Netherlands Keeps Belgium? Benefits?

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · Oct 13, 2015

So, if by some twist of fate the Belgians either do not revolt (maybe reforms are pushed through or something) or lose their revolution (maybe they fail to gain the backing of the great powers/the Netherlands is more successful), what benefits to the Netherlands as a whole would keeping Belgium have? Belgium had a fairly significant industrial base, right? Do you think the Dutch would attempt to assimilate the Wallonian Belgians further, or would a similar arrangement to OTL be set up in the 'southern' provinces?

Carl Schwamberger · Oct 13, 2015

Changes the political & military dynamics in 1914. The German right wing has more ports to screen/capture & a larger Netherlands army to deal with.

Economically the development of the Netherlands will be different what with a consolidated European economy and overseas empire.

pompejus · Oct 13, 2015

Carl Schwamberger said:
Changes the political & military dynamics in 1914.

1914? With a POD in the 1830's? Come on. It is extremely likely that the first world war will be butterflied away. A united Netherlands and Belgium (and Luxemburg) will have enormous effects on European history, including German unification. For example the Luxemburg crisis will not happen. And that is just the most obvious. Lets not discuss WWI and just focus on the 19th century.

Thoresby · Oct 13, 2015

Well one fairly major issue is that the this enlarged Netherlands is fairly close to being majority Catholic. I'm not sure how different the religious demographics were back then but when you add the southern Dutch Catholics to the almost exclusively Catholic "Belgians" then I think you might have a majority or something very close to it. Now post 1800 religion isn't as big a deal as earlier but it is a fairly big deal. Such an even balance suggests some that the Netherlands is going to be deeply divided never mind the Northern Netherlands-Flemish-Waloon regional issues.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · Oct 13, 2015

Thoresby said:
Well one fairly major issue is that the this enlarged Netherlands is fairly close to being majority Catholic. I'm not sure how different the religious demographics were back then but when you add the southern Dutch Catholics to the almost exclusively Catholic "Belgians" then I think you might have a majority or something very close to it. Now post 1800 religion isn't as big a deal as earlier but it is a fairly big deal. Such an even balance suggests some that the Netherlands is going to be deeply divided never mind the Northern Netherlands-Flemish-Waloon regional issues.

Do you think the state would collapse in some sort of religious civil war like Ireland practically did? (I know Ireland was Unionists vs. Republicans, but the Protestant-Catholic divide was there). I do think that a united Netherlands, because of the issues you outline, would be more inwardly-focussed. They would obviously still control the East Indies, but I have my doubts as to whether they'd go for any extra colonies. We would avoid the Belgian Congo (since there's no Belgium obviously, and no Leopold).

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · Oct 13, 2015

Carl Schwamberger said:
Changes the political & military dynamics in 1914. The German right wing has more ports to screen/capture & a larger Netherlands army to deal with.

Economically the development of the Netherlands will be different what with a consolidated European economy and overseas empire.

As others have said, considering the butterflies, German unification itself might be waived away, let alone WWI. A united Netherlands would change the political situation in France and Britain; Nappy III might never come to power, the Franco-Prussian War would be avoided. In fact, Prussia's rise might be avoided altogether; you've got the Austro-Prussian War before then which would be butterflied as well.

Napoleonrules · Oct 13, 2015

The idea that a united Netherlands butterflies away EVERYTHING is poppycock and ASB. Frankly people will use any excuse to butterfly everything that happens after the POD. The Aztecs killing one less person doesn't butterfly away the 7 Years War. And frankly Belgium not getting independence doesn't change the people behind the scenes.

There is nothing about Belgium not receiving independence that would affect the life-course of Napoleon III or Bismark. Neither does it change the fundamental beliefs or political culture of any electorate, whether broad as in the UK or limited to elites as in Prussia, or in any country. History will not repeat itself, but it will rhyme. For whatever butterfly is flapping its wings differently in Belgium, there are a BILLION butterflies aross the rest of Europe flapping their wings in the same manner as they did OTL and their waves will cancel out any changes (for the most part) that Belgium causes on immediate history.

A lack of Belgium first affects anything out of the immediate neighboring states when you get to the 1880s and the Scramble for Africa. There is no Belgian Congo or the ripples of the King of the Belgians holding such a large area as a personal fiefdom outside of any state control. The next thing will be World War I. Minor differences such as Maximilian not being chosen to be the Emperor of Mexico (but some other petty noble will be, history will proceed not caring who); and other marriages may differ, but remember- the line will still have nobility and royal blood, will still be an important family to marry from. In no way will it cause someone to be born who will disrupt the flow, or cause someone to not be born that has a huge role in OTL. Sorry if this is "big man theory" of history, but it's big picture history that when the tide is coming in, you dropping a penny in the ocean isnt going to butterfly away the tide from coming up the shore.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · Oct 13, 2015

Napoleonrules said:
snip.

Of course it butterflies everything. Nothing is inevitable. For example, in my own life, if I'd never plucked up the courage to ask out my first girlfriend, then I wouldn't have met most of the friends I met thereafter, and my life would have been profoundly different to how it actually is. I would never have been dumped, never been driven to go overseas because of my depression and desire for change, never influenced the lives of people I met in the UK, which in turn would change everything they might have done as a result of meeting me, and that's ignoring the consequences of me doing something different back home.

As I said, Belgian independence changed the face of European politics. In the ensuing treaty you had Britain guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium. Assuming everything else goes as OTL, as you seem to think it would, this alone would completely alter the First World War, as there's no Belgium for the Germans to march through. They might march through what is ITTL the greater Netherlands, but Britain hasn't guaranteed anything about that.

It was only the July Monarchy which actually supported Belgian independence. The other European powers - still suffering fresh memories of the Napoleonic Wars - threw their support behind the Dutch. Of course, Russia was dealing with Poland at the time, Prussia was in dire fiancial straits, and nobody sent actual troops to keep the Netherlands united. In an ATL where the Belgian Revolution fails, maybe we see an earlier demise of the July Monarchy and the Orleans dynasty loses popularity faster. This could be for any number of reasons, maybe because they couldn't stand up to the other European powers effectively enough to support Brussels.

An earlier end to the July Monarchy means the political face of France for the remainder of the century is completely different. Napoleon III might still have grand ambitions, but he might not have the right opportunity to pull them off, he might be killed in an attempt to do so, he might meet a lovely woman and decide to be content with his lot. Any number of changes could take effect. Any number of decisions could have been made differently.

That's the whole point of butterflies.

Napoleonrules · Oct 13, 2015

Emperor-of-New-Zealand said:
Of course it butterflies everything. Nothing is inevitable. For example, in my own life, if I'd never plucked up the courage to ask out my first girlfriend, then I wouldn't have met most of the friends I met thereafter, and my life would have been profoundly different to how it actually is. I would never have been dumped, never been driven to go overseas because of my depression and desire for change, never influenced the lives of people I met in the UK, which in turn would change everything they might have done as a result of meeting me, and that's ignoring the consequences of me doing something different back home.

As I said, Belgian independence changed the face of European politics. In the ensuing treaty you had Britain guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium. Assuming everything else goes as OTL, as you seem to think it would, this alone would completely alter the First World War, as there's no Belgium for the Germans to march through. They might march through what is ITTL the greater Netherlands, but Britain hasn't guaranteed anything about that.

It was only the July Monarchy which actually supported Belgian independence. The other European powers - still suffering fresh memories of the Napoleonic Wars - threw their support behind the Dutch. Of course, Russia was dealing with Poland at the time, Prussia was in dire fiancial straits, and nobody sent actual troops to keep the Netherlands united. In an ATL where the Belgian Revolution fails, maybe we see an earlier demise of the July Monarchy and the Orleans dynasty loses popularity faster. This could be for any number of reasons, maybe because they couldn't stand up to the other European powers effectively enough to support Brussels.

An earlier end to the July Monarchy means the political face of France for the remainder of the century is completely different. Napoleon III might still have grand ambitions, but he might not have the right opportunity to pull them off, he might be killed in an attempt to do so, he might meet a lovely woman and decide to be content with his lot. Any number of changes could take effect. Any number of decisions could have been made differently.

That's the whole point of butterflies.

While I agree and respect the majority of your points, I do think you're confusing butterflies with further PODs. Napoleon fancying a woman and being content with his lot is introducing a new POD and not a butterfly from a united Netherlands. The internal politics and other external geopolitical influences will keep history on the same path, but yes no Belgium means WWI will work out differently... I never argued against that. It's the part of Germany not unifying and Napoleon not coming to power that is ASB just because Belgium doesn't exist. Sending troops or not (and sending troops and being successful) won't keep Prussia from the path they've been on for a century or more. It's like saying "No US troops being sent to the Boxer Rebellion means of course Pearl Harbor is butterflied away!".

Just a Rube · Oct 13, 2015

Napoleonrules said:
While I agree and respect the majority of your points, I do think you're confusing butterflies with further PODs. Napoleon fancying a woman and being content with his lot is introducing a new POD and not a butterfly from a united Netherlands. The internal politics and other external geopolitical influences will keep history on the same path, but yes no Belgium means WWI will work out differently... I never argued against that. It's the part of Germany not unifying and Napoleon not coming to power that is ASB just because Belgium doesn't exist. Sending troops or not (and sending troops and being successful) won't keep Prussia from the path they've been on for a century or more. It's like saying "No US troops being sent to the Boxer Rebellion means of course Pearl Harbor is butterflied away!".

But, things being different do mean other things are different!

To take a few, not exactly minor details: the weather will almost certainly be different from then on (there's a reason chaos theory arose specifically out of weather models). Fertilizations will be different (because those are also highly random), which means everyone conceived after the POD will be different (and not just in minor ways; they each have a 50% chance of being a different gender!). Imagine, for instance, if Wilhelm I had no male issue; his only OTL son was conceived after the Belgian Revolution was well underway. Or if the different weather means Frederick William becomes sick and dies much earlier, leading to different leaders. Those are just two examples of things that absolutely will be different. You can argue that these are all second PODs, but declaring that things will stay the same as they were before is also imposing a second POD; just one that maintains the status quo.

And in the case of the July Monarchy, having it suffer a major diplomatic reversal absolutely could destabilize it, and lead it in different directions, which certainly would affect the growth of Germany, Italy, the diplomatic position of the UK, and a host of other issues.

I do tend to think that we would see a unified Germany emerging under these circumstances, but it might be a very different one, with different leaders and thus different results. A different set of leaders might avoid the Franco-Prussian War, and leave you with a Franco-German alliance instead; imagine how different Europe would look in that case. Or maybe a France that isolates itself from the rest of Europe (perhaps a second Jacobin republic? or a Paris Commune analog? or just never successfully rebuilding relationships?), and is in no position to get involved in entangling alliances. Maybe a different set of German leaders results in something more like the 1848 proposals taking off? Regardless, projecting forward to Germany invading France in 1914 is getting way ahead of yourself.

Monter · Oct 13, 2015

There is a lot of effort to be done if the Dutch doesn't want to deal with other revolutions once a while.

Though Catholicism was a great cause for the revolt, but the social disparity in both halves were also a great issue: the Lower House of the General-States had the same amount of seats for both the north and the south, despite Belgium being more populous than the Netherlands (fun fact: today it's the opposite) and the North had more seat in the Upper House since it had more provinces. A other important fact is that the Northerns saw the South was a conquest, rather than a unified territory, which was annoying to say the least.

So Willian needs to do a compromise for the union to survive in the long term:

1 - DON'T be an autocratic dickhead.
2 - Reform the States-General to accommodate the demographics, that would mean that a Southerner domination of sorts is likely, but the Northern dominated Upper House can balance the things.
3 - Don't upset the Catholic classes, yeah the King had good intentions in spending public funds in developing the South (like in Antwerp), but he has to cope with the society of his new subjects.

For consequences... I'm not a fan of Paradox-style butterflies, but changes are going to be pretty big: While it wouldn't a Great Power like Prussia or France with the industry of Belgium and the shipbuilding of the North the UKN is going to be a relevant economy in the continent, a important point to consider is that, IIRC, the Netherlands weren't a neutral power like Belgium which is big deal.

For the Germany thing, I don't see Belgium influencing Prussia's downfall and dodging Austria's decline in any way other than "because I say so", with German and Italian nationalism growing the only way to a multinational empire like the Habsburg's to survive is to reform/divide, which is IMO another PoD rather than a consequence. Also, IMO, any French government is going to support Sardinia or any Italian state against Austria, it's like you are a big guy that has another big guy as a rival and a small kid wants to deal with your rival, it's just too good of a chance to waste.

Apology for poor english and grammar, it's probably my largest post there.

Napoleonrules · Oct 13, 2015

Just a Rube said:
But, things being different do mean other things are different!

To take a few, not exactly minor details: the weather will almost certainly be different from then on (there's a reason chaos theory arose specifically out of weather models). Fertilizations will be different (because those are also highly random), which means everyone conceived after the POD will be different (and not just in minor ways; they each have a 50% chance of being a different gender!). Imagine, for instance, if Wilhelm I had no male issue; his only OTL son was conceived after the Belgian Revolution was well underway. Or if the different weather means Frederick William becomes sick and dies much earlier, leading to different leaders. Those are just two examples of things that absolutely will be different. You can argue that these are all second PODs, but declaring that things will stay the same as they were before is also imposing a second POD; just one that maintains the status quo.

And in the case of the July Monarchy, having it suffer a major diplomatic reversal absolutely could destabilize it, and lead it in different directions, which certainly would affect the growth of Germany, Italy, the diplomatic position of the UK, and a host of other issues.

I do tend to think that we would see a unified Germany emerging under these circumstances, but it might be a very different one, with different leaders and thus different results. A different set of leaders might avoid the Franco-Prussian War, and leave you with a Franco-German alliance instead; imagine how different Europe would look in that case. Or maybe a France that isolates itself from the rest of Europe (perhaps a second Jacobin republic? or a Paris Commune analog? or just never successfully rebuilding relationships?), and is in no position to get involved in entangling alliances. Maybe a different set of German leaders results in something more like the 1848 proposals taking off? Regardless, projecting forward to Germany invading France in 1914 is getting way ahead of yourself.

Weather is going to be different because Belgium is not independent? If someone rolled a pair of dice in Los Angeles the day after Belgium became independent in OTL, then in this alternate timeline the die will not be affected by Belgium remaining a part of the Netherlands. There is no quantum entanglement between that die and Belgium. People seriously take the "butterfly effect" way too far. An independent or not independent Belgium isn't going to cause someone to decide "If Belgium isn't independent I shall die childless!" unless you can prove someone actually committed suicide because of an event, or met someone because of an event, you simply can't use a POD to say "oh, that just is butterflied away" because it's convenient. South Sudan becoming independent recently... did it impact your life? Do you think you would have had another child (or not have one) if it had not? If you can prove to me yes, then I'll concede. Otherwise it's ASB to say that it would affect things.

Westphalian · Oct 13, 2015

If the Belgian Revolution either never starts or is defeated before November 1830, that will have gigantic repercussions for Russia and Poland: The Polish Uprising of 1830 started because the cadets of the Warsaw military academy expected to be sent by the Tsar to fight revolutionaries in France and the southern United Netherlands aka Belgium. If the Dutch can handle the affair themselves or with the help of Prussian troops from Luxemburg, then the Polish Uprising might never happen.
There might be much less Polish emigration, the semi-autonomous Kdm of Poland might survive. In fact, the GD of Finland kept its autonomous status partly because Finnish officers helped crush the Polish uprising. In this scenario, Poland might be seen as loyal while Finland is seen as unimportant and of little relevance, so Tsar Nicholas abolishes its autonomy.

Might Leopold of SC+G become the king of somewhere else? (Even if he has refused it already, there is a small window in 1831 when he might reconsider his initial refusal to become King of Greece - if Belgium is not on the Menu.) As he will probably not marry the daoughter of the King of the French, Leopold II of Congo shame will never be born, anyway. But a King Leopold of Greece might, as the British candidate, bring the Ionian Islanmds with him if he comes to Athens in ~1830s.

In Prussia, Otto von Bismarck starts studying law in 1832 when he is 17 years old. During the 1830s the junker might become a desolute gambler and womanizer squandering his inheritance and his meager assessors's salary.

Tonifranz · Oct 13, 2015

Napoleonrules said:
Weather is going to be different because Belgium is not independent? If someone rolled a pair of dice in Los Angeles the day after Belgium became independent in OTL, then in this alternate timeline the die will not be affected by Belgium remaining a part of the Netherlands. There is no quantum entanglement between that die and Belgium. People seriously take the "butterfly effect" way too far. An independent or not independent Belgium isn't going to cause someone to decide "If Belgium isn't independent I shall die childless!" unless you can prove someone actually committed suicide because of an event, or met someone because of an event, you simply can't use a POD to say "oh, that just is butterflied away" because it's convenient. South Sudan becoming independent recently... did it impact your life? Do you think you would have had another child (or not have one) if it had not? If you can prove to me yes, then I'll concede. Otherwise it's ASB to say that it would affect things.

Oh the very fact that if there is no Belgian Revolution, those who were killed in OTL and the mere fact of their being alive in this TL will change things.

For example, a stray bullet in World War I killing Adolf Hitler will not change anything in the short term. Killing William McKinley in the Civil War would not be noticed at all. Or if Lincoln died in the Black Hawk War, or Napoleon in Toulon in 1793, at that time would not seem much at that time.

In this timeline, let's say X who was killed in the Belgian Revolution lived. Let's say he hated Napoleon I since his family suffered twenty years ago. He vowed revenge. His target of revenge is Louis Napoleon.

In our timeline, he won't be able to carry on his planned assassination because he was killed in the Belgian Revolution. In this timeline, he lived, and sometimes before 1848, successfully killed Louis Napoleon.

Another one. Say a young Prussian Y was in Brussels on business or pleasure in 1830, and got killed during the riots. In OTL, he won't be noticed at all since he was a young nobody. But with No Belgian Revolution, he would live, rise in Prussia as a lawyer and diplomat, become a rival of Bismarck, engineered his fall, and instead, became Prussian Prime Minister.

Or say the Prussian ambassador who was appointed to be ambassador of Belgium, or be in the staff of the ambassador, after 1830 was not appointed to the Prussian embassy in Belgium in 1830 since Belgium did not exist. In this TL, he would remain in Berlin. Let's say he was appointed on the staff of future William I of Prussia as a result of his non appointment to being ambassador in Belgium. In 1832, he went to see William to request for another diplomatic appointment but accidentally interrupted William I with his wife. In 1833, instead of future Frederick III, a girl was born.

See how the mere absence of the Belgian revolution could change things in matters we might not even be aware of?

Monter · Oct 13, 2015

Those kinds of butterflies only works in actual TLs tbh.

Otherwise those WI/AHC/PC threads are completely meaningless, what's the point of discussing a scenario if anyone can pull "Oh, X will happen because I say so!"?

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · Oct 14, 2015

Monter said:
Those kinds of butterflies only works in actual TLs tbh.

Otherwise those WI/AHC/PC threads are completely meaningless, what's the point of discussing a scenario if anyone can pull "Oh, X will happen because I say so!"?

Who was next in line for throne after William? William II, right? If he had inherited earlier, would that have been better for the Belgians? I know most of Europe turned a blind eye to William I's authoritarian tendencies because of France's interest in an independent Belgium. Would they have been more willing to intervene with actual troops if someone less heavy-handed had been in charge?

Tonifranz · Oct 14, 2015

Monter said:
Those kinds of butterflies only works in actual TLs tbh.

Otherwise those WI/AHC/PC threads are completely meaningless, what's the point of discussing a scenario if anyone can pull "Oh, X will happen because I say so!"?

Simply explaining the concept of Butterflies. He asserted that nothing at all would change by the mere fact that Belgium would be part of the Netherlands, and that butterflies are ASB.

There are changes that would not at all be detected in any POD, and it is in the discretion of the author what kind of changes he wants to effectuate, as long as it is plausible.

Therefore, changes of Germany military strategy in 1914 should not be at be discussed since that world would have changed so much that we don't know if Schlieffen would make the same plan or not, or if Wilhelm II would be born, or the knock-on effects of no Belgian Congo, or if the Bonaparte Dynasty re

To the question, what happens to the Congo, assuming the Scramble happens in this TL? Would the Netherlands or a king of the Netherlands have tried to have gotten a colony in Central Africa? Keep in mind that the Belgian Congo was almost all the work of the king of Belgium, so in this timeline, Congo might not even be colonized at all, or if it was, it could be the major colonial powers like France or Britain.

Or the scramble might not happen at all, since the Belgian Congo was a major cause for it.

Michel Van · Oct 14, 2015

Let focus back on Netherlands Keeps Belgium any Benefits ?

with Belgium the Netherlands have larger coal deposits in Walloon area inclusive with it Industrial base like Liege and Charleroi
and Liege had in the time a large Weapon manufactory

but there is catch, how to keep this mess together ?
the United Kingdom of the Netherlands what became in 1815.
Was rag rug of a kingdom, a grand duchy, former a prince-bishopric and bunch autonomically prefecture...
to make matter worst
next Dutch who majority were Protestant in that time.
were Flemish, Roman Catholics under clericalism of Rome
Then Walloon who speak French dialect also Roman Catholics under clericalism of Rome
Finally the Luxemburger people with own language

the Netherland Government had problems to deal with multilingual
So they came on brillant Idea to make Dutch the official language in southern part of kingdom
strangely the Flemish aristocrats, upper and middle classes rebelled against it because they mostly French speaking...
while Walloon were outrage and also the Luxemburger people.

while 62% of population of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, were Flemish and Walloons
they were significantly under-represented in the States General and in the Second Chamber

Another problem was that king William try stop influential Roman Catholics church, who try to install clericalism in a official Protestant kingdom.
He built over 1,500 state schools where the Church was no longer the provider of education.
That was in Flanders and Walloon a monopoly by Roman Catholics church and hell were they piss off about that...

in end a bizarre alliance of Flemish and Walloon aristocrats, industrialist and local Roman Catholics church formed, back financed by french.
there plan: BELGIUM

So what prevent this ?

That the Flemish and Walloons are fairly represented in the States General and in the Second Chamber.
That the United Kingdom of the Netherlands become a multilingual state respecting the French and Luxemburger dialect.
Still there is problem with influential Roman Catholics church in south Netherlands.

DrakonFin · Oct 14, 2015

Westphalian said:
In fact, the GD of Finland kept its autonomous status partly because Finnish officers helped crush the Polish uprising. In this scenario, Poland might be seen as loyal while Finland is seen as unimportant and of little relevance, so Tsar Nicholas abolishes its autonomy.

Some might argue that the Finnish autonomy as it was IOTL existed for a big part because Finland was considered as unimportant and of little relevance. It was peripheral part of the empire, located on a flank towards a small-to-middling power (Sweden) that was since 1809 committed to neutrality. Even without the Finnish Guard's participation in Poland, the Grand Duchy of Finland would be a peaceful and non-problematic part of the empire. There would be a lot of loyal Finnish-born officers (often Swedish-speaking) serving in all branches of the imperial military, and Finland would generally be seen as a loyal backwater. I can't see TTL being that much different from the OTL in that regard, unless a specific chain of causality can be found that would push the late 19th century Russification efforts forward. Come to think of it, without those problems in Poland, TTL might see even less Russification in Finland as well than the OTL.

Reydan · Oct 14, 2015

As other posters have pointed out, the significant problems faced by the Dutch keeping hold of the Belgian provinces would stem from internal friction between religious and linguistic groups.

But the Kingdom would also be particularly vulnerable in the near future. The upheavals of 1848 would almost certainly affect them (this would not be butterflied away by the POD) as would the resulting French 2nd Republic and 2nd Empire, both of whom were interested in the idea of France's "Natural Borders" which assumed an annexation of Belgium. Napoleon III might be especially interested given his constant homage to his famous namesake.

How this affects a "WW1" in this timeline is harder to say. I don't think this POD butterflies the inherent tensions in Europe that went on to produce the network of alliances, but as people have pointed out the sides, timescale etc will be different.

The Dutch colonial Empire will also get a boost. They may not sell their colonies on the Gold Coast to Britain (so maybe ITTL we see a dutch Ghana). They are also going to be more of a power player in the pacific. They are going to be one of the powers more interested in forcing open China to trade (Dutch soldiers in the Boxer Rebellion or Opium Wars etc), and they may play a much more dramatic role in the opening up of Japan seeing as the Dutch, unlike the US, already had an ongoing (if fragile) relationship with the Shogunate under Rangaku. Maybe the Dutch support the Shogun over the Meiji Imperial faction in the Boshin War?

Finally, no Belgian Congo means even more tensions between Britain and France in central africa (as France is most likely to inherit the lion's share of the land), meaning any Fashoda-type incident is going to be more heated.