No Belgium

[Proctol]

In 1830 after the Belgian Revolution against the Protestant Dutch, Belgium became a separate Catholic country, with help from the French. WI the revolution had not happened, and Holland today would include all of Belgium, including the strategic port of Antwerp. How would WW1 & WW2 have differed, if at all?

 

[sikitu]

Interesting POD. Just some first thoughts on that one:

(1) Colonisation of Africa: Without Belgium, there would never be Belgians in Congo. So who is to get that territory?
(2) The Netherlands might be a more powerful state, getting the Belgian industry areas and mines. The question is what results from this.
(3) WW1...if it were to happen as in OTL, the Germans probably would march through the then Dutch territory as they did through Belgium in OTL. On the other hand, the Netherlands might politically lean more closely to Germany, resulting in different events. Also, there would not be a British guarantee for Belgium...might mean that UK stays out of the war, or at least does not send an army over.

I will not comment on WW2 as that is too far away from the POD.

 

[Proctol]

At the time of the 1830 Revolution, joining France was also mooted. How would a France that incorporated Belgium have changed events?

 

[Anthony Appleyard]

Or else give the Walloon area to France and the Flemish area to Holland.

 

[mishery]

At the time of the 1830 Revolution, joining France was also mooted. How would a France that incorporated Belgium have changed events?

How would the French cope with large numbers of Flemish speakers, given their intolerance of other languages (e.g. Occitan, Breton)? Would French be imposed on the Flemish? Would this spark a revolt? An independent Koninkrijk der Vlaanderen?

 

[God_of_Belac]

If Belgium was part of France, Germany would have taken much of it in 1871. Then in 1914 nobody would care about "Brave Little Belgium!" because it would be half German, and Lanrezac would get whipped on French soil.

If Belgium was part of Holland, it would be closely allied to England (as was Holland 1815-1830). Germany might still invade in 1914, but that's a much longer border and if the BEF landed in Amsterdam and marched south with the Dutch Army, the German Army would be completely encircled even if Plan 17 went through, so you'd probably see the Moltke (elder) Plan instead (Schlieffen's left wing crushes Russia while the French Army dies on the right wing's machine guns, and they pray that England stays neutral).

Actually, an English/Dutch bloc from 1815 on would create many butterflies, so WWI might not even happen. This is really interesting.

The 1830-33 fallout between England and France over BElgium wouldn't happen, so they'd be working together in the Near East 1833-41. Muhammad Ali still gets overthrown, but the French are OK with it and get in on the British domination of Turkey after 1838. The Near Eastern Crisis solidifies the East/West division of Europe, since Britain wouldn't have cause to join with the Eastern powers. So the Holy Alliance faces off against England, Holland, France, and Turkey. Austria and Russia don't like one another, but they hate the liberal West more. Thus they come to an understanding in the Balkans, like their 1837 agreement. Perhaps a continental war breaks out over Italian or German unification, or Prussia defects from the Holy Alliance in exchange for being allowed to unify Germany, and thus Italy gets unified as it did OTL. In any event, no Russian alliance for France without a Franco-Prussian War, which might still happen if England decides to ignore the Continent like OTL. If no Franco-Prussian War, then the trench war looks very different from WWI.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, of course Hitler's Germany took on BOTH the Netherlands and Belgium and won quickly and easily, so one cannot say that having to fight both as one would be necessarily disastrous for Germany

Grey Wolf

 

[God_of_Belac]

Hitler's Germany had a much better army than Wilhelm's Germany. Paratroops, for instance, and tanks and airplanes, which is how they took Holland. In 1914, the extension of the Western front to Holland would have doomed the Schlieffen Plan, so Schlieffen would have come up with a different plan. One could mask Holland with one of the armies on the right wing, but that would weaken the thrust too much to work. I think Schlieffen would have decided that the West couldn't be won in 40 days, and instead wrote a plan to hold on the French front, crush Russia, and make some effort against Holland if it looked like it or England was going to come in against it.

 

[LordKalvan]

At the time of the 1830 Revolution, joining France was also mooted. How would a France that incorporated Belgium have changed events?

Probably the French speaking part of Flanders would have welcomed a union with France, but there was no way it could be accepted by the European system. The napoleonic wars were too close, and the principle of nationality was very much frowned upon.
England took a good opportunity to set up a very close ally (the king of Belgium was the uncle of Queen Victoria, after all, and Belgium knew very well that only England was the guarantee of indipendence.
I suppose that England saw also an opportunity to cut down to size Holland.

 

[sikitu]

In 1914, the extension of the Western front to Holland would have doomed the Schlieffen Plan, so Schlieffen would have come up with a different plan. I think Schlieffen would have decided that the West couldn't be won in 40 days, and instead wrote a plan to hold on the French front, crush Russia, and make some effort against Holland if it looked like it or England was going to come in against it.

errr, sorry for nitpicking, but Schlieffen was long dead in 1914 afaik.

 

[Fiji]

In 1830 after the Belgian Revolution against the Protestant Dutch, Belgium became a separate Catholic country, with help from the French. WI the revolution had not happened, and Holland today would include all of Belgium, including the strategic port of Antwerp. How would WW1 & WW2 have differed, if at all?

I did a post on this a few months ago ... is seems to have disappeared.
the POD was, the Dutch garrison doesn't retreat.
The garrison was a bunch of low quality draftees. Their commanders quite rightly figured that the best thing to do was retreat and let the real army handle it.
Of course, by the time the real army was ready to act, the local uprising in Brussels had had time to spread to the rest of the country plus, 2 great powers were actively supporting Belgium.

Had the garrison stayed, they would have suffered horrible losses ... but the local uprising would never have become an actual revolution and Belgium never materialises.

(1) Colonisation of Africa: Without Belgium, there would never be Belgians in Congo. So who is to get that territory?

Belgium jumpstarted the scamble ... without Belgium, the African interior might never be fully colonised

(2) The Netherlands might be a more powerful state, getting the Belgian industry areas and mines. The question is what results from this.

Belgium was the second country in the world to industrialise (under the direction of king Leopold II, useing the money from Congo Free State)
With Leopold I heading for Greece in this ATL, there is no Leopold II to kick-off any industrialisation and the Belgian provinces remain mainly agricultural

(3) WW1...if it were to happen as in OTL, the Germans probably would march through the then Dutch territory as they did through Belgium in OTL. On the other hand, the Netherlands might politically lean more closely to Germany, resulting in different events. Also, there would not be a British guarantee for Belgium...might mean that UK stays out of the war, or at least does not send an army over.

or more acuratly ... the UK would have to come up with a different excuse to enter the war ... there is no way in hell, the UK can afford to let the Germans kick the French about

At the time of the 1830 Revolution, joining France was also mooted. How would a France that incorporated Belgium have changed events?

first of all, you need a POD to make it acceptable to the UK that France owns Antwerp ... if the UK stops supporting the Belgian revolution or even supports the Dutch, I seriously doubt there'll be any change in ownership of anything

How would the French cope with large numbers of Flemish speakers, given their intolerance of other languages (e.g. Occitan, Breton)? Would French be imposed on the Flemish? Would this spark a revolt? An independent Koninkrijk der Vlaanderen?

tiny numbers of Flemish speaker ... barely 1 million (if that)
and at the time, the upper layer of Flemish society was already monolingual French
So, yes, French would be imposed and I seriously doubt it would spark off a revolt ... after all, the Flemish were used to being oppresed ... they were oppressed by one nation or the other for over 1000 years.
And they were used to having French speaking masters
And very few of the Flemish speakers could read or write ... so the language of the administration is irrelevant

 

[God_of_Belac]

errr, sorry for nitpicking, but Schlieffen was long dead in 1914 afaik.

Well, yes, but they were still using his plan. Except for the parts they changed to less effective plans.

 

[Sean Swaby]

errr, sorry for nitpicking, but Schlieffen was long dead in 1914 afaik.

That wouldn't matter since during his life Schlieffen probably realizes that the plan he would come up with in OTL probably couldn't work effectively if the "Low Countries" (which incidentally is the translated French name for the Netherlands) were actually one country. Thus, long before he died, he would have changed it.

 

[Alayta]

The congo was not property of Belgium. It was privatly owend by leopold. So Congo would have had a very similar and bloody history in ATL as some other privatier would have followd stanly ideas.
The Schliffenplan was changed by moltke, the origanal plan might have worked (WI?)
The main Effect of a non existence belgium would be a world without french fries!! And sattelite photos of europe, taken by night, would less intresting.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The congo was not property of Belgium. It was privatly owend by leopold. So Congo would have had a very similar and bloody history in ATL as some other privatier would have followd stanly ideas.
The Schliffenplan was changed by moltke, the origanal plan might have worked (WI?)
The main Effect of a non existence belgium would be a world without french fries!! And sattelite photos of europe, taken by night, would less intresting.

Well, the main rationale of even the original Schlieffen Plan was that the countries imposed upon would not react militarily. When this was both the Netherlands and Belgium I believe the belief was that even if there was hostile reaction on the part of the Dutch it would not matter to German arms much, whilst when it was just Belgium it was generally assumed Belgium would not fight, or would be swept aside. If the two remain joined as the United Netherlands, then a double incursion MAY WELL BE sufficient to be a major invasion needing a major war effort. It would certainly be sufficient to make the General Staff have a differing view than OTL

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

btw we do know that one of Louis Philippe's sons was originally approached by the Belgian assembly to become king ? Louis Philippe vetoed the idea so they landed on Leopold

Grey Wolf

 

[Fiji]

If the two remain joined as the United Netherlands, then a double incursion MAY WELL BE sufficient to be a major invasion needing a major war effort. It would certainly be sufficient to make the General Staff have a differing view than OTL

Grey Wolf

Yes, Belgium was small enough to be bullied into allowing the Germans access and had Leopold II not died a couple of years to soon, Belgium would have been done exactly that.
A unified Netherlands is simply to big to be bullied like this and any German attempt to do so will send the Netherlands straight into the arms of the UK.
Any German invasion of Belgium will get stuck behind the Maas, the Waal and the Schelde ... it'll be the Yser all over again, only bigger and worse for the Germans.

btw, someone mentioned that with no Leopold II, Congo would have gone to some other privateer.
I don't beleive this would be the case. Leo went to all the great powers seeking permission to go grab a colony.
He was allowed to do so only because Belgium was a) tiny, b) neutral and c) very unlikely to change a or b any time soon.
Also, the great powers figured that whatever Belgium grabbed would then be unavailable to anyone else.
Without Belgium I don't see any other country that could get away with a colony grab.