There were serious plans made by the Dutch general staff to go to war if annexation did ocure
Belgium succesfull in annexation plans at Versailles 1919
- Thread starter Parma
- Start date
Also, even if the Belgian are so stupid to do this, they will lose the goodwill of there ´former` Allies. The Frech and Britsch people will permit to start an new war with an neutral party in the Great War. Don´t forget that everybody was also afraid of communist-socialist revolutions. The Dutch Army will have enough time to prepear and I don´t think the Belgian can do it alone.
Suspiciously Germanic? Were the stereotypes back then of wooden shoes, windmills, and tulips not still pretty big? I don’t see why anyone would think of the Dutch as malevolent. And if people bring up the Dutch East Indies, I am sure people would think of the Belgian Congo as well. I think some of the other maps of territorial Expansoin of Belgium after WWI work better, as it shows the various railroads and rivers they would get extraterritoriality on. If the Belgians simply got more assured duty free movement of goods into Antwerp (while is why the coastal area on this map is shown) was given, with the Dutch being given Frisian lands and such, as well with assured free passage down the Rhine, maybe it could pass. As it is?
Well, going by the Wikipedia page, for what good it is, the Dutch army was always mobilized and there were a million Belgian refugees in the Netherlands. Belgium is likely to be in a famine situation still, and the unless we have the Belgians start claiming the refugees are being massacred as fifth columnists(not a term yet, I know) then... No, doesn’t make sense either. Really, they just is no way for this to happen. It is like the maps of Dutch clams after WWII. Despite feeling betrayed after taking in so many starving German children as refugees during the interwar period, they did not desire to dispossess people to gain their land. Or to have so many Germans. It Belgium does annex Limburger, might as well give them the territory in Germany on the other side of it too.
Netherlands in World War I - Wikipedia
Deleted member 2186
Agreed, it takes time to invade, time the Netherlands has to prepare.
And which they had already been preparing the last couple years for. Now they don’t need to worry about the German border, either.
From a French perspective, I think it's possible if we're talking in comparison to Francophone dominated Belgium. The French spent the past few years fighting Germany alongside Belgium. The Dutch were neural and we're protrayed in the press as being more sympathetic to Germany than they were. Add to this that speak a language that's similar to the point that it's part of a dialectical continuum with German. So they aren't going to be seen as malevolent per se but perhaps as less French and More "German" than Belgium and therefore less trustworthy.Suspiciously Germanic? Were the stereotypes back then of wooden shoes, windmills, and tulips not still pretty big? I don’t see why anyone would think of the Dutch as malevolent. And if people bring up the Dutch East Indies, I am sure people would think of the Belgian Congo as well. I think some of the other maps of territorial Expansoin of Belgium after WWI work better, as it shows the various railroads and rivers they would get extraterritoriality on. If the Belgians simply got more assured duty free movement of goods into Antwerp (while is why the coastal area on this map is shown) was given, with the Dutch being given Frisian lands and such, as well with assured free passage down the Rhine, maybe it could pass. As it is?
Netherlands in World War I - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
Yeah, but the French Army has been bled white and has been very, very close to mutiny. To tell them go fight again after surving the war and looking forward to an civilian life, is tempting the gods. No french politician and/or general staff general is keen to finding out what could happen to them.....
Henry Manson
Banned
This plan is the most likely outcome when accompanied with a complete break-up of Germany as requested by France at the end of WWI. Might have prevented WWII. Who knows?
If I remember correctly, the border of Limbourg is literally in the middle of the road. In 1914 the Dutch told the Germans where exactly their territory was and the Germans were careful to only use the Belgian side of the road. The Belgians believed that the troops coming down that road must have been allowed by the Dutch, and so blamed them for facilitating the invasion of Belgium. The Netherlands being seen as pro-German during the war didn't help.
Hope France plans to spend no less then a full century occupying Germany to forcibly keep it broken up, and even then probably still fail.
Henry Manson
Banned
Breaking up Germany into Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Hesse, and a French-occupied International Area composing of the Saarland the Ruhr would have certainly helped to ease these matters to a certain extent.
Campanilismo, @Alanith ?
To be fair, he has said already that he's concerned with the immediate ramifications of this more aggressive Belgian policy than stuff decades in the future. Which is all the more reasonable considering the widespread doubt that Belgium could succeed in irredentism against the Netherlands or even that there was support for it at the time, without which the WI is infeasible from the start.
My appologies did not mean that hard, all reactions are welcome. Only please do not skip imidiate to a relative distance future. The topic plays in 1919, there 20 years to go before a ww2 could start. In 2 decades a lot can happen. I jut like to focus on the direct rammifications and the next decade
Last edited:
I want the winning numbers /ticket to a multi million dollar lottery.. does not mean I am getting it. So what Belgium wants is of little concern vs what they can get. And I have trouble seeing GB and The US being willing to give Belgium territory of a natural nation.
If they did it would destroy the argument that GB was only interested in protecting poor innocent Belgium .
Actully this topic shows that Belgium was a lot less “Neutral” them history books tend to report.
If they did it would destroy the argument that GB was only interested in protecting poor innocent Belgium .
Actully this topic shows that Belgium was a lot less “Neutral” them history books tend to report.
Not really. These were discussion that took place during and post war. They don't really have much bearing on pre-war Belgian neutrality.
Well, they specifically felt that returning to neutrality would be untenable after what happened in the war. King Albert rejected a British proposal that would have required Belgium to take up official neutrality again in favor of an alliance with France. Can't really blame them for that.
This seems pretty ASB. Plenty of nations walked into Versailles with wild, pipe dream plans that could never be implemented in reality. I don’t even know under what justification the treaty would have to take away land recognized as Dutch for almost 100 years. The Netherlands wasn’t a signatory of the treaty nor was she ever not neutral during the war. As previously mentioned, she generously hosted a huge number of Belgian refugees, she never engaged in belligerent action against Belgium or any other allied nations. The US would never approve the concessions and I doubt the UK would either.
I don't see this as as really possible, given the a) morally dubious position of making territorial claims on a nation that did its best to maintain neutrality and b) likely opposition of all the Entente allies, except perhaps France... however...
Some of the proposed acquisitions may be more likely than others. I think the lands N and S of the Scheldt are completely off-the-table... they had been indisputably Dutch since the time of the 30YW, with the brief exception of the Napoleonic years...
The southern portion of Limburg, OTOH.... the erstwhile "Duchy of Limburg" was essentially an artificial creation that came about in 1839 as a result of the rather complex territorial settlement after the Belgian Revolution... the whole area had been claimed by Belgium after 1830. I could see this easier though if a "land swap" was involved - perhaps the Limburg area to Belgium in exchange for some border areas to the Dutch...
Some of the proposed acquisitions may be more likely than others. I think the lands N and S of the Scheldt are completely off-the-table... they had been indisputably Dutch since the time of the 30YW, with the brief exception of the Napoleonic years...
The southern portion of Limburg, OTOH.... the erstwhile "Duchy of Limburg" was essentially an artificial creation that came about in 1839 as a result of the rather complex territorial settlement after the Belgian Revolution... the whole area had been claimed by Belgium after 1830. I could see this easier though if a "land swap" was involved - perhaps the Limburg area to Belgium in exchange for some border areas to the Dutch...