Different King Albert of Belgium

I suppose the POD for this might be slightly before 1900, but I anticipate the main effects would come in 1914 or thereabouts.

Kaiser Wilhelm made one of his I'm-just-joking-actually-I-wasn't-and-you've-upset-me remarks to King Albert when the Belgian king was viewing German military exercises. He asked Albert if Nord and parts of Picardy would satisfy Albert if he were to allow the Germans to pass freely through Belgium. Albert was shocked and told Wilhelm "no", and then got treated to a small fit in which the Kaiser said that he would rue the day he decided to stand against Germany.

What if alt-Albert considered the idea, and planned to simply allow the Germans to march through Belgium in the event of a war? Say he only hints at it until the initial councils of war with his parliamentary leaders just prior to the outbreak of war, then states that he is firmly opposed to resisting any German invasion. Does the Belgian Council of State depose him, or do they go along with it? How does this affect the Schlieffen plan and Belgium's place in the world after the alt-WW1?
 
Oooh I was just thinking about this. Would the Belgians really depose their king over this? I would think, with a show of German might right in their own territory, they'd be too afraid to make a stand. Might as well go along with it and be nuetral. Actually, what are the possibilities of the Allies treating them like an enemy because of it, dragging them into the Central Powers camp? Or would there even be an Allies? I mean, what reason does Britain have to be involved?
 
Britain still had an interest in preserving the independence of France.

However, this could well result in the Channel ports (at least as far as the Somme) being occupied by German or Belgian troops, and Maubeuge (where the BEF was supposed to renezvous) being cut off. So British intervention will at least be less effective - maybe too late for the Marne, which probably comes a week or so earlier.
 
Hee I just read something like this a few day ago.
Interesting thought!
I think Albert declined it due to something as, not hoinorfull or not apropiate or what ever.
Would be intersting if he anwsered that he would think about it and secretly made arangements, later, without informing Cabinet or ministers of course.
When suddenly war broke out this arangement would pop up.
Albert would be getting a lot of crap overhim but when the war is over, this time probably before Christmas, Belgians will think it was a wise decision. How ever this will take years if not decades. The same will count for the diplomatic status of Belgium, this would be damaged very much.
The German troop movement would go largely by train so I wonder if the Belgian civilians will have any trouble with it.
The war on the West would be a French - German engagement since there is no Casus Belli for the British to join the jolly war, which is in the long term favourable for the British economy and Empire.
The only thing the Belgian army will do is defending the neutrality, not beiing part of the German forces. That Belguim get a reward in the form of Nord ( part of Flandres) and Picardy would turn up after the French defeat.
The loss of Nord and Picardy in combination with the loss of Alsache and Loraine would rip France of their coal and iron ore deposits and a large part of their heavy industry making a post war recovery more dificult.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Why would Belgium want to make itself a German vassal? This would turn the West against them forever and would require a dangerous reliance on Germany. It is not a good situation for the Belgians acquiesce to.
 
Militarily the British and French armies will invade Belgium - this may add to the allure of the plan later on, seeing it as justified, but in the immediate term will throw spanners into the works

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Deleted member 1487

From a German military stand point it is tremendously helpful, as they can bypass the Belgian forts and don't have to deal with sabotage to railways that held up badly needed supplies and reinforcements during the Marne. The additional need to maintain 50,000+ men to guard Antwerp would have been more useful elsewhere, like at the Marne or Verdun.

But what does Belgium really have to gain? Being part of Mitteleuropa? Being a German economic vassal?
 

The Sandman

Banned
From a German military stand point it is tremendously helpful, as they can bypass the Belgian forts and don't have to deal with sabotage to railways that held up badly needed supplies and reinforcements during the Marne. The additional need to maintain 50,000+ men to guard Antwerp would have been more useful elsewhere, like at the Marne or Verdun.

But what does Belgium really have to gain? Being part of Mitteleuropa? Being a German economic vassal?

What Belgium has to gain is that the Germans are going to pass right through Belgium and into France, instead of having the Germans and French fight it out in their country. Finding a way to avoid having your country devastated by war can only be a good thing.

As far as the post-war consequences? Belgium just has to be convinced that Germany will win the war. If the Germans beat France again, they can probably force the Belgians into vassaldom anyway; by selling out immediately, the Belgians can get better terms than they would if they wait for the Germans to offer them.
 

Susano

Banned
Well, purely diplomatcially the treaty (another London Treaty, wasnt it?) would still have been violated, since Belgium was by that contractually obliged to stay neutral. So the UK would still have its casus belli. And militarily - well, Belgium didnt put up too much resistance after the Germans had occupied most of it, but wiking make sa good point about freeing up resources...
 
Why would Belgium want to make itself a German vassal? This would turn the West against them forever and would require a dangerous reliance on Germany. It is not a good situation for the Belgians acquiesce to.
That's very undesirable and all, but the alternative is having their country ravaged.
 
Can't really see it happening I'm afraid. It would be perfectly doable for a powerful ruler to do just such a thing in 1714 f.e., but in 1914 with a pesky parliament and nationalism etc... let's just say it would be difficult to pull off.

Now, assuming that for some reason Albert, the Belgian Government, and Parliament do go along with it, I think that Germany would have it's fast victory and be home by Christmas. (at least on the Western Front)
As a start, they wouldn't lose several days by having to silence the Liège forts and more later on as Belgium continued to resist. Secondly they would have no need for occupation forces or to fight for Antwerp, freeing up more than a corps which would fit nicely in, say, the gap between 1. & 2. Armee at the Battle of the Marne. Depending on how fast the French & British react to the shock of Belgium aiding the Germans they have a very good shot at conquering Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne as well.
Most likely result, France signs a humiliating peace treaty a few weeks after the fall of Paris when the German forces are nearing Bordeaux. Britain signs another treaty where they return to the status quo ante bellum with Germany.
- The Briey region with it's heavy industry goes to Germany
- French Congo and Gabon go to Cameroon, Benin to Togo
- The French pay war reparations to Germany and Belgium
- Belgium might get the southern part of French Congo
- Belgium annexes the département du Nord and maybe also Pas-de-Calais (or the eastern part of it, Artesia, which historically belonged to the Low Countries)

Picardy would be just too much for Belgium, and for France, to accept, too close to Paris and adding too much people for Belgium(depending on your definition of Picardy, 0,5 to 1,5M people). The département du Nord has 1.9 million inhabitants in 1911, Pas-de-Calais another million if you take all of it. Belgium in 1914 has 7.6 million inhabitants. The Nord alone would make up 20% of enlarged Belgium's population, if Pas-de-Calais is annexed as well they would make up 28,5% of the Belgian population. The Flemish would probably be "not amused" by having Dutch becoming the minority language overnight, making the emancipation of Dutch even more difficult, and while the Francophones/Walloons would very much like the idea of French being the majority language now, the newly annexed populace would still feel French for some generations instead of happily belonging to Belgium.
With France out of the war, the war in the east will end somewhere in 1915 with Russia probably losing the Baltic states, Congress Poland, and maybe Finland. As an unknown bonus to ATL Russia, the Bolshevik revolution is most likely butterflied away. Which won't save them from serious unrest though.
While Belgium might have trouble with the formerly French population, I think they would manage to keep it as long as Germany remains dominant in Europe and prevents the French from taking it back. (France BTW, would be very much weakened with the loss of the Briey and Lille industrial regions.)

So, in short, all you need to do is to convince both sides of the Park of Brussels, the Law Street (Parliament & PM) and the Square of Palaces (His Majesty the King) to do some good old Machiavellian Realpolitik:cool:
 
Well, purely diplomatcially the treaty (another London Treaty, wasnt it?) would still have been violated, since Belgium was by that contractually obliged to stay neutral. So the UK would still have its casus belli. And militarily - well, Belgium didnt put up too much resistance after the Germans had occupied most of it, but wiking make sa good point about freeing up resources...


Was Belgium obliged to defend her neutrality by force against a vastly stronger opponent? Would she be violating it if she said "We protest the illegality but must yield to overwhelming force" or something similar? Iirc that was more or elss what Luxemburg did.
 
I agree with Xavier.

Picardie is a bit too much, but a border change so that Nord and Atresie will become Begian teritory is plausible. This would be a restoration of the border before Louis XIV. The language would not be a problem French is the ruling language in Belgium and most of the population in the French anexations spoke some Dutch dialects even in 1914.
It would damage the diplomatic reputation of Belgium for a few years or maybe a decade but after that it will be buisiness as ususal.
A (train) passage of German troops through Belgium in wat will be a pure French - German war would not conclude in a vasalisation of Belgium or a part of a Mittle Europa idea.

The whole war on in the West would be nothing but a repettion of the French- Prusian war of 1870 only on a larger scale.
Britian would be infuriated and the British population too, but the British gouverment would not aid France. There is no ''rape'' of Beglium so it would be easier for a British Cabinet to keep the war effort only to a strong diplomatic protest and a Royal fleet on high allert.

I wonder if there was any French British aliance or agrement of mutual military support befor August 1914

After some peace treaty or during negotiations perhaps the Brittish will be offert some part of a former French colony? as a token of ''good'' will from the Germans?

The way of thinking of the rulers of the day were a bit behind the reality . So a large land grap at the cost of a defeated Franche is not realy strange.

After the short war in the West, wath would happen in the East?
 

Susano

Banned
Was Belgium obliged to defend her neutrality by force against a vastly stronger opponent? Would she be violating it if she said "We protest the illegality but must yield to overwhelming force" or something similar? Iirc that was more or elss what Luxemburg did.

Probably not, but then Germany is still violating Belgiums neutrality. And that even though Prussia was one of the guarantee powers of the treaty.
 
Top