A public declaration from the Belgians that they are allowing passage to the Germans of their own free will 'in the spirit of neutrality' or similar language will put the ball firmly in the French court. If they follow through on their threat of counting Belgium as a co-belligerent with Germany it will be France that violates Belgian neutrality
That's wrong.
If as the OP/author
@Geon asked,
one looks at the previous discussion thread there is ample discussion there of the fact that Belgium was founded on the premise of being a neutral that would explicitly not permit any foreign aggressor to strike at another power through its territory. The various powers--I believe one will find they are France, Britain, and as predecessor to the German Empire, Prussia--signatory all pledged to defend Belgium against such an aggressor attempting to use Belgium in this way. This isn't supposed to be optional for them, it is a treaty provision they
will act against anyone violating Belgian neutrality. Obviously the most likely treaty breaker would be one of the major powers signatory. But it is also plainly a violation for Belgium to take sides, to permit any of them to attack any other through Belgium. Belgium has one job, one premise on which it was founded and its ruling dynasty awarded the realm--stay neutral, deny its territory to any aggressor against any neighbor.
OTL, Germany broke the treaty unilaterally, but it remained honored by both France and Britain. Had either power failed to respond to Belgium's mandatory call for help in resisting German aggression, that would be another treaty violation and the treaty becomes null and void. But Belgium stayed in compliance OTL by doing their part, to resist.
Here the author proposes that Belgium capitulate to the German demand and permit passage. Belgium still has a bit of wiggle room legalistically speaking I think; they can basically plead that they are coerced, that it is impossible for France, let alone Britain, to come to their aid before they would be defeated by superior military power and thus they are acting under protest with a Teutonic gun to their heads and need rescue. Being under violent duress the government of Belgium might be promised forgiveness by the Entente; this is much as OTL legally and morally speaking. Belgium is violated and a victim of German aggression, as the Entente spins it anyway.
But what you propose is over a subtle but very real line. If Belgium pretends they have a right to permit the Germans through freely, however conditionally, and does not protest being under coercion, then Belgium has as others have explained elsewhere, will have violated the treaty on which their nation was founded. They have declared refusal to do the one job on which the creation of their nation and installation of their monarchy was premised, and might as well drop any coyness and declare for the CP full on; the Entente will declare they have done so anyway and the very existence of Belgium as a sovereign nation is forfeit in their eyes, if they ever have the power to enforce it. If the Entente can somehow win, then the outcome might be France annexing Walloonia and Britain setting up a puppet state of some kind in Flanders. (A victorious Entente is not likely to want to do the Netherlands any favors, given the cozy relationship of Dutch firms such as Fokker with the German regime...but perhaps the Dutch will come around in the end game and do something to earn Entente favor, and thus get Flanders if they want it). If instead the Entente powers, in the hypothetical case, choose to perpetuate Belgium as a nation in being, it would be for expedient reasons; the premise on which the kingdom was founded will have been nullified by this treachery.
and the British will have to choose if they uphold their commitments to Belgium and declare against France.
Again that is confused and wrong, backwards in fact.
In this scenario, both Germany
and Belgium have violated the treaty
It
is a treaty to defend Belgium
in the presumed case of the Belgian state resisting invasion.
But if the Belgian regime is openly complicit with an invader, the treaty becomes a call for all parties who either are under attack (France) or co-guarantors of Belgium's neutrality (UK) to ally against both the rouge Belgian regime and whoever they have agreeded to be catspaws for.
There is no archangel making sure treaties are in fact honored and they are broken all the time. But the treaty obligation is no ordinary one, and
if it is honored, Britain has no choice but to ally with France and declare war on both Germany and Belgium.
Britain might instead punt on honoring the treaty at all, in which case of course Britain is free of being entangled in the trenches, and France can probably see she is doomed and sue for the lightest terms she can get. But there is no way anyone can argue Britain has an
obligation to oppose France and thus join with Germany!
On the contrary, the French in giving Belgium their counter-ultimatum are acting in accord with the treaty and entirely within their rights--indeed France has an
obligation to demand Belgium reverse herself and oppose the German transit of her territory with all means possible, and Belgium has an obligation to resist Germany's ultimatum and in this insane situation*, belatedly acquiesce to the French one.
That's the clear case from a legalistic point of view. In terms of Realpolitik, Belgium is indeed screwed as OTL.
----
*Let me be clear I am not quarreling with the author proposing that Belgium not resist, but with you suggesting it does Belgium good to claim they are doing it of their own free will. That's a good move for them to make if Germany and other CP are going to win the war--which their compliance makes more likely. But actually, if Germany wins, the Belgians might as well go whole hog, forget the equivocation, and say they are all in with the CP.
Just be real clear, this is Belgium
breaking the treaty.
Mind, the OP, which does not yet (perhaps later posts of the author sign on to this madness, or Machiavellianism) commit to Belgium blandly tearing up their constitutional basis in favor of a new alliance with Germany, certainly makes it more likely for Germany to win and thus make it expedient to become a client of Germany's.
Just be real clear, that is the meaning and effect of what you propose. It might be a smart move for the Belgians to make at this date, but it has nothing to do with compliance with the foundational treaty.
It is taking that treaty and lighting it on fire while mocking it.
Considering it was the invasion of Belgium rather than Germany's war against France that decided British entry into the war OTL, we could very well see the Royal Navy blockading French ports!
Again, given the general Machiavellian-Hobbsean anarchy of nation versus nation, the British might indeed turn on France. But never because the Belgian treaty says they must! It says the opposite.
OTL if Britain had not chosen to regard themselves compelled to enter the war against Germany because of German violation of Belgian neutrality, then that would have been the final nail in the coffin of the mid-19th century concept of Belgium as buffer state; one treaty guarantor violates the treaty outright, a second one throws up their hands and looks another way and whistles, and the third is the victim of this nefarious collapse of an attempt at peace keeping. From that time forward Belgium would have been on her own, a free agent but a vulnerable one, and her fate a matter of realpolitik alone.
ITTL, as noted it makes a difference what tone Belgium adopts, whether Belgium is to be considered a tragic case of criminal abduction by a rouge Great Power, or by pretending she had some discretion in the matter and chose to protect her own interest by freely permitting the violation, a stooge of Germany.
Consider for a moment what Belgium forfeits either way: control and perhaps ownership of the Congo.
This is going to be an inevitable and irrevocable outcome, if Belgium signs on to the German invasion claiming to be a free agent in the matter. Perhaps the British do not want the Congo, and pawn it off on some other power. But whether the Entente wins the war or loses it, it passes out of Belgian control and if Belgium is complicit in Germany's violation, I don't think any realistic CP triumph will be able to compel the British to ever give it back to either Belgium or to Germany. I suppose the British would sooner sell it to the USA than let the Germans get control.
Same is broadly true of all Germany's colonies. The Germans might be unassailable on the European continent but I don't think they'd be much capable of projecting power outside of it (except insofar as their Ottoman alliance might extend their reach). Nor can the Germans be confident of getting new colonies from France--the French might be compelled to sign them over, but if Britain continues to fight, they can just attack whatever colonies the Germans claim the moment the French tricolor comes down and the German one goes up. Or have the Japanese attack for them; I'm sure Japan would love to seize Indochina and perhaps the French colonists there would prefer Japanese rule to German. Probably not be happy with either of course!
I'd think if Belgium's terrified capitulation, or as you would have it, criminal treachery, enables the Germans to take France out very quickly, the British have motive to keep fighting, and perhaps with better resolve and clarity and effectiveness than if they get bogged down in trenches across north France and Flanders fields. Britain's reasons for fighting OTL were treaty obligations--on paper. But the real reason was their fear of a German hegemony on the European continent. If that fear becomes an irreversible reality as it would if France were to fall rapidly, leaving the Central Powers unchecked, Britain will fall back on containment, on doing all they can to deny the Continent under German rule access to global resources. They can't do that under peacetime rules, so it would be war, until either Britain is exhausted or the blockade is successful enough to bring the CP to terms agreeing to renounce all colonies.
