Talleyrand partition plan for Belgium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talleyrand_partition_plan_for_Belgium
After the Belgian revolution in 1830 Europe decided to separate Belgium from the Netherlands, but weren't sure how exactly to do so. The French proposed a plan that was eventually rejected, but what if it was accepted?

Background

Despite increasing popular demands for independence, major European powers were divided over the future of Belgium; France was in favor of the secession of territories inhabited by French-speaking Belgians, largely in hope of annexing those territories. Other European nations opposed the French demand, supporting the continued union of the Netherlands, which had been proclaimed at the Congress of Vienna under British pressure. A coup by the French-speaking elite ended Dutch rule in the Southern Netherlands and upset arrangements made at the Congress of Vienna. While Belgians formed a Francophone, provisional government in Brussels, major European powers were forced to consider alternative plans to contain the Belgicists and preserve its union with the Netherlands.

Click to expand...

Plan

In lieu of the stalemate, Talleyrand proposed partitioning the Southern Netherlands:

-The province of Antwerp — except the city of Antwerp itself — and Limburg, west of the Meuse river — except Maastricht — would remain to the Netherlands, as was a small part of the province of Brabant, the former Oranje Lordship of Diest;

-The parts of the provinces of Liège, of Limburg and of Namur east of the Meuse river as well as the cities of Maastricht, Namur and Liège and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg would go to Prussia;

-Part of the province of East Flanders, nearly all of the province of Brabant, the province of Hainaut and the province of Namur west of the Meuse would be assigned to France;

-West Flanders, most of East Flanders, including Zeeuws-Vlaanderen (which was not generally considered to be part of the Southern Netherlands as it had been under northern Dutch rule for centuries), and the city of Antwerp were to form the Free State of Antwerp, under British protection. It would have been more or less a restored County of Flanders at the river Scheldt.

Click to expand...

What were the demographics of the real estate slated to go to Prussia at that time?

The French don't even give up their section of Flanders? What a gip.

Herzen's love-child said:

What were the demographics of the real estate slated to go to Prussia at that time?

Click to expand...

Not much IIRC. Can't find the numbers though.

Clandango said:

The French don't even give up their section of Flanders? What a gip.

Click to expand...

Got to give Talleyrand credit; why give when you can get?

Herzen's love-child said:

What were the demographics of the real estate slated to go to Prussia at that time?

Click to expand...

Roughly speaking every part of Belgium that Prussia would get, spoke French.

I am always sceptical about the Talleyrand partition plan. For one reason the Netherlands would lose a couple of traditionally Dutch parts that weren't even in Belgian hands (Zeelandic Flanders for example). Prussia, who was not involved in any way would get a very large part, without doing anything. Besides that, at the end of the Napoleonic wars they specifically tried not to prevent Prussian access to the river Meusse (which would now become the Prussian border). Britain would not want to get involved in Europe so much as the Free state of Antwerp would mean. Also Luxemburg is an entirely different case than Belgium, as it was only in personal union with the Netherlands and not actualy part of the Netherlands.

It would also mean completely ignoring the wishes of the Belgians (which to be fair is not that unusual in these days).

In the end, I don't it won't happen in exactly this form. Make the Prussian part smaller (maybe limiting it only to Luxemburg and perhaps part of of norther Liege, they actualy wanted that after the Napoleonic wars), return Limburg and Zeelandic Flanders to the Netherlands and find a solution for the Antwerp free state (maybe neutrality guranteed by France, Britain, Prussia, etc. like Belgium) and maybe you have a better solution.

Still quite unlikely though. In the end, I fear there were only two realistic solutions to the Belgian war of independence: Belgian independence or reannexed by the Netherlands.

wiking said:

Got to give Talleyrand credit; why give when you can get?

Click to expand...

Give him credit for a plan that nobody accepted?

Clandango said:

Give him credit for a plan that nobody accepted?

Click to expand...

Give him credit for trying to give France some extra territories without doing anything for it. It was a good attempt, even though it didn't work out.

pompejus said:

Roughly speaking every part of Belgium that Prussia would get, spoke French.
etc. etc.
It would also mean completely ignoring the wishes of the Belgians (which to be fair is not that unusual in these days).
I

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. More grist for the mill for a later revolution if this had been implemented.

I'm struggling to understand why Antwerp wouldn't want to unify with the Netherlands. Could someone a bit more informed on the time period help me out here?

Minchandre said:

I'm struggling to understand why Antwerp wouldn't want to unify with the Netherlands. Could someone a bit more informed on the time period help me out here?

Click to expand...

In those parts the Belgian revolution hadn't as much support as it had in the Walloon parts, but there were still people who weren't happy. The upper and a large part of the middle class still spoke French (although the same thing was true in the northern Netherlands, although less among the middleclass). Besides that they were catholic and catholics were still sort of second rate citizens (at least until 1848). The Flemish lower class dgeneraly did not support the Belgian revolt (they usualy did not care), but the upper class did. The support was less though than further south. It would not unify with the Netherlands the moment it would become independent. I could see it later potentially unifying with the Netherlands though.

Previous discussions of this topic can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

wolf_brother said:

Previous discussions of this topic can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Click to expand...

That's amazing for this seemingly esoteric subject. Perhaps this Forum will soon need to declare victory and shut down, as we have exhausted every subject imaginable.

Herzen's love-child said:

That's amazing for this seemingly esoteric subject. Perhaps this Forum will soon need to declare victory and shut down, as we have exhausted every subject imaginable.

Click to expand...

Or, instead of being flippant, you could use them to see what's already been discussed in order to further your own understanding of the scenario. But that's probably just crazy talk

wolf_brother said:

Or, instead of being flippant, you could use them to see what's already been discussed in order to further your own understanding of the scenario. But that's probably just crazy talk

Click to expand...

Don't be so sensitive. I, in fact, did look at some of those links for the very reason you suggest. You also might add to your post with the links that you included them to further and not stifle discussion.
Cheers.

France gets the lion's share, and Austria receives nothing. Which is why they wouldn't accept Prussia getting a share. Did Talleyrand want this plan to fail, or had he lost his cunning?

OS fan said:

France gets the lion's share, and Austria receives nothing. Which is why they wouldn't accept Prussia getting a share. Did Talleyrand want this plan to fail, or had he lost his cunning?

Click to expand...

Well, this was at the end of his long career.... He died in '38. Seems like he was playing in what he thought a pragmatic way, for French advantage. Pieces to Prussia to get them on board. Trying to get British invested in the affair to preserve perceived balances. We are in the age of the "Concert of Nations".

OS fan said:

France gets the lion's share, and Austria receives nothing. Which is why they wouldn't accept Prussia getting a share. Did Talleyrand want this plan to fail, or had he lost his cunning?

Click to expand...

Why would Austria get anything? They were neither involced nor did Austria border Belgium. Besides that, Austria didn't even want the southern Netherlands, which is why they traded it away 15 years earlier.

pompejus said:

Give him credit for trying to give France some extra territories without doing anything for it. It was a good attempt, even though it didn't work out.

Click to expand...

He sabotaged the French government on a dozen occasions under half a dozen regimes. I don't think he had France's best interests at heart.

Clandango said:

He sabotaged the French government on a dozen occasions under half a dozen regimes. I don't think he had France's best interests at heart.

Click to expand...

Could you be more specific? And is ditching particular governments necessarily against the intersts of the country?

I think the old mercurial fox felt he knew better than some of the governments he served under as what constituted the "best interests of France". Definitely where Napoleon was involved. His efforts at the Congress of Vienna were nothing short of brilliant--- preserving France territorial integrity and some gains from the FRW at a point of abject French weakness.