German "East First" Plan in 1914?

[JAG13]

No, but as someone else pointed out, RN admirals were taught to follow orders, wont do it without them.

In fact, I think we can safely conclude that the German fleet would have no rational option but to decline to engage the French fleet under any circumstances where the Grand Fleet might be nearby. Functionally, this would mean that the French will control the North Sea. We also haven't dealt with the cases where German U-boats sink British warships by accident, thinking them French.

As you know, no one controlled the North Sea, it was the domain of submarines and mines, but yes, the HSF is not going to engage with the RN in sight.

Uboats were used to attack warships, only directed at trade as a reprisal for the RN blockade, absent in this case.

Swallow? Or simply align with the one that DID HONOR the treaty that protected them? There is a huge difference...

Once France invades Belgium the German army has free reign to occupy Belgium in order to defeat France. All British requests to evacuate the territory would be stonewalled with the need to win the war first. But, once the war was won, the Germans are still in Belgium and can stonewall the British with the need to make peace, and enforce peace, with France. Since France invaded Belgium and the British did not DOW France, the treaty of 1839 was void and all the Benelux countries, (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) enter the Central Powers alliance.

Upon public Belgian request that puts the Germans publicly in the right, yes.

The Germans would be in Belgium for as long as the Belgians require it and allow it, aligning with the country that defended you is kind of a natural consequence. But why the Netherlands? They have never liked the Germans and were neutral...

And even so, how does that affect the UK in the 20th century?

Ferguson makes the argument that Britain would have been better off allying with Germany and letting things go the way you picture them. That may be so, but that wasn't the way the British were seeing things at the time.

I know and like his position, obviously, but really there was no upside for Germany allying with the UK, they would be first in line not if, but WHEN the UK colonial issues led to war.

No, the defeated tend to be resentful as history teaches us, they wont be siding with the Germans anytime soon... not after the Russians get Brest-Litovsked and the French stripped of colonies and crushed under reparations.

If the French are betrayed by the British, then to suppose, as you do, that they continue to be anti-German, we must credit the French with having the intelligence to only do so in the circumstance where such a policy might result in victory. After two beatings, (1871, 1914), what evidence would France have that they were due for a win? About the only one I can think of would be an alliance with the United States?

Yeah, but what need would Germany have of France in that case? WOuld the French consent to the role of a junior partner to its vanquisher? And how? The Germans would make sure to cut France's legs, the bloodshed was such that we can certainly expect Versailles in reverse leaving France with little values as an ally...

Temporarily, until a definite peace treaty was signed, and just because the guy on the other side of the channel was still at war...

A temporary measure according to whom? The French are crushed. They have no say on whether the German navy leases French bases for the next 1 or 100 years. The British shall do what? Stamp their feet? Hold their breath? Scream blue bloody murder? Send their 6 divisions to France to fight 200 German divisions? No JAG, the British have remained neutral and the Germans now have the French ports to do as they wish for as long as they wish. In fact, the terms of the treaty might require the French navy to work in alliance with the Germans.

The UK would then be in the same situation they were prior to 1904 for several centuries, with the other side of the Channel on hostile hands, they will get used to it again...

And again, Grey was jettisoning the French on Aug 1st, it was their war, there was no alliance... in this case is worse, the French would have to declare war on Germany instead of being the attacked as IRL, so good luck selling a Russian war to the UK public...

And again, Grey stated he would have gone had Britain remained neutral. He was not jettisoning the French on 1 August. He was stalling until events on the continent made his move to enter the war easier.

Only that here there would be no German war declaration or invasion of Belgium to look forward too, and why did he tell Nicholson that if it was just a show for the French? Of all possible outcomes the CPs trouncing Russia and making France MORE dependent on the entente was the best possible outcome for the Uk, isnt it?

Belgium WAS an excuse, but it was used because it was NEEDED, here the French are not even being attacked, they are embarking willingly and on their own into a war over Serbia.

The independence of Belgium was not an "excuse", it was a core British national interest and policy. WRT France and Germany, it mattered not which invaded Belgium - Britain must go to war with Germany in either case or risk seeing Belgium swallowed by the victor, (ie, Germany) after the war.

So? Belgium had no value, the sole rationale for its existence was to spite the French and Dutch... Grey himself recognized that the UK would do nothing if France invaded Belgium, making the point of its value moot, it was a German invasion what would demand an action, but not because of Belgium itself.

[JAG13]

Yeah, and I am pretty sure you are aware of the names Kerny, Greer, Panay, Reuben James...

I seem to recall that the US government at the time was trying to maintain the line they were not going to get involved in a war rather than looking to support an alliance partner?

I seem to recall the US govt was VERY MUCH looking to get into the war, hence the constant meddling and incidents...

People do tend to ask "what the hell was our ship doing in a war zone?" before going to war over a minor incident.

As The Ibis pointed out, nobody cared about that when the Maine exploded, nor did people care too much at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin. Even in 1940/41 the majority cared that the Germans attacked US ships and not that the US ships were there in the first place.

Yep, and that required a long and wide press campaign to take on a very minor enemy, totally different case.

[JAG13]

The Germans were already at war and focused on that, and everyone expected France to go in due to their alliance commitments, this was a simple PR stunt, on the UK you needed to actually move public opinion.

Yeah, just like public opinion in France and Germany mattered. It was government unity that mattered in Britain, the people would follow in a war against Germany as Germany had made itself the clear enemy over the previous decade. It might not be as unanimous as with an invasion of Belgium, but it would be a majority, rather like the 'We Want Eight And We Wont Wait' campaign, it was supported by the majority because it was designed to act against the percieved enemy.

It did, which is why the Germans were so adamant to make sure it was evident the Russians were in the wrong and the French so happy of the people being concerned with a trial instead of the impending war, of course, a second homicide put TERROR in them expecting the people of Paris to riot just as the army was mobilizing... clearly unconcerned.

Same for the UK, you needed a cause and "France declared war on Germany" wasnt it...

No, this is a "not now, call me later", the most vacuous of excuses and the French knew it which is why Cambon was so distraught, and Grey confirmed his intention to Nicholson, "they have nothing in writing"... They were not allies and could not be expected to enter without a compelling reason to sell to the public.

Yes, nothing in writing that could force Britain to act so they had to make their decision based on their own interests. However, as you wish to quote the diplomatic documents, would you like to remind people what Grey was telling Lichnowsky all through the Crisis? I seem to recall it was very different to what he was saying to Cambon, that is correct isnt it?

Yeah, he told him the same, that France and Germany refrain from fighting each other and the kaiser was quite happy about it until Grey made a 180º...

Yeah, people love to talk war during peace, when actual war is on the table... and those opinions become kind of moot when the UK was willing to let the Germans have the Portuguese colonies which would mean German bases on the coast of Africa.

The Portuguese colonies were not in NW Africa and had no real naval base or major harbour. The UK was also willing to allow Parsons to sell its turbines to Germany, but that didnt mean they were not willing to fight Germany if a war started.

Yeah, but your point was that they were willing to go to war for German colonies... and then they were offering some to them...

Luanda Bay...

The entente worked because it was appeasement, the UK had no way to fight the Franco-Russian alliance, so it made a deal... and worked so well Grey was already thinking of quitting because Russia was not keeping its end of the bargain.

The Entente worked by your own admission, so when a war began no partner was going to desert the alliance as that would mean it was friendless no matter who won the war. Grey was 'thinking of quitting' only to the extent of moving away from Russia due to the Russian demands in the recent naval talks, and Sazonov believed he had gone too far and was planning to retract many of his demands. However, as Grey told Lichnowsky, the more serious the crisis became, the closer he would stick to the Entente line. I am still waiting for you to show where Grey deviated from this policy?

Worked as appeasement and as long as the CPs were there as a counterweight, remove that and the Franco-Russians need the UK no more and is back to the good old times, only that the UK would have strengthened its main colonial rivals...

[JAG13]

And post facto memories are a tricky thing...

You know Grey better than Grey knew himself?

No, I simply know better than to trust post facto "recolections".

That was 3 days before Grey wavered on the French alliance and, in this case, there will be no German DoW on France, just the French going to war on their own... in that respect Ferguson's notes on the actual lack of war enthusiasm are interesting.

[Terry Duncan]

I seem to recall the US govt was VERY MUCH looking to get into the war, hence the constant meddling and incidents...

Strange that having its men killed and even its ships sunk did not lead directly to a declaration of war then? Mind you, the US was so very much looking forward to getting into the war that it needed Hitler to declare war on it even after his ally attacked them!

[Terry Duncan]

Same for the UK, you needed a cause and "France declared war on Germany" wasnt it...

You seem to be confusing national unity with party unity, Asquith was told the Conservative and Unionists would support going to war just over the issue of supporting France and that gave him a large majority. Asquith didnt want to split the Liberal party, neither did Grey, but both were adamant they would support France. There was plenty of time, so waiting for the Germans to do something stupid made sense, but it was not required.

Yeah, he told him the same, that France and Germany refrain from fighting each other and the kaiser was quite happy about it until Grey made a 180º...

Grey was the one who thought both France and Germany could mobilise and ramain that way without attacking each other, so it wasn't Grey that changed his mind, Germany seemed to have a very different thought on France mobilising.

Yeah, but your point was that they were willing to go to war for German colonies... and then they were offering some to them...

Luanda Bay...

My point was that they were considering fighting if Germany attempted to gain a naval port in NW Africa, Luanda Bay is neither in 1914, it still doesnt have a drydock now as far as I can tell. You also seem to be confusing the process of negotiation directly with Britain with one where Germany was attempting to extort concessions out of France.

Worked as appeasement and as long as the CPs were there as a counterweight, remove that and the Franco-Russians need the UK no more and is back to the good old times, only that the UK would have strengthened its main colonial rivals...

Strange they didnt all come to blows in the 1920s and 1930s then. Britain did not want the Central Powers removed, it just needed the threat neutralised. Then again, it was German policy that first pushed France and Russia together and later did the same with Britain.

[Terry Duncan]

No, I simply know better than to trust post facto "recolections".

Didnt Grey actually tell the Cabinet he would go in the event of them not supporting him? He certainly told Asquith, which is when Asquith made his diary entry that he too would resign.

[Takao]

I seem to recall the US govt was VERY MUCH looking to get into the war, hence the constant meddling and incidents...

Strange that having its men killed and even its ships sunk did not lead directly to a declaration of war then? Mind you, the US was so very much looking forward to getting into the war that it needed Hitler to declare war on it even after his ally attacked them!

Not strange at all. FDR and the interventionists were looking to get into the war, the military wanted to wait until they had built up a credible fighting force, and the isolationists did not want to fight at all. With the military telling you we can go in, but we won't be much help, and the majority of the public not supporting the war, it makes little sense to get into a war.

[Terry Duncan]

I seem to recall the US govt was VERY MUCH looking to get into the war, hence the constant meddling and incidents...

Strange that having its men killed and even its ships sunk did not lead directly to a declaration of war then? Mind you, the US was so very much looking forward to getting into the war that it needed Hitler to declare war on it even after his ally attacked them!

Not strange at all. FDR and the interventionists were looking to get into the war, the military wanted to wait until they had built up a credible fighting force, and the isolationists did not want to fight at all. With the military telling you we can go in, but we won't be much help, and the majority of the public not supporting the war, it makes little sense to get into a war.

But the British in 1914 were ready to go, the fleet was the major force and it was ready. So, do you see a Britain looking for an excuse to support France failing to cite any such incident as the reason, given the German naval challange has long been seen as a menace?

[JAG13]

Same for the UK, you needed a cause and "France declared war on Germany" wasnt it...

You seem to be confusing national unity with party unity, Asquith was told the Conservative and Unionists would support going to war just over the issue of supporting France and that gave him a large majority. Asquith didnt want to split the Liberal party, neither did Grey, but both were adamant they would support France. There was plenty of time, so waiting for the Germans to do something stupid made sense, but it was not required.

You seem to be confusing circumstances, there is no DoW on France, no invasion of Belgium, they might want to support France but they wont get the people behind it, they couldnt even get their own party IRL.

Yeah, he told him the same, that France and Germany refrain from fighting each other and the kaiser was quite happy about it until Grey made a 180º...

Grey was the one who thought both France and Germany could mobilise and ramain that way without attacking each other, so it wasn't Grey that changed his mind, Germany seemed to have a very different thought on France mobilising.

Yeah, Grey changed his mind, it is plain to see. The PoW is predicated on Germany going east...

Yeah, but your point was that they were willing to go to war for German colonies... and then they were offering some to them...

Luanda Bay...

My point was that they were considering fighting if Germany attempted to gain a naval port in NW Africa, Luanda Bay is neither in 1914, it still doesnt have a drydock now as far as I can tell. You also seem to be confusing the process of negotiation directly with Britain with one where Germany was attempting to extort concessions out of France.

And I proved that such was not the case and drydocks can be built.

Worked as appeasement and as long as the CPs were there as a counterweight, remove that and the Franco-Russians need the UK no more and is back to the good old times, only that the UK would have strengthened its main colonial rivals...

Strange they didnt all come to blows in the 1920s and 1930s then. Britain did not want the Central Powers removed, it just needed the threat neutralised. Then again, it was German policy that first pushed France and Russia together and later did the same with Britain.

You mean after a massive bloodshed that killed a generation?

Weird...

Oh, the old "Germans are the baddies", how quaint...

[Terry Duncan]

You seem to be confusing circumstances, there is no DoW on France, no invasion of Belgium, they might want to support France but they wont get the people behind it, they couldnt even get their own party IRL.

Why do you keep ignoring that the Conservatives were for supporting France from the outset, it didnt need a German DoW, they would support Asquith and Grey and go to war with France. The people would have been just as for the war, Germany had been proving itself somewhat of the potential enemy for the previous 14 years.

Yeah, Grey changed his mind, it is plain to see.

So supply some evidence for where Grey changed his mind? France and Germany can both mobilise and still avoid war was his position, it was Germany that said this was impossible.

The PoW is predicated on Germany going east...

Yes, and Britain will still join France out of national interest, the same national interests that saw the Entente maintained up to this point.

And I proved that such was not the case and drydocks can be built.

Not if in the agreement between Britain and Germany there was an acceptance that no such facilities should be built, or an agreement that some could be. It is a different circumstance, something you seem unable to comprehend.

You mean after a massive bloodshed that killed a generation?

You stated that as soon as the CP's were removed, France and Russia would have no use for Britain and that 'it is back to the good old times', something that obviously really did not happen as I pointed out.

Oh, the old "Germans are the baddies", how quaint...

No, in 1914 they were stupid, if anyone were the 'baddies' it was Austria as they caused the war. I have no problem with Germany or Germans (I have some very close German friends of many years standing) but in 1914 they took some stupid decisions.

Despite having taken place in this discussion to this point, I will make this official comment. JAG13 There will be no further 'playing the race card' or snide comments alluding to national prejudice. Such comments have no place in discussions here and any post containing such comments in future will be removed without further warning. I will take no further part in discussion with you in order to moderate fairly, from this point forward my input will be limited to moderation only or posting actual quotes from the time.

Terry Duncan

[glenn239]

You are aware that the French Fleet was mostly in the Med...And that there were only 7 French cruisers on the Atlantic coast.

Or is this another POD needed to make this fantasy happen, the shredding of the previously agreed upon British-French naval agreements.

From the French side the Anglo-French naval agreement was useful to cover the French army's flank as it campaigned in Belgium, and to ensure an issue that would see the British enter the war.

The French fleet in the Med had the primary duty of protecting the North African Corps movement. After this was completed about August 20th, it would be free to move elsewhere.

The Anglo-French naval treaty was aimed at the protection of British interests from a combined, (ie, German, Austrian, Italian) fleet. In this scenario of British neutrality, neither Austria nor Italy will be at war with France at the time the French might transfer major forces to the Channel, (ie, about September), hence the Anglo-French naval agreement does not play.

Furthermore, the French navy would soon be active in the Atlantic chasing down German merchant shipping, a task for which 7 armored cruisers would be woefully inadequate.

[glenn239]

As you know, no one controlled the North Sea, it was the domain of submarines and mines, but yes, the HSF is not going to engage with the RN in sight.

You first indicated that the HSF would destroy a French squadron in the North Sea. Now you've recast your opinion and decided that the Germans must exercise caution. Your second instinct is the correct one; the Anglo-French naval pledge implies that the HSF dare not challenge either the French or the British in the North Sea.

Uboats were used to attack warships, only directed at trade as a reprisal for the RN blockade, absent in this case.

Judging from the real WW1, it would be only a matter of time before some U-boat commander torpedoed a British cruiser by accident.

Upon public Belgian request that puts the Germans publicly in the right, yes.

Historically the Germans did not give a fig whether the Belgians invited them into Belgium or not, and the Germans considered the 1839 treaty to be a dead letter. If France invades Belgium in 1914, neither of those two German things have changed.

The Germans would be in Belgium for as long as the Belgians require it and allow it, aligning with the country that defended you is kind of a natural consequence. But why the Netherlands? They have never liked the Germans and were neutral...

The Germans would be in Belgium as long as the Belgians wanted, would they? And if in, let's say, 1916, the French were defeated, the Belgians and their 8 divisions asked the Germans to leave, and the Germans and their 200 divisions said no, what then?

In terms of the Netherlands, given the German ascendency over the Dual Alliance and the end of the 1839 treaty, I would think forcing them into an alliance with Germany would be straightforward for Berlin. Why do you suppose otherwise?

Yeah, but what need would Germany have of France in that case? WOuld the French consent to the role of a junior partner to its vanquisher? And how? The Germans would make sure to cut France's legs, the bloodshed was such that we can certainly expect Versailles in reverse leaving France with little values as an ally...

One element of any treaty would be the loss of much of the French Empire to Germany and its allies, no say in the fate of the Benelux countries, and the imposition of some sort of treaty limits to make their armies relatively powerless, along with reparations. After that list, whether or not the German fleet based in France is small beer.

The UK would then be in the same situation they were prior to 1904 for several centuries, with the other side of the Channel on hostile hands, they will get used to it again...

Assuming Germany has defeated France, the British have two paths, one goes to Berlin, the other goes to Washington. But, why would Washington ally with Britain against Europe?

Only that here there would be no German war declaration or invasion of Belgium to look forward too, and why did he tell Nicholson that if it was just a show for the French? Of all possible outcomes the CPs trouncing Russia and making France MORE dependent on the entente was the best possible outcome for the Uk, isnt it?

If Germany trounces France with Britain neutral, and breaks up the Russian empire as an encore, then France is now dependent on Germany, not Britain.

So? Belgium had no value, the sole rationale for its existence was to spite the French and Dutch... Grey himself recognized that the UK would do nothing if France invaded Belgium, making the point of its value moot, it was a German invasion what would demand an action, but not because of Belgium itself.

Step 1. France invades Belgium.
Step 2. Germany counterinvades Belgium.
Step 3. Grey orders both countries to leave.
Step 4. Neither do.
Step 5. German troops commit massacres in Belgium, causing outrage in Britain.
Step 6 Grey makes a speech in the House outlining that under the current situation, Belgium must be swallowed by Germany, and this cannot be allowed to occurred.
Step 7. Britain declares war on Germany.

[JAG13]

You seem to be confusing circumstances, there is no DoW on France, no invasion of Belgium, they might want to support France but they wont get the people behind it, they couldnt even get their own party IRL.

Why do you keep ignoring that the Conservatives were for supporting France from the outset, it didnt need a German DoW, they would support Asquith and Grey and go to war with France. The people would have been just as for the war, Germany had been proving itself somewhat of the potential enemy for the previous 14 years.

Because you keep ignoring the lack of popular support which is what matters, cant go to war against the people... even the Germans had to put great care into how their actions were perceived... From Ferguson:

ghghhhhh.png (40.54 KiB) Viewed 1479 times

Yeah, Grey changed his mind, it is plain to see.

So supply some evidence for where Grey changed his mind? France and Germany can both mobilise and still avoid war was his position, it was Germany that said this was impossible.

Oh, you can read the diplomatic dispatch again if you didnt get it the first time.

The PoW is predicated on Germany going east...

Yes, and Britain will still join France out of national interest, the same national interests that saw the Entente maintained up to this point.

Without popular support? Doubtful, it is not medieval times and Grey was about ready to dump the entente...

And I proved that such was not the case and drydocks can be built.

Not if in the agreement between Britain and Germany there was an acceptance that no such facilities should be built, or an agreement that some could be. It is a different circumstance, something you seem unable to comprehend.

Please do point out the treaty where building a drydock is forbidden... thank you...

You mean after a massive bloodshed that killed a generation?

You stated that as soon as the CP's were removed, France and Russia would have no use for Britain and that 'it is back to the good old times', something that obviously really did not happen as I pointed out.

You are aware the soviets took over and went into seclusion, right?

Wasnt French and British military planning against each other for a while post war?

Oh, the old "Germans are the baddies", how quaint...

No, in 1914 they were stupid, if anyone were the 'baddies' it was Austria as they caused the war. I have no problem with Germany or Germans (I have some very close German friends of many years standing) but in 1914 they took some stupid decisions.

Oh! So, they were not evil, just stupid, got it...

Despite having taken place in this discussion to this point, I will make this official comment. JAG13 There will be no further 'playing the race card' or snide comments alluding to national prejudice. Such comments have no place in discussions here and any post containing such comments in future will be removed without further warning. I will take no further part in discussion with you in order to moderate fairly, from this point forward my input will be limited to moderation only or posting actual quotes from the time.

Terry Duncan

Race card?

National prejudice?

Ok... just I am not the one calling the Germans "stupid".

[JAG13]

As you know, no one controlled the North Sea, it was the domain of submarines and mines, but yes, the HSF is not going to engage with the RN in sight.

You first indicated that the HSF would destroy a French squadron in the North Sea. Now you've recast your opinion and decided that the Germans must exercise caution. Your second instinct is the correct one; the Anglo-French naval pledge implies that the HSF dare not challenge either the French or the British in the North Sea.

They would destroy the MN, then you brought the RN into play, at which point the HSF would not allow itself to be tricked into a war.

Put the MN in sight and the KM will crush them... until the RN shows up.

Uboats were used to attack warships, only directed at trade as a reprisal for the RN blockade, absent in this case.

Judging from the real WW1, it would be only a matter of time before some U-boat commander torpedoed a British cruiser by accident.

These are completely different circumstances demanding completely different RoEs, the very few Uboats available must be SURE they are firing at a French ship, luckily the lovely French ships were quite distinctive...

Upon public Belgian request that puts the Germans publicly in the right, yes.

Historically the Germans did not give a fig whether the Belgians invited them into Belgium or not, and the Germans considered the 1839 treaty to be a dead letter. If France invades Belgium in 1914, neither of those two German things have changed.

So did the British, as you know by Ferguson but, it is still useful as PR, so the Germans can make a show of it, specially since the British are still an issue.

The Germans would be in Belgium for as long as the Belgians require it and allow it, aligning with the country that defended you is kind of a natural consequence. But why the Netherlands? They have never liked the Germans and were neutral...

The Germans would be in Belgium as long as the Belgians wanted, would they? And if in, let's say, 1916, the French were defeated, the Belgians and their 8 divisions asked the Germans to leave, and the Germans and their 200 divisions said no, what then?

Why would they bother staying? What possibly could they have to gain from it? They have created good will and pulled the Belgians closer to them, they had no designs over Belgium and there was plenty to take from the French themselves.

In terms of the Netherlands, given the German ascendency over the Dual Alliance and the end of the 1839 treaty, I would think forcing them into an alliance with Germany would be straightforward for Berlin. Why do you suppose otherwise?

Because even Willy knew the Dutch couldnt be forced into anything, he envisioned drawing them closer but was specific about the need to be careful with Dutch sentiment, making forceful measures a non-starter.

Yeah, but what need would Germany have of France in that case? WOuld the French consent to the role of a junior partner to its vanquisher? And how? The Germans would make sure to cut France's legs, the bloodshed was such that we can certainly expect Versailles in reverse leaving France with little values as an ally...

One element of any treaty would be the loss of much of the French Empire to Germany and its allies, no say in the fate of the Benelux countries, and the imposition of some sort of treaty limits to make their armies relatively powerless, along with reparations. After that list, whether or not the German fleet based in France is small beer.

Put your own ships in an enemy port risking sabotage and espionage?

No.

The UK would then be in the same situation they were prior to 1904 for several centuries, with the other side of the Channel on hostile hands, they will get used to it again...

Assuming Germany has defeated France, the British have two paths, one goes to Berlin, the other goes to Washington. But, why would Washington ally with Britain against Europe?

Depends on the crazy man on the chair, see Wilson.

Only that here there would be no German war declaration or invasion of Belgium to look forward too, and why did he tell Nicholson that if it was just a show for the French? Of all possible outcomes the CPs trouncing Russia and making France MORE dependent on the entente was the best possible outcome for the Uk, isnt it?

If Germany trounces France with Britain neutral, and breaks up the Russian empire as an encore, then France is now dependent on Germany, not Britain.

I meant with a neutral France as Grey proposed, remember? No fighting in the west... so France has only the entente to rely on, the Germans would certainly not trust them, not after the hostility and dumping Russia, but since they are not a threat without the Russians
little action is needed.

So? Belgium had no value, the sole rationale for its existence was to spite the French and Dutch... Grey himself recognized that the UK would do nothing if France invaded Belgium, making the point of its value moot, it was a German invasion what would demand an action, but not because of Belgium itself.

Step 1. France invades Belgium.
Step 2. Germany counterinvades Belgium.
Step 3. Grey orders both countries to leave.
Step 4. Neither do.
Step 5. German troops commit massacres in Belgium, causing outrage in Britain.
Step 6 Grey makes a speech in the House outlining that under the current situation, Belgium must be swallowed by Germany, and this cannot be allowed to occurred.
Step 7. Britain declares war on Germany.

Step 1.5 Belgium denounces the aggression and requires the treaty signatories to assist, Germany immediately and publicly accepts, the UK?
Step 5, No, no reason for it to happen.

Germany is helping Belgium and Grey must answer to parliament as to why they arent as well...