AHC: Netherlands includes Flemish portion of Belgium and Dunkirk

JJohnson

Banned
My question / challenge is to get the Netherlands by 1950 to hold the current territory of the Netherlands, plus the Flemish-speaking portion of Belgium, plus Dunkirk. Belgium itself (the French-portion) should still be independent and have a coastline by the same date. What is the most plausible way to get such a thing?
 
My question / challenge is to get the Netherlands by 1950 to hold the current territory of the Netherlands, plus the Flemish-speaking portion of Belgium, plus Dunkirk. Belgium itself (the French-portion) should still be independent and have a coastline by the same date. What is the most plausible way to get such a thing?

Belgian Civil War mid-1800s
 
My question / challenge is to get the Netherlands by 1950 to hold the current territory of the Netherlands, plus the Flemish-speaking portion of Belgium, plus Dunkirk. Belgium itself (the French-portion) should still be independent and have a coastline by the same date. What is the most plausible way to get such a thing?
On its own thisis already quite hard, but with an independent Belgium, with a coastline? borderline impossible.

My suggestion for the Netherlands including Flanders (I assume you also want Brussels) and Dunkirk would be a better 80 years war for the Netherlands, which ends with the Netherlands owning Antwerp, Bruges and Ostend, which allies with France who then devide te southern Netherlands. The Netherlands gaining the rest of Flanders (thus including Dunkirk), Brabant, Gelre and Limburg (or only Overmaas with Limburg itself going to France). At a later date the French and Dutch divide Liege, with the Netherlands getting the county of Loon and you more or less have your challenge, without an independent Belgium. Still the problem is keeping France out of Dunkirk and southern Flanders, as a coastline would probably worth more thana couple of hills; it should not be impossible though.

If you want an independent Belgium, you can't use any alliance with France, as France would want at least part of the southern Netherlands. There are various possibilities for the Dutch Republic to expand south, but it never realy cared for it. A buffer state always seemed to be more useful than annexing it properly, especialy as Antwerp could become a danger for the wealth of Amsterdam and the merchants of Amsterdam (which were basicly the ruling class) wanted to avoid that. So you need the Netherlands more expensionist. I think a surviving stadholder Willem II might do the trick. In the various wars the Netherlands got involved, it slowly expands south. Still getting all of the Dutch speaking Southern Netherlands is hard, certainly as after a while Spain (and OTL Austria) became allies against France and you generally don't annex lands of your allies. In this case Belgium remains Spanish (or Austrian or whatever) and later becomes independent. Still sea access for Belgium I can't see.

Other possibility. Waterloo: Napoleon defeats Wellington. The prince of Orange (the later king Willem II) dies on the battlefield. Napoleon itself is beaten by the Austrian and Russian armies that are approaching him. France is punished more harshly than OTL and (partly as compensation for the fallen prince), the Netherlands gains Dunkirk. The Belgian revolution happens, but as the prince of Orange is now death, he doesn't act like an idiot. His brother handles the situation more competently, but cannot avoid it completely. The Walloon provinces (Liege, Namur, Hainaut, Luxemburg) secceed and form Belgium. The problem with this scenario is South-Brabant, which most likely would also seceed and take quite a large part of the Dutch speaking population with it. Maybe the borders are just redrawn so the Netherlands includes most of Brabant, but not all of it (this Netherlands would lack Brussels). Result: you have the Netherlands, which includes most of Flemish speaking Belgium, and an independent Belgium, which has no hopes at all to over get sea access.
 
@ Pompejus: I agree with almost every bit you wrote there. Regarding annexing lands of your allies; the Austrians (and probably already the Spaniards too) weren't too fond of the region, so maybe gains can be made, if the ally is compensated enough elsewhere. For instance Austria wouldn't have mind to regain Silesia (or Bavaria) for the Southern Netherlands or lose parts of it in exchange for territories in Italy or the Balkans.
Spain too might prefer territories in Italy.
 
@ Pompejus: I agree with almost every bit you wrote there. Regarding annexing lands of your allies; the Austrians (and probably already the Spaniards too) weren't too fond of the region, so maybe gains can be made, if the ally is compensated enough elsewhere. For instance Austria wouldn't have mind to regain Silesia (or Bavaria) for the Southern Netherlands or lose parts of it in exchange for territories in Italy or the Balkans.
Spain too might prefer territories in Italy.
Austria likes the Poles of Upper Silesia and Galicia because they balance out the Czechs and Hungarians in their realm and aside from that they are very loyal to them because the Austrians spoil them, that is the opposite perhaps of the Netherlands which don't connect to their other realms.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Maybe a coastline for Belgium would be iffy. But definitely Dunkirk and the Flemish region for the Netherlands. Are there any hi-res maps showing such a Belgium/Netherlands? Maybe from the Super-QBAM? If there's a sufficiently high-resolution basemap I'd be glad to make the adjustments to it myself, something that has the individual counties/Kreise of the two countries, plus the Arrondissement of Dunkirk.
 
Maybe a coastline for Belgium would be iffy. But definitely Dunkirk and the Flemish region for the Netherlands. Are there any hi-res maps showing such a Belgium/Netherlands? Maybe from the Super-QBAM? If there's a sufficiently high-resolution basemap I'd be glad to make the adjustments to it myself, something that has the individual counties/Kreise of the two countries, plus the Arrondissement of Dunkirk.
What do you mean with the Flemish region? Do you mean the current Flemish region (excluding Brussels)? You have to realise that if you want to use the current language borders Dunkirk should not be included, as it is a French speaking town (and region). If you want older language borders, you can't use the current one in belgium as the Franco-Dutch language border moved north the last couple of 100 years. Waterloo for example used to be a Dutch/Flemish speaking town, but isn't anymore today.

Besides that you have to realise that for quite a long time French and Dutch (or Walloon and Flemish) speaking people lived right next to eacht other. Especialy the upperclass spoke French (even in the Netherlands itself).

In short the exact language border is rather unclear.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Do you have any sources I can read up on? What I've been looking at so far mostly covers the 19th and 20th centuries and the slow march of French in Belgium. I haven't been able to find anything on the languages spoken in late 18th century Netherlands.

Edit: for what it's worth, Wikipedia's listed as saying the language border hasn't moved much since the 18th century, with just some border flipping going on.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any sources I can read up on?
Besides wikipedia, no. All I have are maybe a couple of Dutch sites and books. Also any sources, especialy wikipedia can be quite unreliable, as there is quite a language struggle in Belgium. Flemish like to exaggerate the spread of Dutch/Flemish, just like the Walloons like to exaggerate the spread of French/Walloon. My suggestion is to wait 50 years or so when the language struggle is over and then look at some non Belgium (and thus a bit more objective) sources.

Ok, maybe I'm a bit too cynical.

Anyway, during the 18th-early 19th century the general language of the upperclass in a large part of Europe, including the Netherlands and Flanders was French. And since the early Middleages the Franco-Dutch language border has been moving north (Calais for example spoke Dutch in the 9th century. I cannot give you the exact borders, at any time, partly because sources may be biased. Check wikipedia, it gives you some information and follow the links it points to. Also ask Xgentis. He is Walloon and can give you a more Walloon view of it, because, as a Dutchman, I am biased towards the Flemish and the Dutch language.
 

JJohnson

Banned
The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering either a full-on language-based-partition of the Low Countries after the Napoleonic Wars come to a close, or perhaps the first king, William, suffering a worse fate at the hands of Napoleon, and create a semi-stigma to French in the united Netherlands, but bringing a much more capable ruler who doesn't anger the Catholic side of the country, essentially butterflying away the Belgian Revolution (who would rule, good question). Fast forward 200 years, and after progressive migrations southward by Dutch speakers, and the more economic mobility offered, Brussels, the capital is majority Dutch, as is Brabant, and there is lamentation in the media over the waning of French in the Netherlands, having a rich history and cultural heritage. That's a very very rough idea. Essentially several things that happened OTL would un-happen in my timeline.
 
The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering either a full-on language-based-partition of the Low Countries after the Napoleonic Wars come to a close, or perhaps the first king, William, suffering a worse fate at the hands of Napoleon, and create a semi-stigma to French in the united Netherlands, but bringing a much more capable ruler who doesn't anger the Catholic side of the country, essentially butterflying away the Belgian Revolution (who would rule, good question). Fast forward 200 years, and after progressive migrations southward by Dutch speakers, and the more economic mobility offered, Brussels, the capital is majority Dutch, as is Brabant, and there is lamentation in the media over the waning of French in the Netherlands, having a rich history and cultural heritage. That's a very very rough idea. Essentially several things that happened OTL would un-happen in my timeline.
IMHO, this is much more plausible than the first scenario.
Majority Dutch Brussels isn't difficult to achieve at all, as that was the case IOTL for most of the 19th century.
Also, note that before the 20th century, the language border was between Romance and Germanic (Flemish and Limburgish) dialects, not between French and Dutch. As Pompejus rightly said, French was spoken to the same extent on both sides, only by the upper classes.
 
The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering either a full-on language-based-partition of the Low Countries after the Napoleonic Wars come to a close, or perhaps the first king, William, suffering a worse fate at the hands of Napoleon, and create a semi-stigma to French in the united Netherlands, but bringing a much more capable ruler who doesn't anger the Catholic side of the country, essentially butterflying away the Belgian Revolution (who would rule, good question). Fast forward 200 years, and after progressive migrations southward by Dutch speakers, and the more economic mobility offered, Brussels, the capital is majority Dutch, as is Brabant, and there is lamentation in the media over the waning of French in the Netherlands, having a rich history and cultural heritage. That's a very very rough idea. Essentially several things that happened OTL would un-happen in my timeline.

I like that idea. Especially the idea of the lamentation of the slow loss of the French language in the south.

The problem though is this: with a different Belgian revolution, in which the Netherlands loses the Walloon lands, it will most certainly lose the Brussels region and the southern part of Brabant. If the Netherlands doesn't gain the Walloon regions (Namur, Hainaut, Liege, Luxemburg), it will probably not gain Dunkirk (which had been French for quite a long time).
Well, maybe if you give Prussia a large part of Belgium east of the Meusse, but that would give the Netherlands still quite a large part of Wallonia, more than you want to give them.

Although I realy like the idea of splitting Belgium at the language border after the Napoleonic wars (which in my opinion would be better for the Netherlands, France, the Flemish and possibly even the Walloons, something I am sure the Belgians disagree with), I am afraid is not realy realistic. You really need a different ending of the Napolenic wars with different ideas among the nations. Simply, I am not sure how to accomplish it.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Things to think about. So, going with what you were saying, let's say that the United Kingdom of the Netherlands continues. Which monarch could start off this new country? And would this new country affect any possible WW1 or 2?
 
I think Willem I could be able to hold the United Kingdom together, if he reacts better in the first stages of the Belgian revolt. getting rid of his son (future Willem II) in Brussels would help too. Maybe if Willem II dies at Waterloo and his brother succeeds him as heir. Anyway, crush the Belgian revolt before it actualy started, continue in a slightly better course, wait until the revolutions of 1848 when not only Belgium revolts, but also Dutch liberals and continue with either a new republic or a democratic monarchy (like OTL happened with the Netherlands). Now you have a situation that can keep Belgium and the Netherlands together.

This would have major consequencies for European politics. A combined Netherlands and Belgium would be a lot stronger than either Belgium or the Netherlands were alone. Combine that with the industrial power of Belgium and the trading power of the North, which would perfectly complement each other and you have a pretty strong country. Would this have major influences on both World wars? Most certainly. Even before with Luxemburg. Luxemburg was in personal union with the Netherlands, but was effectively part of the Netherlands. The question thus arises, would Germany/German Confederation accept the Netherlands annexing Luxemburg (something that would probably happen). They did not accept Denmark trying to do the same with Schleswick. If the do accept it and history continues as OTL (unlikely) Germany now has to invade the Netherlands for WWI, which is a lot stronger than only Belgium. i am not saying the UK of the Netherlands would be able to defeat Germany, but it would be a lot harder to defeat it than it would be to defeat Belgium on its own (the Dutch waterline alone would be a formidable defenseline). Maybe that would be a good reason not to try any variant of the schlieffenplan, changing the war completely.
 
What if the Belgian revolt turns into an European conflict. Resulting in a kind of Congress of Vienna version 2.0.
With as result a United Kindom of the Netherlands including the counties (provinces) of South Brabant, East and West Flanders, Limbourg. Flanders will include all teritories which were annexed by France since Louis XIV.
The new state Belgium will compirse the other South Nethelands porvinces, Hainout, Namur, Liege and from France Arras, Chambrai and may be Picardie?
France was at the moment in turmoil and Taylerant was at aging.
Other opprotunity is a mayor well orchestrated counter revolt of the Orangist movement in Belgium. But this movement was not devided between languages since it was also active in Liege.
Most time the langage was not an issue, the language became an issue during course of the 19th century when it became more and more apperent that the Flemsish people found them self regarded as 2nd class citizns when they used there Dutch as language.
 
The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering either a full-on language-based-partition of the Low Countries after the Napoleonic Wars come to a close, or perhaps the first king, William, suffering a worse fate at the hands of Napoleon, and create a semi-stigma to French in the united Netherlands, but bringing a much more capable ruler who doesn't anger the Catholic side of the country, essentially butterflying away the Belgian Revolution (who would rule, good question). Fast forward 200 years, and after progressive migrations southward by Dutch speakers, and the more economic mobility offered, Brussels, the capital is majority Dutch, as is Brabant, and there is lamentation in the media over the waning of French in the Netherlands, having a rich history and cultural heritage. That's a very very rough idea. Essentially several things that happened OTL would un-happen in my timeline.

Did you ever considered Louis Bonaparte? The brother of Napoleon, was the first king of the Netherlands and quite popular even he was Catholic.
If he made a more firm stand against his brother and alied with the Allies,his kingdom could even include Westphalia.
 
Did you ever considered Louis Bonaparte? The brother of Napoleon, was the first king of the Netherlands and quite popular even he was Catholic.
If he made a more firm stand against his brother and alied with the Allies,his kingdom could even include Westphalia.
I know that POD, but I can't remember where.

On a completely unrelated note, maybe I should continue A brother's betrayal one day.
 
Top