WI: The Belgian Revolt put down?

[Xavier]

True Pompejus, I was just trying to say that even though the Netherlands is now united, they have to watch out because they are literally surrounded by enemies, and war with any one of them would lead to the downfall of the Dutch.

The Dutch can always expand in the not claimed parts of Africa yet indeed.

Not necessarily.
War with Britain is very unlikely, and war with either France or Prussia is likely to involve the other as an ally, and possibly the British* to keep either France or Prussia from becoming too powerful.

* Less likely in a limited war than in a war of existence.

 

[pompejus]

True Pompejus, I was just trying to say that even though the Netherlands is now united, they have to watch out because they are literally surrounded by enemies, and war with any one of them would lead to the downfall of the Dutch.

Actually they are not. Prussia and Germany never were a Dutch enemy up to, well 1940.

Britain wasn't an enemy since after the third Anglo-Dutch war. Ok, I said that wrong, as the Dutch have fought wars against the Britsh. The Netherlands hasn't been an enemy of Britain since the end of the third Angl-Dutch wars, sometimes they were a nuisance, like during the American war of Independence or the Napoleoneic wars, but they were never realy an enemy. The British enemy was France and Spain, but tnever the Netherlands anymore. The Netherlands didn't have anything to worry about Britain anymore and the Anglo-Dutch relations during the 19th and 20th century were usualy pretty good (with only the boor wars as an exception).

France is a different story. They want to conquer half of the Netherlands. Luckily both Britain and Prussia don't want that to happen, so the French won't attack unless with a very good reason. As long as the Netherlands can keep France happy, they don't have to worry about anything and focus on becomeing extremely rich and suppressing natives in the Dutch colonies.

 

[The Grin Without a Cat]

Actually they are not. Prussia and Germany never were a Dutch enemy up to, well 1940.

Britain wasn't an enemy since after the third Anglo-Dutch war. Ok, I said that wrong, as the Dutch have fought wars against the Britsh. The Netherlands hasn't been an enemy of Britain since the end of the third Angl-Dutch wars, sometimes they were a nuisance, like during the American war of Independence or the Napoleoneic wars, but they were never realy an enemy. The British enemy was France and Spain, but tnever the Netherlands anymore. The Netherlands didn't have anything to worry about Britain anymore and the Anglo-Dutch relations during the 19th and 20th century were usualy pretty good (with only the boor wars as an exception).

France is a different story. They want to conquer half of the Netherlands. Luckily both Britain and Prussia don't want that to happen, so the French won't attack unless with a very good reason. As long as the Netherlands can keep France happy, they don't have to worry about anything and focus on becomeing extremely rich and suppressing natives in the Dutch colonies.

That's true, the British weren't "actual" Dutch enemies, but acted like them on many occasions, like in the Napoleonic Wars. And yeah, the Netherlands never had any beef with Prussia, and obviously did have a lot with France. I was just trying to say that the Netherlands still can't really hang with the big boys even though they have Belgium, as they technically could get destroyed by Britain, Prussia or France easily (even with help from others).

Britain could easily destroy whatever remained of the Dutch Empire, France could invade Belgium and the Netherlands, and eventhough the Dutch never really had anything with Prussia, but it's easy to determine who would win in a continental fight.

 

[Parma]

The Belgium revolt would never end up in a separate state if the Crown Prince, later King William II enter the city of Brussels together with his army and smashed the rioters and restored order, as the preliminary civil comity expected to do and wanted him to do.
To the astonishment of this comity of Brussels bourgeoisie the Crown prince halted his army outside Brussels and entered the city in friendly ambiance with the (French) agitators of the revolt and riots!!
This was for the members of the comity the, ''drop'' and wanted from then on full independence.
My opinion as posted earlier let this Crown Prince ( OTL William II) get this thing right or let him earlier be replaced by his more stable younger brother Frederick.

William I would have to make much concessions, to the Liberals, which would basically mean an earlier constitution as OTL 1848.
This will give the Liberals what they want and they would less and less support the Southern Catholics in their opposition against an Protestant King.

When the upcoming industrialization really went off the South will increase its influence over the whole Kingdom. Brussels would become the only seat of government and the Hague would drift toward obscurity.
Antwerp would become the 2nd largest port of the world before the end of the 19th century.
Most likely Ghana would not be sold.

Perhaps a son of William II (OTL) otl William III will be eager and greedy enough to dash in to an African adventure like the Congo.
OTL William III was an man greedy, eager and misbehaved as Leopold OTL. If he never become King due to his weak father he has a reason more to create his own kingdom and fortune. 19th Century Africa is a perfect place, he never have to visit it by the way.


The Royal house of the Netherlands was very close related to the Prussian Royal house early 19th century and there for far from hostile.
For overseas politics ( trade and colonies) the UK was seen as an natural Allie.
France was regarded, by almost all Europeans, as the aggressive State of the 19th century.