A Train Ride through Belgium Halted

Suppose that in 1914, the German army goes through Belgium and the Belgian central government approves, with 75% of the legislature approving of the PM's actions. I mean I assume they had a parliament, but I can't find any reference to one before the 1970s. The King is really sick with a fever, or something that keeps him bedridden. Actually, this might be a 1870s POD, but let's say the change in government happens in 1902 or whatever to keep it simple.

165 Hours after the first German troops board the trains in Belgium, the King gets out of bed and is furious. The next hour, the parliament is dissolved. 168 Hours after the first German troops came in, the king unilaterally issued an ultimatum to all Germans "without visas": Get out my country in 168 hours or be shot on sight as illegal immigrants.

He then holds phone conversations with the German Kaiser, the British monarchy, and the British cabinet. With the Kaiser he says "It's not that I hate you, it's that we're supposed to be neutral. If I have German troops in here, Belgium can be considered a belligerent by Britain if Britain intervenes on the side of France." With the British he says "Look, we really don't want to get in a war and I don't know what my idiot ministers were thinking. I'm telling them to get out now. Please guarantee our neutrality if further violations occur. If you can't guarantee our neutrality, we might end up being forced to throw out lot with the Germans. I don't want a war happening, France winning and then blaming us when we don't have your protection."

The King announces after his "get out" deadline, the Germans can still use Belgium to some extent. They can't bring ANY weapons or ammunition. However they can transport food and horses (yes, horses aren't useful in trench warfare but no one knows this yet) over, if they pay appropriate fees. There will be a line at a visa office. No using the railroads, they would have to walk. The Germans would be able to port over food. However, they can't reinforce their units, for every German that leaves Belgium on a boarder besides the German-Belgian boarder, another must reenter Belgium at the same time. Any reinforcement of German units or the transport of ammunition and weapons would be considered a violation.

Would the British just leave the Belgians to their fate? What would be the likely developments? What would be the likely developments if Willhiem uncharacteristically ordered his men to respect the ultimatum?
 
Suppose that in 1914, the German army goes through Belgium and the Belgian central government approves, with 75% of the legislature approving of the PM's actions.

You should make a small effort to look up the actual history. On 2 August 1914, Germany issued an ultimatum to Belgium, demanding that Belgium permit German troops to cross its territory. This demand was firmly rejected by the Belgian government; I believe that parliament overwhelmngly supported Prime Minister de Broqueville. Belgium had already mobilized its army.

Thus the question of whether Belgium would fight was decided before any German troops crossed the border, which was on 4 August.

I mean I assume they had a parliament, but I can't find any reference to one before the 1970s.

Then you can't have looked very hard. The parliament of Belgium was established by the constitution of 1831, and the first election was that same year.

The King is really sick with a fever, or something that keeps him bedridden.
Unless Albert is completely delirious, he will be consulted, and he will reject the German demand as well.

Albert had made a state visit to Germany a few years earlier. During this visit, he was privately subjected to a harangue by Kaiser Wilhelm, who insisted that war was imminent, due to the malevolent plotting of France. In self-defense Germany would have to conquer France, and to do so the German army would have to march through Belgium. If Belgium tried to resist, it would be destroyed by the irresistible German army. Therefore (Wilhelm concluded) the obvious course for Belgium was to allow German passage, and be rewarded with territory or loot from France.

Albert did his best to refute this astonishing blather: France was not plotting war, Belgium could never submit to such demands, and Belgium wanted neither territory or loot. Of course, he made no impression at all on Wilhelm.

However - suppose that somehow popular sentiment in Belgium is radically different, such that the Prime Minister and 3/4 of Parliament favor submission. As commander-in-chief of the Army, Albert could order resistance. But IMHO he would not act against an overwhelming national consensus.
 
You should make a small effort to look up the actual history. On 2 August 1914, Germany issued an ultimatum to Belgium, demanding that Belgium permit German troops to cross its territory. This demand was firmly rejected by the Belgian government; I believe that parliament overwhelmngly supported Prime Minister de Broqueville. Belgium had already mobilized its army.

This or the election of the parliament itself IS the POD...
 
OH and sometimes a parliament isn't on the same page as people on a specific issue even if they are on the same page with people in general.

For example, suppose voters in districts 1, 2, and 3 care most about issue A. Voters in district 4 care most about issue B. Voters in district 5, 6, and 7 care most about issue C. It's a seven man parliament so I can make the math easier. Every district might have a plurality of voters that think "issue D should be resolved in this way" but because issue D is kind of not on their minds too much, parliament might disagree.

I know this because in USA, I've seen many laws pass with supermajorities that polls suggest a plurality of Americans don't want. Even if you go district by district with the gerrymanders, the representatives are no always voting with the sentiment of their districts on the issues that didn't get them elected. The are with their districts on the issues voters cared most about.
 
So the 1914 Parlimetn could mostly get elected on domestic issues since no one thinks a war is happening in Belgium the enxt decade
 
OH and sometimes a parliament isn't on the same page as people on a specific issue even if they are on the same page with people in general.

For example, suppose voters in districts 1, 2, and 3 care most about issue A. Voters in district 4 care most about issue B. Voters in district 5, 6, and 7 care most about issue C. It's a seven man parliament so I can make the math easier. Every district might have a plurality of voters that think "issue D should be resolved in this way" but because issue D is kind of not on their minds too much, parliament might disagree.

I know this because in USA, I've seen many laws pass with supermajorities that polls suggest a plurality of Americans don't want. Even if you go district by district with the gerrymanders, the representatives are no always voting with the sentiment of their districts on the issues that didn't get them elected. The are with their districts on the issues voters cared most about.
But Belgium isn't the USA. It isn't "First past the Post" in elections. The representatives aren't representating a particular district, they're representating their voters, which can be from any district. If a party gets 30% of the votes in every district, they get 30% of the seats. They also get 30% of the seats if they get 30% of the votes and all of these votes come from the same district. Gerrymandering is not an issue.
 
The representatives aren't representating a particular district, they're representating their voters, which can be from any district. If a party gets 30% of the votes in every district, they get 30% of the seats. They also get 30% of the seats if they get 30% of the votes and all of these votes come from the same district. Gerrymandering is not an issue.

I thought it was like the modern chamber of representatives of the modern Belgian Federal Parliament, which does have districts. Anyways, in a pre-war election, the party with the most votes probably has a popular domestic policy. I really don't think any voters voted based on "what would you do if a Franco-Prussian War V2 broke out?"

Even if such an issue actually was brought up in an election, it probably would have been on the backburner. Getting a majority means the party is in agreement with the population on the issues most important to the voters. The party can be in disagreement with issues that the voters consider secondary.

I was thinking something like this. The reactions of the population might go like this.
Dialogue 1
"Oh, scary the Germans are invading!"
"What, our government submitted? Scary!"
"Hey, the Germans are well behaved and not all that bad. They just board the trains and drop themselves off at the boarder"
"(nervous laugh) ha ha ha. So... nothing bad happens right?"

Or maybe the reactions are like this.
Dialogue 2
"The Germans come to smash France. Yay!"

Meanwhile the Cabinet might be thinking this
Dialogue 3
"So... the French were plotting and using the Archduke think as a pretext right?"
"No, the Germans declared war. Maybe France might have left Russia out to dry"
"Didn't the Germans offer Albert rewards?"
"Didn't Albert say no?"
"The situation is greatly different than that time"
"We can't resist without British intervention"
"Will the British put their money on line for Belgium?"
"Why don't you call them?"
"They are on worse terms with out party compared to Belgium as a whole"
"I think they will join if they think British honor is on the line"
"Does the Treaty of London count?"
"I don't know"
"Let's just let the Germans through since the British reaction is unknown"
"If I can't get an answer from the British government in three hours, I'm letting the Germans in"
"You do that with your regular telephone line since only Albert is allowed to use the direct line without his authorization"
"He's busy"
"I'm letting the Germans in as long as they give us the promised goodies"
"What if a fresh election means the next PM refusing the Germans?"
"I'll let them in if they give us the promised goodies for full passage and some goodies if we give passage today and someone cancels my passage orders later but doesn't support France"
"Ok, the Germans think that's a great idea"
"Hey these last few days went fine without any looting. They just go through and disembark"
"Good news Albert is not bedridden"
"Think he might be annoyed at our little deal?"
"No. We threw in our lot with the winning side. I'm going to congratulated him"
"Good luck. Shouldn't be too hard"
"Um guys. We have 20 minutes to convince him why insisting on neutrality and shooting the Germans if they come in wasn't the best idea"

If Dialogue 2 is what the general population thinks and Dialogue 3 is the cabinet, the Parliament and nation consensus is the same. If Dialogue 1 is the general population and dialogue 4 is the cabinet, they are disjoint. If you are wondering how they can be disjoint, the ruling party could have very popular domestic policies that were the concern of voters the previous election. If an MP promoted your favorite pet policies on issues A. B, and C and those were most important to you, wouldn't you reelect him even if he disagreed with you on issue D which you think is LESS important than the previous three?
 
I thought it was like the modern chamber of representatives of the modern Belgian Federal Parliament, which does have districts.
Nope.
The seats are divided among the political parties using the D'Hondt method of proportional representation, which slightly favours large parties and coalitions. There is an electoral threshold of 5%.

The Representatives are divided into two so-called "language groups". Of the total of 150 representatives, 88 are part of the Dutch-language group, which consists of representatives from the Dutch-language area, and 62 are part of the French-language group, which consists of representatives from the French-language area and the German-language area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Representatives_(Belgium)
 
The Wikipedia article you site has a table that actuall says "Electoral district"

Regardless...

What would the most likely developments be? Would Britain prepare a BEF that is ready to enter the war if the Germans don't comply with the ultimatum? Would much have happened on the battlefield in the seven days the Germans went through without resistance? (I doubt it) If Germany did back down, would it be doomed to a similar fate as OTL?
 
If the British sends the BEF and will engage int he war either way, the Germans are unlikely to comply with the eviction notice. If they come in but threaten to only engage if Belgian neutrality isn't expected, I think the Germans might accept it depending on the miltiary situation.
 
OK, let us assume the king is seriously ill but nobody dares declare a regency in case it fragments Belgian politics

The German demand will seem like it comes out of the blue because the whole crisis leading to WW1 seemed like that after the initial impetus in June

The government may well THEN be paralysed. It can't ask the king, is dubious as to whether it can act in the king's authority, has no idea of its legal status vis-a-vis the army etc

We can't say "Oh they would refuse because ,,," because we aren't looking at the facts they are looking at

They aren't looking at the future, but the present. All they see is an OH FUCK moment

Can they take the responsibility? Would they dare to?
 
As I already said, any parliament can disagree with its own electorate on issues that weren't the election issue.

If the British is sending the BEF to oppose Germany/punish their violation of neutrality one way or another, I don't think much changes compared to OTL. The Germans would get about a week of extra advance but that's it. If they were making enemies of the British either way, they have little incentive to leave. They wouldn't even have deep penetration in Belgium versus OTL since they were riding the trains and obviously didn't gain access to Belgian military positions (the government in TTL let them take the trains, not enter their fortresses). There would be more Belgian losses compared to OTL since some of them are caught mixed around the countryside when the shit hits the fan.

If the British send the BEF, but only use it as a stick to force compliance with Albert's eviction notice, the Germans might very well back down. I don't know if this would help them much. While it would keep the British and Belgians out of the war, they only managed to flank for a week and OTL German offensive lasted a long time before the Marne, so that is that many fewer troops. The units that went through Belgium would likely have a few weeks of ammunition and food, so they have enough time to link with the German center, but that time wasted would take considerable sting from the offensive.

In the former case, I can easily see how the war would develop. In the latter case, it's complicated. The Germans have many fewer foes to fight, but their uppercut from the North isn't very effective since they only got one week's worth of transportation instead of over a month (admittedly, they didn't waste any time fighting the Belgians since the first group just rode the train and the second group timidly complied with the eviction notice). In this case, I don't really know how the war will develop. Belgium's neutrality is almost assured. There is precedent of neutral countries allowing non-military items like food to be transported during wars (Renaissance era wars, the Crimean War, Boer Wars, and even Sweden as late as WW2 but that one isn't precedent obviously). The only way Albert would back down on Belgian neutrality is if the newly elected PM is on the same page as the previous one that let the Germans through. However, the new PM is probably going to be elected on the issue of "so how do we feel about this whole war thing?" and I bet people don't want to give France an excuse to invade Belgium and are fine with the Germans not staying.
 
WI Belgians piled rubble onto train tracks, then defended that rubble with mines, barbed wire, machine guns and artillery?
 
WI Belgians piled rubble onto train tracks, then defended that rubble with mines, barbed wire, machine guns and artillery?

Well, I'm imagining they just remove the rails if the Germans overstay their welcome. This makes them a nonentity.

If the British back up Albert but only use the BEF as a way to enforce Belgian neutrality instead of immediately joining the French, the Germans may comply with Albert's eviction notice

So question to think about is to figure out if one week of transportation without resistance from the Belgian Army is worth more than 7 weeks worth while being tied up by the Belgians.
 
Top