glenn239 wrote: ↑26 Aug 2020 18:04
If Grey is Foreign Minister then Britain is not neutral.
Seriously? This nonsense again? Grey was probably as neutral as anyone would have been, if anything actually talking to Lichnowsky far more than would have been likely from most other ministers at the time. He gave constant good advice as far as the political situation allowed him to, and he was not a dictator thus having to work within the consensus cabinet opinion. His policy was inherited from the previous government when the Liberals took office almost ten years earlier, whilst that policy itself can be traced back in one form or another to at least the 16thC consistently, and sporadically back to the 13thC. Lets say that a different foreign policy was unlikely as national interest was never in seeing the rise of a continental hegemon arise, let alone one fairly hostile openly towards Britain.
Then we have the thorny problem of who would possibly take over from Grey?
First of all, maybe Asquith would take on another ministry as he had when Seely departed after the Curragh Mutiny but that is unlikely, as would be a return of Seely - though as the only cabinet minister to go to war at the outset and still be at the front when the war ended as well as being a rather committed military man we can be pretty sure he would be rather more anti-German than anything Grey is accused of!
Next in seniority, we have Haldane. Despite pro-German leanings in many respects, he is also the man who did most to ensure the army was prepared when war came, and after 'The Haldane Mission' was not entirely likely to trust the German government.
Morely is next, a man with little political support personally and whilst opposed to a war on almost any condition would be unlikely to be able to take many others with him, leaving his position just as subject to the cabinet and house whims. He did not enjoy support from the Conservative and Unionists, so not the most likely person to be appointed.
Next in seniority, though effectively in an honourary position we have Lord Privy Seal, the Marquis of Crewe. So far I cannot say I have ever seen even his opinion on the July Crisis as it happened, either under his titles or name (Crewe-Milnes) other than to say he tended toward moderation over war but also was slightly in favour of intervention over France by 31st July.
Now we are getting into the realms of where a minister might well be moved from one office to another, and first on that list is the Chancellor, David Lloyd-George. What can be said here? He was certainly one who could be willing to make decisions on his own, but in the event historically would wait to decide in order to see what the most popular line would be, and there is very little chance of him being honest let alone open with Lichnowsky as it was not really in his character!
Then we have Harcourt, one of the 'I will resign' people who when the time came tended to sideline himself. Not exactly the most pleasant person in recent British history he still was pro-war over the Belgian question. How he would have acted in Grey's place can only be guessed at, but he would again not have any obvious cabinet opinion to work with until very late in the crisis.
Next, we do have another minister who was willing to act on his own initiative, Churchill. Very much in favour of war over France and rather blunt. Do you see him as a suitable neutral replacement for Grey
Finally, we have Charles Masterman, who again tended to side with war over France in the July Crisis. I know little of him but it would seem he was generally pro-war and anti-German.
I would also like to hear why Grey is somehow 'not neutral'? Where did he either invent policy himself or mislead anyone? If anything he was rather bland, tending to operate the policy of the government as a neutral arbiter without any personal input, and avoided making commital statements either way whenever possible. This is why he had general cross-party support for a decade. He was willing to take on what was seen as a rather thankless role that few had any interest in and safely administer it for the country. He was probably as good as it gets for the post at the time from a German point of view, and the claims of bias against him seem to stem from some strange personal antipathy that he really does not deserve. He made the decisions, but only when he had the support of the government, and he maintained a very open path all through the years he was in place. Critically he was able to divorce his personal beliefs from policy and was open about both to Lichnowsky.
Blaming Grey for things is rather unfair as he was not as powerful as some seem to think, he needed support from parliament. It is also rather like crediting Churchill for rearmament in the 1930s or the decision to go to war just because he is the famous wartime PM. It will be fun to discuss this again and rehash our knowledge on events maybe. He did not prevent war, but he did not have the power to direct cabinet personally and certainly did not have the power to stop Germany doing something really stupid let alone to stop Austria once it thought it had German support!
Also, though, there might be a risk that Germany will restart the naval arms race with Britain at some future point in time. However, this agreement and these goodwill gestures on your part might cause Britain to conclude that Germany is a trustworthy partner and that thus Germany is unlikely to restart the naval arms race with Britain at some future point in time. 
