Yeah, there would have Huge butterflies. As for Denmark, it would still lose the Schleswig-Holstein Duchies to Prussia, which would then trigger the Austro-Prussian war like OTL. I Can see maybe Sweden and Norway stay together in the same state because the existence of multicultural, miltinlingual Netherlands could show them union was possible and even more advantageous sometimes (that's far from sure however, because I'm far from being an expert in 19th century scandinavian History). I Can see Mexico end up better ITTL as there would be no French invasion in the 1860's. I'm not sure if way bigger and more powerful Netherlands could get colonies in Africa, but ITTL this is defenitily more probable. Also, maybe the Netherlands could have become an early ally of a modernizing Japan because for centuries the Dutch were one of the only Europeans to be in commercial and diplomatic contact with them.
WI: Belgium didn't exist
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
or could just have a greater luxembourg while flanders remains part of the netherlands
the province luxembourg exists and is pretty big in the walloons
You mean a greater Luxembourg annexing the Wallons? Such a situation couldn't last long IMO. Just one example: the Wallons speak French while in Luxembourg they speak a Germanic langage. It would be better of creating three 'Belgian States', one with the Flanders annexed by the Netherlands, another, Wallonia, a French-speaking country (or even integrated to France if the other GPs allow it) and Luxemburg proper, very close to the German Confederation.
you mean like they speak a germanic language in flanders ?
though granted the most recent poll shows 40% pro independence 40% against in flanders so it may not last either but stil its been almost 200 years
but to be serious luxembourg has a heavy french influence eitherway and today 98% speaks french so i dont see why it wouldnt work worse then belgium wich has far less in common.
to split 2 ways, you basicle swap a majority flemish for possible a majority luxembourgers or walloons (not sure on the population of both luxembourg and province luxembourg combined vs hainaut/namur & liege at the time)
and splitting it in 3 pieces would leave liege in a very difficult position to since it used to be a bishop in the hre but is french speaking and barely connected to the rest of the walloons, unles brabant splits 150 years early
Wow, I'll have to admit I didn't know there were so many French-speakers in Luxembourg at the time. So yes, your suggestion works now (but TBH, it would rather be Wallonia annexing Luxembourg than the contrary). The main issue ITTL would be how the European GPs would react. The Netherlands would be happy keeping the Flanders, Prussia and Austria wouldn't Care much, same with Russia. Now France would be pleased to have a francophile, industrially-powerful new country at its north-east border (For centuries, the French called the Benelux the "Pré-Carré", literraly the 'Front-Square', and they considered this area their weakest point where an enemy could invade their country). Maybe, in the future, France could annex Wallonia. The UK wouldn't let this happen for many decades, and try to make the Benelux a buffer area between France, Prussia and them.you mean like they speak a germanic language in flanders ?
though granted the most recent poll shows 40% pro independence 40% against in flanders so it may not last either but stil its been almost 200 years
but to be serious luxembourg has a heavy french influence eitherway and today 98% speaks french so i dont see why it wouldnt work worse then belgium wich has far less in common.
to split 2 ways, you basicle swap a majority flemish for possible a majority luxembourgers or walloons (not sure on the population of both luxembourg and province luxembourg combined vs hainaut/namur & liege at the time)
and splitting it in 3 pieces would leave liege in a very difficult position to since it used to be a bishop in the hre but is french speaking and barely connected to the rest of the walloons, unles brabant splits 150 years early
right...remind me who backed the UK against the frigging Boers? Oh right, pretty much nobody. Germany, France,, Austria-Hungary, the US, even completely random countries like Chile and Russia were on the side of two tiny (by comparison) republics. Britain's navy was neither all-powerful (despite the propaganda) nor all-encompassing in 1815/1830. It was only due to French "appeasement" that her navy took until the Second Empire to recover, only due to Britain's meddling in Spain by backing both sides in the Carlist Wars (following on Britain's almost wholesale and deliberate destruction of Spanish infrastructure during the Peninsular War) that Spain's navy was unable to recover. And yet, Spain and France still managed to claim the second and third spots for the most powerful navies in Europe. Followed by the Dutch and the Danish/Russians, depending on the decade.
No reason that with Belgium, the Dutch couldn't surge to top three.
there's a lot of ways Germany can form that doesn't involve Bismarck. Schwarzenberg was there nearly a decade earlier, and it was only being hamstrung by the fact that the Russian emperor had troops in Hungary that forced him to accept the Olmütz Punctuation. The Four Kings' Alliance (Bavaria, Hannover, Wurttemberg and Saxony) was a thing in the 1830s and the 1850s (in different formats) in opposing Prussia. Had Metternich not been in power in the 1830s and Schwarzenberg lived in the 1850s, Austria could've easily signed onto those alliances. Instead, she remained "delusional" in her belief that Prussian/Austrian interests were the same (in the 1830s) and both the Olmütz Punctuation and the Erfurt Declaration agreed to a "bi-polar Germany".
this is a joke right?
as others have said, the Dutch would likely not sell their holdings on the Gold Coast or in India to the British (they might actually attempt to purchase what remained of the Danish Gold Coast and Danish India*). So that could also affect Dutch foreign policy.
*both sold to the British OTL as well
in 1830 this title was still up for grabs. Until the 1850s/1860s, Britain and the USA were still playing chicken with Latin America. Most British politicians (mostly liberal, but the odd conservative as well) didn't trust the Americans. As far as "industrial complexes", it was after the 1850s that the British and American trade relation reversed. Whereas before, Britain had been the producer and America the purchaser, after the hungry 40's and with the "peace" between Britain and America, America became the seller and Britain the buyer (cotton, wheat, etc etc). If the people who organized that (can't remember the politicians offhand) aren't in power at the time- very possible given that it'd be 20 years after the POD- it can look very different.
and yet, when it came down to it, there were no alliances between the Dutch and the Prussians (neither marital nor otherwise). Willem III married to a half-Russian Württemberger princess, then when he needed to remarry, he didn't choose a Prussian princess. For his sons, the ambition was not a Prussian princess, but a Hannoverian one (or a British, if Queen Sophie had gotten her way).
explain again why Britain would intervene if the Netherlands is threatened? English and Dutch interests had been at odds for nearly two centuries by this point- with only occasional "get along periods" (mostly because Britain took all the most valuable Dutch colonies except Indonesia). Their "sponsoring" of the creation of Belgium was basically a deliberate attempt to undermine the Dutch. Not sure why they would care if the Netherlands' existence is threatened.
Anglo-Russian relations were actually pretty darn tense through the 1830s and 1840s IIRC. If anything this alliance- not sure why, both George IV and WIlliam IV were anti-Prussian in general- will make things even worse.
only if Fred VII marries a wife who can actually produce an heir
Willem I actually signed an agreement where he basically said he'd allow Henri de Chambord (if restored) to keep parts of Belgium/Luxembourg- cue Franco-Dutch alliance. Not sure why the Dutch will automatically side with Britain in these scenarios. That they did OTL is one thing, but this is a whole different scenario
basically, if he has a legitimate son, AIUI, the Schleswig-Holstein can gets kicked down the road
@King of Danes
I mean, it can, but tensions might still flare up if the National Liberals go for integrating Slesvig but not Holstein. Even if the mainline Oldenburgs survive, Prussia might also still start shit. They have less of a claim if Fred or his uncle have an heir, but it was a fairly flimsy argument to begin with
The Boers War was an exception, that's why it traumatized the UK (with many scandals/questions in the newspapers) and created the impression of a decling Great Britain among the Brits themselves (1903, Chamberlain: 'The British Empire is a giant, but an exhausted giant").
I don't rely on Propaganda. In 1850, the RN represented 1/2 of all War ships in the whole World. France couldn't actively try to rival the RN because it lacked money and this would have made France look threatening (when Napoleon was on everyone's mind). And yes the Dutch could be the 3rd Navy in Europe, but not even get close to rival the RN on its own or with an Ally.
Did I ever Said the contrary. I Said 'like OTL'.
Had the King such power on deciding the foreign policy of the UK? I'm not sure. And yes, the Anglo-Russian relationship was tense, I agree.
And maybe having half your country willing, in theory ITTL, to join France would have convinced You to not ally to the country who has genuine interesests in seeing your country Split up.
They would care because whoever conquers or occupies these Big Netherlands would have 'a gun directly aimed at England's heart', according to Napoleon's quote in 1802. Geographically, the Benelux Region is a near-vital route for British commercial interests and a buffer zone that guarantees them that their core territory is safe.
the British were disgusted by what they found out their own soldiers were doing in the concentration camps
William IV had far more power than Victoria did (or rather, Victoria was conveniently not told that she had that power by Lord Melbourne). And then Albert further encouraged Victoria to remain "above politics". The Coburg and Hannoverian manner of governing were day and night
why? As pointed out, William I was willing to surrender most of Wallonia/Luxembourg to a conservative France rather than grant them their independence. If anything, Britain has a genuine interest in splitting the Netherlands. For the same reason that you quote Napoléon, I cite Sir Humphrey Appleby:
I was talking of the difficulty the British army had to vanquish the Boers and the British isolation, but yeah I agree.
The thing remains that if the UK was really pressured to ally with Prussia to protect their interest (Say a resurgent France, an overexpansionnist Russia...) they would still do it.
'Rather than grant them independance', that's it. ITTL, Belgian's indenpendence movement is far from being such a threat to the Netherlands integrity and thus the Netherlands would be suspicious of France because it had genuine interesests in making Belgium an independent country, while it is not a probable option ITTL.
As for the quote, I agree. But consider it: ITTL, Belgium indenpendence is not a viable option, so if you're British ITTL, would You rather see Big Netherlands occupy the Benelux area, or let this region to the hands of France, Prussia or whatever other GP that could potentially, in the future, use the Benelux as a mean to attain the UK's core territory that is the British Isles?
Maybe the Catholic and romance speaking part of Belgium can be its own state.
Are you Wallon or something😉?
Now, seriously, yes, but it would create Big tensions between European GPs: France would want to integrate Wallonia into their territory, the UK wouldn't accept this unless the French agree to make pretty huge concessions (I'm not sure where they could make them though). And my initial comment ITTL is still there: France has significantly bigger chance to side with Austria in the Austro-Prussian War because ITTL Bismarck can't promise France parts of Belgium and Luxembourg.
I do kind of wonder
Lets say Flanders stays part of the Netherlands and Walloons/Luxemburg is a thing on the assumption ww1 stil happens
What happens if the Germans invades the Walloons but not Flanders to reach france.
Would England stil get involved with the channel ports not in the war ?
On a sidenote the Netherlands population would probably be significantly smaller and Flemish larger since there was a big migration wave South to North due to the ww1 occupation .
Lets say Flanders stays part of the Netherlands and Walloons/Luxemburg is a thing on the assumption ww1 stil happens
What happens if the Germans invades the Walloons but not Flanders to reach france.
Would England stil get involved with the channel ports not in the war ?
On a sidenote the Netherlands population would probably be significantly smaller and Flemish larger since there was a big migration wave South to North due to the ww1 occupation .
Last edited:
I don't think an OTL-like WWI would happen ITTL, but let's Say it does. This scenario would have been perfect for the Schlieffen Plan as Wallonia has Always been the path they wanted to follow to outmaneuver the French Defences (The Flanders were too far for their logistics). However, the British could have still intervened if they had guaranteed Wallon indenpendence and especially (Especially) if they had interests to do so. If it's like OTL, the UK would have surely intervened some weeks after the outbreak of the War, like september or even october 1914, when the French had already stopped the Germans at the battle of the Marne and that their direct help was essential in the long run to win the War (naval blocus, British reinforcements in Northern France, Financial aids...).