Belgium remains part of the Netherlands.
What happens to the Congo?
Effects on WW1?
Effects on WW2?
What happens to the Congo?
Effects on WW1?
Effects on WW2?
WI: Belgium didn't exist
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
The first consequence that I Can see so far is that Bismarck wouldn't have been able to promise Luxembourg and a tiny part Of Belgium to Napoleon III, so the franco-prussian relationship might be more tensed in the 1860's and France could have entered the Austro-Prussian War on Austria's side. At least, it becomes a more probable possibility IITL.
I doubt, Bismarck never openly promised anything and Nap III still is very diffident of Austria, also Bismarck could still imply that a French intervention for the right of French speakers in the Netherlands wouldn't be opposed which would still end up with similar gains as OTL in Napoleon III's head.
It would be divided between Britain, France and Portugal. Probably that region would has happier history than in OTL even if still not very great.
POD is several decades before even WW1 so it would be unrecognsible for us.
Congo will probably be divided between France, Portugal and England - the whole Congo Free State thing was Leopold II's idea, and since he's just some random duke in Thuringia (or maybe he ends up in Eastern Europe) in your scenario...
I listened to some podcast episodes about some dark conspiracy theories in Belgium (not going to go into it here as a digression), but in the background section it went into an interesting discussion about how since the country was essentially a carved out buffer state lacking a sense of national identity or a strong government, it basically became the playground for all sorts of elites to roughshod over the locals. "Almost a weird colonial power" of the great powers. So I guess western Europe has one less such a region?
If I remember well, Austria was surprisingly open to come to an agreement with France (even if there were enemy for the last 10 years) to assure that, at least, Napoleon III would stand as a (rather) benevolent neutral power, or even a near-ally (however, this last option was very unlikely and was more an Austrian diplomat's crazy plan). My point was that Bismarck, cautious as he was, could think twice before entering in a war against Austria.
Everybody expected Austria to win so for Austria compromising with France was assuring itself victory, who cares about the West Bank of the Rhine if you dominate Germany?
Bismarck might think twice but France would still not interfere in the war, especially not when it is that short.
From what I've read so far the assumption you make about 'everyone was sure Austria would win' is actually false. Many sources tell a different story and explain that there were French diplomats and politicians who thought that an alliance between Italy and Prussia could rather easily defeat Austria and then allow Prussia to unite Germany, thus creating a powerful european rival to French continental 'hegemony'. I think Adolphe Thiers was among those politicians and it was a real concern to some frenchmen, but Napoleon III was confident that the war would drag on, thus allowing him to grab some territories by selling his support to an exhausted Prussia.
I think a thing people forget to think about is what will Netherland, which while it will lack the population of Italy or Spain will be pretty much be in category with those two power, means for the European balance of power. Will United Netherlands be more active with the Boer Republics maybe even establishing protectorate over them. How will Netherlands act in East Asia, a Netherlands which is the least great power or the biggest middle power establish close relationships with Japan and/or China, could we imagine Netherlands buying the Philippines, or could we see Dutch-Chinese War where they conquered Formosa and got a treaty port?
What will the lack of Leopold II mean for Africa, what will kickstart the scramble for Africa, if not Leopold. What will happen with Leopold I will he end up king of Greece instead of Otto of Bavaria, would that mean the George I of Greece end up Czar of Bulgaria instead?
What will the lack of Leopold II mean for Africa, what will kickstart the scramble for Africa, if not Leopold. What will happen with Leopold I will he end up king of Greece instead of Otto of Bavaria, would that mean the George I of Greece end up Czar of Bulgaria instead?
Last edited:
The reason I think of Bulgaria instead is because George was clearly the Russian candidate and Bulgaria tried to get his brother (who didn’t want it because he didn’t want to end up in a potential war with his brother later).
This is probably a little too rose-colored an expectation for the Netherlands. Establishing protectorates over the Boer Republics would effectively be challenging the British empire, and while a UKN would be much stronger than it was iotl it would not be 'tempting Britain in a colonial conflict' stronger. Spain had little to no interest in selling the Philippines. And the Dutch are unlikely to start a war with China on their own, although there's a good chance they would join a British war ITTL and possibly snag an island off the coast of Guangdong or Fujian, but not all of Taiwan.
More influence in China and Japan however is very likely as both nations would be interested in strengthening ties with countries that can help them modernize. IMO the most likely areas for expansion are in northern Borneo, New Guinea, West Africa, and East Africa.
More influence in China and Japan however is very likely as both nations would be interested in strengthening ties with countries that can help them modernize. IMO the most likely areas for expansion are in northern Borneo, New Guinea, West Africa, and East Africa.
Leopold himself turned down the Greek throne for personal reasons, and because Britain didn't want to aid him with the finances of the Greek government.
Re: the Boers, did the Dutch republic do anything about them in any way? Could they have played a mediating role or something. Seemed like they were pretty hands off when it came to them.
given that Léopold himself refused the crown of Greece when he heard the conditions, I suspect he'd turn it down TTL as well (so much the better IMO)
not really, but they did try to get Willem II onside as a sort of "patron" for first their Natal Colony and then their Orange River Colony . However, he, who'd just seen the British tear away half his kingdom to give to their queen's uncle...was understandably not enthusiastic about accepting the offer. No loss of Belgium and Willem II might feel differently. Not saying he'll be any more active in ruling them, but if anything, the British were "too involved".
And yet both Léopold I and II offered to buy them (and Cuba) over from the cash-strapped Spaniards OTL
uh no. The condition was that he not live "one foot in, one foot out" (like he did in Belgium) and he had to give up properties in both England, Germany and the parcels of land he'd acquired in Austria/Switzerland in the 1820s. He then asked the British if they would gift him the Ionian Islands. They told him to "pull the other one, it's got bells on". In a letter to Stockmar Léopold describes exactly how he planned his life in Greece to be: he'd show up, get the crown/title, and essentially be an absentee landlord the whole year except for winter- the incurable hypochondriac wanted a nice "summer home" somewhere warm. When he heard he wouldn't be able to do that, he told them "thanks a lot but no thanks"
I wonder if Willem II might support the Boers as payback against the British but that’s probably not strategically feasible
The United Netherlands could also have significant issues with political instability. If the revolt get s suppressed, you still have a majority of the kingdom's population being discontented and potentially separatist.
yes and no. Yes, they are 'separatist' but it's hardly as though Belgium has been a model state in that regard. And no, the 1830 revolution was a sort of perfect storm of factors. First the bad harvests of the 1820s, the fact that the British were artificially maintaining the high prices of goods by backing the rebels in the Dutch East Indies, the fact that Belgium had had to take on the astronomical Dutch public debt (something like twice or three times what Belgium's was) after the Napoléonic Wars etc etc. Then it was exacerbated by Willem I imposing, then withdrawing decisions about language, religion etc when he saw that they went over like the Titanic. Willem II- for his part- was actually pretty popular in the south of the country, even his snobby wife, Anna Pavlovna, preferred Catholic Belgium to Protestant Holland.
From a private convo I had about this a few years ago:
Also, I would say that with Thorbecke's new constitution from 1848, not that much after the Belgian revolt, it would have adressed all grievences of the Belgians. With the possible exception of the institutionalising the French language over the Flemish areas.
Also about Dutch colonialism, as mentioned no Dutch Congo. I think all colonial expansion of the united Netherlands will basicly be in the region of Dutch colonial interests, so mostly the Dutch East Indies. Things that I believe are most likely are the Dutch do not sell the Dutch Gold Coast, a larger Dutch Borneo, a larger Dutch New Guinea, maybe some pacific islands close to the DEI.
Effect on European history. The most important one I see is no Luxemburg crisis. Luxemburg would be an integrated part of the Netherlands, like it was before the belgian revolt. There is no way the Dutch king would try to sell it. That said maybe there would be a German-Dutch war over Luxemburg, similar to the war with Denmark over Schlesswick Holstein. That said, I think Prussian-Dutch relation were significantly better and good relations with the Netherlands might be more important than with Denmark and the Netherlands would probably have a better relationship with Britain, so the chances of Britain getting involved are higher.
Last edited: