A Belgian Nord-Pas-de-Calais?

Hey Guys,

Let's say in Europe there's a war over either the Fashoda Crisis or the Dogger Bank Incident in which an Anglo-German Alliance takes on (and beats) a Franco-Russian Alliance.

Let's say the war lasts a year and the Anglo-Germans (alongside the Italians) beat the French quite badly, with the British holding up a naval-blockade and France being forced to fight on two fronts. In both the French Empire and Metropolitan France the French lose heavily (ignore the Russian front for this scenario).

Could we see the British allow Belgium to annex the Nord-Pas-de-Calais? I just feel that, seeing as the British liked to keep the Low Countries independent and as good allies it would seem sensible to make sure that the French couldn't have the Strait of Dover after it's been proved that another Anglo-French War could occur.

Would this be too much for the French who've lost a lot of their Empire (and let's say at least the rest of Lorraine just for the sake of this scenario). The Belgians didn't really do much fighting however they did allow German troops to pass through their land after being pressured by the Anglo-British delegates so they technically played a big-part in the eventual victory.

Is this ASB/implausible or could we see it happen?

P.s. Don't forget that King Leopold II had an obsession with Empire, thus the annexation of Nord-Pas-de-Calais may appease him with this Imperialist desire.
 
Hmmm possibly.
I'm not sure the British would do so since it would strip France of all its industrial territories removing its Great Power status.
Plus Leopold II was widely disliked towards the end of his reign.
Maybe if he'd died before becoming king thus having Count Philippe succeed?
A more moderate King of Belgium could see the UK preferring them as a Great Power successor to France.

Alternatively maybe we need to go much further back to the Treaties of Nijmegen and Ryswyck. Give the French a slightly worse showing in the Franco-Dutch war and they don't get the Nord-Pas from the Southern Netherlands.
This tho would mean major ripples in the following centuries.
 
Alternatively maybe we need to go much further back to the Treaties of Nijmegen and Ryswyck. Give the French a slightly worse showing in the Franco-Dutch war and they don't get the Nord-Pas from the Southern Netherlands.
This tho would mean major ripples in the following centuries.
Good idea, however I'm trying to keep this late-19th Century really which is why I used the Fashoda Crisis as an example of how to get such a war.
 
Good idea, however I'm trying to keep this late-19th Century really which is why I used the Fashoda Crisis as an example of how to get such a war.

No worries.

Part of the problem is that it weakens the French Empire vs the German Empire potentially destabilizing the Balance of Powers. Perhaps France gets a better deal elsewhere.

A stronger Belgium might also promote a stronger Greater Netherlands movement leading to the possibility of Belgium - Netherlands union; especially if removing Leopold II increases the chances of the marriage of Albert I and Wilhelmina reforming the United Kingdom of the Netherlands :D (perhaps through William Alexander living an extra 20 years and having an heir who dies heirless himself)
 
Good idea, however I'm trying to keep this late-19th Century really which is why I used the Fashoda Crisis as an example of how to get such a war.

I think that the only way to give Belgium Nord-Pas de Calais is a Franco-Belgium war somehow. This would not be too hard in the 19th century as France still claimed the Rhine border, but the closer you get to the end of the century, the less likely it gets. Although I doubt Belgium would get Pas-de-Calais, but Nord is almost a certainty as it used to be part of the Southern Netherlands.
 
If Belgium is given France's old great power status. They belgians will demand an improved map of Europe, so here it is.

belgia.jpg
 
Wouldn't the British want Calais as much as anyone else? Maybe you should think smaller and go for French Flanders, perhaps for some of Waloons.

At this point? No. By this point, the British had come to realise that owning land on the continent meant constantly having to fight a defensive war to protect it. Gibraltar was suited to this task as it was essentially a giant fortress, but Calais was open plains and it would be a liability. Essentially it would condemn the UK to fighting constant wars as the French would never allow them to keep it, and no amount of good luck or resolve would stop Calais from constantly falling in the first week of every such war. Then they would have to defeat the French in other theaters to do well enough for the French to accept them keeping it, and even then the French diplomatic angle in every peace treaty would be "give us Calais and we call it quits". Far better to simply remain an island nation and be able to dictate the path of every war themselves by choosing where it would be fought and always being on the offensive.

The main problem I see with this is that it isn't very common to give a country which had been completely neutral in a war territory from the peace deal. Also, just as Calais to Britain = constant Anglo-French wars, giving Calais to Belgium would just give France a casus belli for constantly invading Belgium, and Belgium would lose that war eventually.
 
Top