UK doesn't guarantee Belgian neutrality

The problem is the guys you are dealing with - Asquith, Grey, Churchill are not going to roll over and let the Germans march through Belgium. IMHO in order to get the result you want, you need a different bunch of politicians in power

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
OTL these were not reason for the British to stay out of the war I am saying is that they could have been if the UK wanted to. The British government has turned its back on treaties that did not suit its purpose before and since.
There was a debate in the UK at the time about whether to go in anyway.

Its possible you could use this, but even if Lloyd George dramatically resigns, splitting the Liberals and dooming the government, by the time all this happens the UK is in the war. It might be enough to LOSE the war, but not to avoid it.

The only thing in the existing British political spectrum that would work is if Ireland blew up earlier than OTL - as it was, the explosion was averted because of the outbreak of war, but for a moment in the early Summer Britain appeared to be tottering on the edge of civil war there.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Hence my request for informed opinions. Although I think the points you both make are making me look at a much earlier POD. I do not want a britwank so I am trying to find a way where the UK feels secure enough (britwank territory)or threatened enough elsewhere, to either not be in a position or to not be inclined to get involved. Perhaps a more amicable relationship with Germany? I just don't know.

The obligation is interpreted by the F.O. -

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.

British Documents, Vol VIII, "Arbitration, Neutrality and Security". No. 311, pp378.
 
When you're unaware of just what those responsibilities were how can you suggest ways to avoid the same responsibilities?

The duty to "uphold" Belgian neutrality did not specify a duty to make war upon the violator. It was up to the Power to decide what it meant. It could be diplomatic support. It certainly meant not assisting a violator of Belgium.

That makes little sense at all. The treaties had involved all the major powers so if one power violated the pledge the other powers would combine against it. The fact that one of the signatories violated their pledge doesn't invalidate the pledge of the others.

That was Crowe's interpretation in 1908; the treaty had no meaning if it was void upon the defection of a Great Power, because that would mean the Treaty would poof out of existence when the only feasible reason for the treaty became active - a Great Power invasion of Beligum.

Misquoting Salisbury here; "Britain has no permanent alliances, only permanent interests." The interest was no hegemony in Europe and the UK would make any alliance with any power to further that interest.

Right. The problem for Britain arises when the hegemon could theoretically use the treaty on Belgium to its advantage to achieve hegemony. Then, Britain's two core policies would be in conflict with one another.

Suggesting that the UK would stop doing what it had been doing for centuries will require one hell of a POD.

You mean like generally supporting Austria as the weakest of the Great Powers against Russia, and signing a treaty with Germany that if France invaded Belgium it would be war, like it did with Prussia in 1870?
 
Top