asked to provide evidence to support your claims, you are unable to so. It would help if future you actually spent some time researching your claims before poster rather than 'shooting from the hip' causing other posters to waste time have to point out that your claims are without foundation.

The Belgians concentrated all their divisions north of the Meuse around Antwerp and Brussels. South of the Meuse is what I'm interested in. Would have to look into it - there might have been companies, or platoons, in the Ardennes. But nothing major.

As the quotes from Strachan shows, the Belgians relied on the fortresses of Namur & Liege to secure the 'traditional routes' into Belgium. Moreover any such deployment to the Ardennes could only be construed as being anti-French which, given that they were careful not to make deployments could be construed as anti-German, would surely not be the act of a neutral. Why then do are you suggesting that they consider such an act - are you claiming that they should only honour their obligations towards Germany? In reality of course, the Belgian forces were (relatively) small in number and there was no military benefit or reason to waste valuable troops in the Ardennes against a fictional French threat.

The Belgians were required to appeal to the guarantors collectively. Germany, the violator, was obviously no longer a guarantor. Belgium omitted Austria. Why? Perhaps because the British and French told them to, but there is no primary evidence that this is so.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that Belgium was required to appeal to the Guarantors collectively? By evidence I do not mean your opinion which seems to be the only thing we've been provided with in this thread. There is certainly nothing in the treaty to require it. Austria failed to honour her obligations under the treaty, before & after the violation, so why do you continue to insist on such one-sided adherence to obligations under the treaty?

For the record, there NO evidence, primary, secondly or otherwise, to support your 'suggestion' that the Belgians acted on British or French advice which I assume was simply an exercise in throwing mud to obscure the weakness of your position.

[Jon Clarke]

I see your bone of contention now. I said "offered" whereas the British actually didn't bargain for their neutrality, they stated it outright.

No my 'bone of contention' is that you claimed that British neutrality was exchanged for Belgium and then ignored all the evidence presented that proved you were wrong. I suspect that, as usual, you have not bothered to do any real research and simply assumed that the 1870 treaties were such an exchange particularly as it suited your argument. We are now in familiar territory where you attempt to 'redefine' your position to make it appear that you never made the claim in the first place.

The 1870 policy contained two unique features that were incompatible with the 1914 Entente policy. First, the declaration of neutrality in July 1870 (which Grey could not offer without ending the Entente policy) and second, the treaty with Prussia in August 1870 to make war on France in Belgium should France invade Belgium (also which Grey could not offer without ending the Entente policy).

In 1870 the British government could make the declaration because it considered that its interests were not engaged in the forthcoming conflict. In 1914 the government decided that may not be the case so no such declaration was possible - is that really that difficult to understand or accept? Is Britain, unique among nations, supposed to set it foreign policy in stone? Also if the 1870 contained features incompatible with the British policy in 1914, why are you wasting our time by claiming that Grey could have the example of 1870?

As to the 1870 treaties, they came about because of evidence produced (after the British declaration of neutrality) that as recently as four years previously, France & Prussia were negotiating over Belgium's existence with the French blaming the Prussians and the Prussians blaming the French for the negotiations. In the absence of definitive proof therefore, the British took the sensible approach and sought renewed assurances from both countries. In 1914 no such evidence of possible collusion between France & Germany existed. Why should Britain consider going to war with France who, unlike Germany, gave assurances when asked and whose military planning (of which it was well informed) did not include any plans to violate Belgian neutrality first?

Prussia and France were unaware of Britain's treaty obligations to Belgium from 1839? You're saying the Prussians and French thought the July 1870 treaty abrogated Britain's obligations under the 1839 treaty? Can you produce any primary evidence suggesting the French or Prussians thought any such thing as daft as that?

Lest we forget, your original claim was Britain exchanged their neutrality for Belgium which I have shown by producing evidence (you should try it sometime) to be wrong. Now you are trying to twist the argument to avoid admitting your error. Unfortunately it's a tactic that we're all too familiar with as is your demand for evidence about a claim I never made! Such demands from yourself are even more remarkable considering your persistent failure to respond to similar requests from myself and others.

Correct. The British would campaign against the violator of Belgium. What the Royal Navy would do is left unstated. 

You are wrong - the treaty refers to use of 'military and naval forces' so Royal Navy operations were on the same footing as the armies of all three countries as were those of the French & Prussian navies. No details of naval plans were provided by any of the countries involved so why have you chosen to point out only the absence of any British statements?

[Jon Clarke]

Terry mentioned this point. To be clear, it's irrelevant even while being misleading. The British government took on a policy before Germany sent an ultimatum to Belgium that was in contravention to its obligations to Germany and France under the 1839 Treaty. How that decision was made does not matter. It only matters that it was made.

You are (deliberately I suspect) overlooking the fact that - even if we were to accept that you are correct which you are most definitely not - such policies occurred after Germany had effectively told Britain that it would not meet its obligation to Britain under the treaty. Why should Britain continue to maintain obligations when Germany did not do the same towards Britain? Once again you present us with the curious double standards you apply to arguments which appear to be based more on animosity towards Britain rather than any preference for Germany.

The misleading part is "refused Grey permission". Grey never asked for such permission nor tried to leverage it. Saying Grey was "refused" permission is like saying that my nephew's parents refused him permission for he his friends to not raid their liquor cabinet while they were away.No Devin, when we are away, you must drink the vodka in the liquor cabinet.

It is not misleading - I have provided evidence to show that Grey did in fact raise the 1870 treaties but the Cabinet 'refused to rise to the bait of a repetition of Gladstone’s and Granville’s 44-year- old solution to the problem'. Can you provide evidence to the contrary other than your opinion? If not it appears that you are simply arguing over the form of words I used but how else are we supposed to treat the fact the Cabinet declined to consider a repetition of 1870? Grey had no authority to propose treaties to other countries without Cabinet approval, so the Cabinet's decision effectively refused him permission to do it.

The Germans altered their operational plan to conform with French neutrality just shortly before sending acceptance to London of the neutrality proposal.

That plan of course was for a general mobilization against France which proceeded on schedule so they didn't actually alter it. They only delayed one aspect of it, the invasion of Luxembourg, a neutral country.