Belgium allows Imperial German army through?

Say Belgium relents to the German army upon their ultimatum to allow German forces through their country attack France for the Schlieffen plan (I probably spelled that wrong) what would happen? The Germans wouldn’t be delayed by Belgian resistance and Britain would have no real casus belly for joining. Would Germany win the war easily? Would Britain join at all? What about battles like the Marne? Would they still occur?

Also, throughout the war, what would Belgium do? Would the Entente cut diplomatic ties and sanction them? Would they be included in the blockade? If the Entente wins, is Belgium punished?

Btw this is assuming Luxembourg follows suit with Belgium.
 
Belgian military resistance was not critically important to the advance of the right wing. It had been calculated into the timing of the maneuver. Where the difference shows up is having the cooperation of the Belgian railways for moving horse fodder & artillery ammunition forward. OTL there was a disconnect or lag as the German railway service got the relevant Belgian routes back in service. I strongly suspect the 1st & 2d armies lacked any cannon ammunition reserve & were having to avoid running out as the Marne battle developed. Thats less likely were the Belgian railways fully available from the start.

...

Also, throughout the war, what would Belgium do? Would the Entente cut diplomatic ties and sanction them? Would they be included in the blockade? If the Entente wins, is Belgium punished?

Yes, allowing the Germans full use of their railways would be a pretty clear act of alliance or support. Sanctions of all sorts.

Btw this is assuming Luxembourg follows suit with Belgium.

Luxembourg had no means of resistance. The palace guard and police were ordered to stand down, and the Germans took control of the railways within a few hours. The resistance or surrender of the Duke of Luxembourg was irrelevant as 200,000 Landser poured down the roads.
 
Belgium is now no longer a neutral, by allowing the Germans to pass through their country to by pass the French defences they have become a de facto German ally even if they don't join the fighting.

Britain has no excuse to declare war on Germany or impose a blockade and without the BEF at the Marne Paris may well fall and if the Government collapses the whole of France.
 
IOTL the Belgian government declared it would fight all comers; the Belgian Field Army conducted a bit of resistance in the west before withdrawing into the National Redoubt in Antwerp and then conducting 3 sorties out into the German rear before being closely invested. The RMLI Brigade landed at Ostend on August 27 and withdrew again on August 30.

If Belgium allowed the Germans to transit their territory none of these things would happen.

I don't know what the Belgians would communicate to the world, would they say the French and British could enter their territory too? Would the BEF deploy to the Belgian coastal ports and Antwerp?
 
I don't know what the Belgians would communicate to the world, would they say the French and British could enter their territory too? Would the BEF deploy to the Belgian coastal ports and Antwerp?
If Belgium allows the Germans free passage then Britain has no viable excuse to enter the war.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
If Belgium allows the Germans free passage then Britain has no viable excuse to enter the war.
Well, as much as I'm a 'fan' of Belgium being the casus belli for Britain it wasn't the London treaty of 1837, but the actual or threat of control of the channel coast by Germany.
The violation of the treaty was only the fig leaf for public communications.

ITTL the 'reason' - actual or threat of control of the channel coast by Germany - would still occur. This already convinced the bigger part of the british cabinet to contemplate british muilitary involvement into the continental conflict IOTL. ... and ITTL they would now activly 'look' for a reason to join. Probably they would 'strongly' suggest to the belgian goverment to withdraw its permission for the german troops what might - together with some further 'working' on the liberal PMs minds at home - lead to a british 'engaement' into the war.

Propagandistically - unfortunatly - there won't be the 'rape of poor little Belgium' to be utilized. ... with any measure of credibility, aka less british men 'flocking to the colors' than IORL
Militarily ... possibly (probably ?) the cabinet might vote for a british landing - however unfeasable (they didn't ask for military expertise IOTL, I don't see why the british cabinet would now change this attitude ITTL ... aside handwavery) - at Antwerp and the Schelde mouth. Nevertheless there would be a delay of the BEF/parts of the BEF sent to the continent.

However, as long as belgian troops would refrain from actually fighting british troops I can well imagine the british staying away from DoWing Belgium trying to 'invent' some story of it still being somehow forced to submit to german wishes.

Without a doubt the 'western campaign' would look very different and very much in favor of the germans ITTL.
 
Would the Germans still win though? Even if this lucky break gave them Paris would the French really collapse as is often suggested?

If the Germans won, what would be the resulting position for Belgium? Would it be rewarded?

If the Germans lost, would the Belgians be punished at Versailles?
 
ITTL the 'reason' - actual or threat of control of the channel coast by Germany - would still occur. This already convinced the bigger part of the british cabinet to contemplate british muilitary involvement into the continental conflict IOTL. ... and ITTL they would now activly 'look' for a reason to join. Probably they would 'strongly' suggest to the belgian goverment to withdraw its permission for the german troops what might - together with some further 'working' on the liberal PMs minds at home - lead to a british 'engaement' into the war.
It's going to take time to get to the point they can get the country to accept a war, and by then the Germans will have passed through Belgium and if they were wise no troops would remain in the country to give the British an excuse to get involved. For the vast majority of the British population until Germany invaded Belgium the war was considered not their problem and they had no interest in getting involved.
 
Well, as much as I'm a 'fan' of Belgium being the casus belli for Britain it wasn't the London treaty of 1837, but the actual or threat of control of the channel coast by Germany.

IOTL Britain did quite a lot about this, even though the bulk of the BEF was deployed on the French flank, so I don't think this motivation can be overstated.
 
British attempts to mine the Dover Strait were not terribly successful. Even if Britain does enter the war, German U-boats on Le Havre are going to make things a lot worse for them.
 
Well, as much as I'm a 'fan' of Belgium being the casus belli for Britain it wasn't the London treaty of 1837, but the actual or threat of control of the channel coast by Germany.
The violation of the treaty was only the fig leaf for public communications.
That is true of the Foreign Office and the Admiralty but the Cabinet dithered a bit OTL and John Morley resigned. And that was with a clear casus belli. Without one, I don't think that they would have jumped in. And the Francophile Grey would have had to resign (probably asked to resign when the rest of the Cabinet found out) as Foreign Secretary as he would have given assurances to France that he couldn't honour in their name and without consulting them. A less Francophile Foreign Secretary might be more inclined to mediate a peace treaty than to jump into an expensive and unpopular war (No beastly Huns raping Gallant Little Belgium)
 
If the Germans lost, would the Belgians be punished at Versailles?

I think France would certainly try to at least get a pretty decent part of Wallonia, if not all of it.
If the Germans won, what would be the resulting position for Belgium? Would it be rewarded?
It depends on how much they want to punish France. If they are as harsh as OTL Versailles, France would probably lose French Flanders and Hainaut to Belgium, possibly even pais de Calais (Artois had been part of the Spanish Netherlands until 1659 after all).
 
That is true of the Foreign Office and the Admiralty but the Cabinet dithered a bit OTL and John Morley resigned. And that was with a clear casus belli. Without one, I don't think that they would have jumped in. And the Francophile Grey would have had to resign (probably asked to resign when the rest of the Cabinet found out) as Foreign Secretary as he would have given assurances to France that he couldn't honour in their name and without consulting them. A less Francophile Foreign Secretary might be more inclined to mediate a peace treaty than to jump into an expensive and unpopular war (No beastly Huns raping Gallant Little Belgium)
Thing is the can not was already in such a wobbly state that a resigning by gray (and the prime minester becuse they where close allies so if gray lost trust so will the prime minester) then it's more likely that the government will have to change, probably whith a conservative which is much more likely then a liberal one to go to war. Not that it won't Chang a lot I gust dont see that cabinet surviving if the war party dosnt win.
 
If Belgium allows the Germans free passage then Britain has no viable excuse to enter the war.

Not correct. Britain was a guarantor of the neutrality and inviolability of Belgian territory’ irrespective whether the Belgians themselves respected the Treaty of London...
 
I think France would certainly try to at least get a pretty decent part of Wallonia, if not all of it.

It depends on how much they want to punish France. If they are as harsh as OTL Versailles, France would probably lose French Flanders and Hainaut to Belgium, possibly even pais de Calais (Artois had been part of the Spanish Netherlands until 1659 after all).

Precisely why Belgium not defending its neutrality is unlikely. Getting any kind of French territory with the eternal wrath of a neighbor five times more populous than you and with whom you share a border 200 miles long is not a good idea... Unless of course you want to become a German client state forever, but I am not sure it’s a much better concept...
 
Good luck selling that to the Cabinet, Parliament and the British public.

Guaranteeing Belgian neutrality was not an act of benevolence but a fundamental commitment to protect British interests. If not respecting that neutrality, Belgium would be deemed in violation of those interests it had vowed to protect as well, and would easily be painted as a villain in British propaganda. Expect réminiscences of Congo atrocities....
 
Thing is the can not was already in such a wobbly state that a resigning by gray (and the prime minester becuse they where close allies so if gray lost trust so will the prime minester) then it's more likely that the government will have to change, probably whith a conservative which is much more likely then a liberal one to go to war. Not that it won't Chang a lot I gust dont see that cabinet surviving if the war party dosnt win.
Sir Edward Grey had masterminded Asquith's leadership campaign and Asquith both trusted and owed him. However it is not entirely clear how much Grey had cleared with Asquith, never mind the rest of the Cabinet. As the French asked Grey to honour commitments they thought they had from the British government, and not the Foreign Secretary playing a lone hand, Grey's position would have become untenable. He didn't want to be PM himself and attached great importance to having an Imperial Liberal as PM so I think that he would have taken all the blame on himself and not dragged Asquith down with him. But Blair survived the fall of Mandelson and Thatcher the death of Airey Neave, no reason to suppose Asquith wouldn't have survived the fall of Grey.
 
Top