Various Dutch POD

When i was bored this week i decided to create a list of possibly interresting points of diversions for the Netherlands. Some more likely than others. I have no idea if people are interested (there is no CSA or airships among the POD's), but i have decided to share them with you. Maybe it can inspire some people.
There are no POD's before Charles V, because before him the Netherlands didn't realy exist and I do not know enough about Dutch medival history.
I'll post the POD of the 16th an 17th century first and the rest later.
Here it is:

16th century
Charles V adds more states to the Netherlands (candidates are: East Frisia, Cleves, Julich, Liege)
The Dutch revolution fails
The French king accepts the Dutch offer to become their Monarch
The English queen accepts the Dutch offer to become their monarch
Antwerp doesn’t fall in 1576
William of Orange is made king
William of Orange isn’t shot in 1584

17th century
No twelve year truce 1609-1612
No religious conflict during the twelve year truce (remonstrants vs contra-remonstrants)
More territory gained during the Dutch rebellion (all of Flanders, all of Brabant, all of Guelders, all of Limburg, perhaps the entire Netherlands)
Less territory gained during the Dutch rebellion (no zeeuws Flanders, smaller Brabant, no Twente)
No peace with Spain in 1648 (peace of Westfalia)
The Netherlands stays part of the HRE
Prince William II wins its conflict with the states of Holland
Prince William II doesn’t die in 1650
No Anglo-Dutch wars
The Netherlands wins the first Anglo-Dutch war
The Netherlands doesn’t lose its colonies in Brazil to Portugal
The Netherlands fails to conquer Indonesia and Ceylon from Portugal
The Netherlands doesn’t lose its colony on Taiwan
A more expansionist Netherlands (the Netherlands annexes german territories in which it has a military presence like East-Frisia or Cleves)
The Netherlands loses the Second Anglo-Dutch war
The Netherlands doesn’t lose the New Netherlands
The Netherlands are defeated by France and England during the year of disaster in 1672
The Brothers de Witt aren’t lynched in 1672
William III isn’t appointed stadholder in 1672
William III doesn’t become king of England/Scotland
William III has children


Any remarks, question or additions?

I think it's unlikely Charles V would add Liege to the Netherlands because that would tend to annoy the Pope (Liege having a Bishop as its Prince and thus owing allegiance to the Church). The others are all tenable, though I can't see how much difference they'd make in the long run.

How about an earlier PoD, such as earlier population growth (or later construction of dykes, so that Zwolle, Groningen or Deventer remain more powerful than the new cities that today form the Randstad)?

Or how about the Frisian vetkopers conquer Holland in the 14th century so that when the Netherlands begins to develop, it's Frisian led?

How about the Hapsburgs don't inherit Burgundy so the Austrian/Spanish Netherlands never exists and instead Holland (or one of the other provinces) develops as a powerful German state.

No peace with Spain in 1648 would, I imagine, lead to the Thirty Years War spreading much wider. England and Scotland would have recovered from the effects of the English Civil War, and might take over from Sweden as the leading Protestant power. A joint English Dutch fleet would have a chance of taking the war to Spain, but that is likely to worry France and perhaps widen the conflict beyond predictability.

I don't think it matters whether the de Witts are lynched or not. They'd already lost power and the people of Rotterdam in particular were determined to remove all trace of the vroedschap from the States of Holland.

Of course, if Willem II had lived longer, de Witt's power and influence might have been lessened.

How about the Dutch hold onto Pondicherry after 1699?

Alcuin said:

I think it's unlikely Charles V would add Liege to the Netherlands because that would tend to annoy the Pope (Liege having a Bishop as its Prince and thus owing allegiance to the Church). The others are all tenable, though I can't see how much difference they'd make in the long run.

Click to expand...

I don't realy see that as a problem, Utrecht was a prince Bishopric after all too. Actually some of Charles' predecessors did try to conquer Liege. Charles probably would have done it if Liege didn't decide to be completely neutral and allow foreign millitaries on its soil.

I like your ideas and will add them to my list

pompejus said:

William of Orange isn’t shot in 1584

Click to expand...

William of Orange isn't shot in 1815?

(A different William of Orange, of course; he wasn't a Time Lord )

The Prince William II dispute allows Holland and others to form an alliance with the British Commonwealth to force him out of the country, to become part of a new Anglo-Dutch Commonwealth under Cromwell. A Dutch civil war between republican-puritans and royalist-nonpuritans follows.

I used this in Berwick.

Thande said:

William of Orange isn't shot in 1815?

(A different William of Orange, of course; he wasn't a Time Lord )

Click to expand...

I will add the 19th century POD's later, I will add it to the list.

I assumed you meant another William of Orange, all Dutch kings and stadholders where named William of Orange (including our future king, even though I hope he will call himself king Alexander I)
In Dutch when someone says William of Orange we almost always mean the first one, nicknamed 'the silent'. I noticed that Brittish and Americans often mean William III, when they say William of Orange.

pompejus said:

In Dutch when someone says William of Orange we almost always mean the first one, nicknamed 'the silent'. I noticed that Brittish and Americans often mean William III, when they say William of Orange.

Click to expand...

That's usually the case, but I was referring to King William II of the Netherlands who was shot (by Sharpe, apparently ) on the battlefield at Waterloo, but survived the wound.

pompejus said:

In Dutch when someone says William of Orange we almost always mean the first one, nicknamed 'the silent'. I noticed that Brittish and Americans often mean William III, when they say William of Orange.

Click to expand...

That is probably down to the relative insularity of the Brits. William the III is only William of Orange most, if not all of us have ever heard of

Thande said:

That's usually the case, but I was referring to King William II of the Netherlands who was shot (by Sharpe, apparently ) on the battlefield at Waterloo, but survived the wound.

Click to expand...

Was he really such a moron as he is portrayed as being in Sharpe's Waterloo??

Sgt Detritus said:

Was he really such a moron as he is portrayed as being in Sharpe's Waterloo??

Click to expand...

I doubt it - well maybe just on the battlefield. I remember reading he negotiated a deal with the Belgians in 1830 but his more conservative father, who was still King, wouldn't go for it...

pompejus said:

The Netherlands loses the Second Anglo-Dutch war

Click to expand...

I was wondering about this as a very distant relative of mine served in the English in at least one battle during this war

Sgt Detritus said:

Was he really such a moron as he is portrayed as being in Sharpe's Waterloo??

Click to expand...

I am not sure, I know he was generaly considered a hero by the Dutch because of what he did at waterloo and the Belgium revolt. The Brittish view of Waterloo is pretty different from the non-Brittish view of Waterloo. The Brittish tried to appear as the big heroes and made the Dutch and German accomplishments a lot smaller than they actually were.

But I also read on wikipedia that he tried to become king of France and king of Belgium, Which doesn't sound to smart.

pompejus said:

The Brittish view of Waterloo is pretty different from the non-Brittish view of Waterloo. The Brittish tried to appear as the big heroes and made the Dutch and German accomplishments a lot smaller than they actually were.

Click to expand...

That's probably down to the unfortunate British attitude of not wanting to rely too much on "Johnny Foreigner"

Here is my list for the 18th century. Tomorrow I'll post the 19th and 20th century


18th century
Willem Friso (stadholder of Friesland and Groningen) is accepted as stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Guelders and Overijssel
Willem Friso doesn’t die in 1711
The Netherlands gets more territory at the treaty of Utrecht after the Spanish war of succession
The Netherlands colonizes (parts of) Australian and/or New Zealand
William IV isn’t appointed as stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Guelders and overijssel in 1747
William IV doesn’t die in 1751
The position of stadholder isn’t made hereditary in 1747
Lodewijk Ernst van Brunswijk-Wolfenbuttel doesn’t get the influence he had over William V
The Dutch doesn’t support the american war of independence
No fourth Anglo-Dutch war
The Netherlands win the fourth Anglo-Dutch war
The Netherlands enters the League of Armed Neutrality
The court of William V isn’t moved to Guelders in 1785
The wife of William V Wilhelmina of Prussia isn’t stopped at Goejanverwellesluis
The Prussians don’t help William V to regain his power in 1787
The Dutch manage to stop the invasion of French revolutionary forces in 1795.
No Batavian Republic
The Batavian Republic doesn’t lose the Dutch colonies to England
No wars with Great Britain in 1795-1801 and 1803

No Spinoza POD's? I'm disappointed.

Also: the Netherlands supports the American Revolution earlier (same time as France and Spain, or even jumps the gun as "first ally" which IMHO which have a huge impact on American culture/history).

The Netherlands certainly possesses a great potential for historic changes.

My second favorite one after an Anglo-Dutch Commonwealth, albeit After 1900, is the Bakker-Schut Plan, in which the Netherlands would expand their pre-war territory by 30% to 50% and ambitiously annex the cities of Cologne, Aachen and Munster. A majority of the areas proposed to be annexed in the Bakker-Schut Plan were in fact occupied by Dutch troops until 1963, in which they were returned.

Reduce the refugee problem, or allow the Dutch to take the territory without expelling their native Germans, or just have a much more radical post-war settlement (maybe after the Nazis take Moscow and beyond in that classic POD?) and the Dutch could succeed. Interesting.

Darkest said:

The Netherlands certainly possesses a great potential for historic changes.

My second favorite one after an Anglo-Dutch Commonwealth, albeit After 1900, is the Bakker-Schut Plan, in which the Netherlands would expand their pre-war territory by 30% to 50% and ambitiously annex the cities of Cologne, Aachen and Munster. A majority of the areas proposed to be annexed in the Bakker-Schut Plan were in fact occupied by Dutch troops until 1963, in which they were returned.

Reduce the refugee problem, or allow the Dutch to take the territory without expelling their native Germans, or just have a much more radical post-war settlement (maybe after the Nazis take Moscow and beyond in that classic POD?) and the Dutch could succeed. Interesting.

Click to expand...

I always thought that 1945 would be too late for incorperating such a large part of Germany into the Netherlands. Before 1870 it can probably done, perhaps even in 1918 (like Belgium managed to incorporate part of Germany). But 1945 is too late, it was too German at that time.

Here are the last POD's.


19th century
No Kingdom of Holland in 1806
Someone else than Louis Napoleon becomes King of Holland
The Netherlands isn’t annexed by France in 1810
The Netherlands don’t get (all of) Belgium at the treaty of Vienna
The Netherlands gains East-Frisia at the treaty of Vienna
The Netherlands gains the Rhineland at the treaty of Vienna
Luxembourg becomes an integral part of the Netherlands
South Africa, western Guyana and/or Ceylon is returned to the Netherlands
The Netherlands loses Indonesia, Surinam and/or the Dutch Antilles to England
The Netherlands doesn’t become a kingdom
William I doesn’t become king of the Netherlands
Future king William II marries Charlotte Augusta of Wales
Future king William II becomes king of France
The Belgian uprising is prevented
The Netherlands beats the Belgians quickly (before France can react)
Prussia, Russia or Austria support the Netherlands against the Belgians and the French during the Belgian uprising
The Netherlands loses the rest of Limburg and/or Luxembourg after the Belgian uprising
The Netherlands manage to keep parts of Belgium (like Belgian Limburg or Luxembourg)
France and the Netherlands split Belgium
Future Dutch king William II becomes king of Belgium
William II doesn’t implement the new liberal constitution in 1848
The Netherlands keeps Malaysia
One of king William III sons stays alive
Luxembourg accepts Wilhelmina as its Queen (no salic law)
Troelstra’s socialist revolution succeeds
No pillarisation

20th century
Germany violates Dutch neutrality during the first world war
The entente violates Dutch neutrality during the first world war
The Netherlands enters the first world war on Germanies side
The Netherlands loses Limburg and zeeuws Flanders to Belfium after the first world war
The Netherlands manage to stay neutral during the second world war
The Dutch army is prepared for a German invasion
No bombardment of Rotterdam
The Dutch east Indian army is prepared for a Japanese invasion
The Netherlands returns to neutrality after the second world war
No Benelux
The Netherlands doesn’t join Nato
The Netherlands doesn’t join the ECSE
The Dutch manage to win the Indonesian war of independence
Different decolonisation of Indonesia (independent Maluku, Atjeh, Papua, etc)

Ahoj!
If you want a juicy Dutch POD, use this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_France_1477-fr.svg

Charles the Bold has a son, younger than Mary. John, born in 1463.
The disasters in Lorraine and in the south, combined with death of Charles himself, minority of heir, etc., lead to loss of ALL lands to the south of Luxemburg. The insatiable French expansionsits grab them.
In 1485 John the Orphan comes into his inheritance.

Borys