alternatehistory.com

I know that WWI itself has been beaten to death almost to WWII or Civil War levels, but I don't know if Belgium has been discussed much. Belgium historically was steamrolled by German troops very early in the war, fighting from the Belgian Congo and eventually winning what is now Rwanda and Burundi.

My question is, how much land could Belgium had taken in WWI? I know that they occupied a strip of land in former Kamerun, and had occupied more bushland in Tanzania that had been awarded. Belgium could not have taken over any Tanzanian coast since England wanted to connect it's colonies through Africa. Belgium also had French Middle Congo to worry about when expanding in that direction.

Maybe have a French push stop German forces in Belgian land long enough for English troops to arrive and the stalemate and trenches are all in Belgium. Massive immigration of people not obliged to live there to "safer" Belgian Congo, possibly with a spike in Quinine production. Belgian bush troops then make massive inroads in Tanzania and Kamerun, eventually making it to Lake Victoria. Maybe even have a much bloodier trench warfare stage causing lots of young women to marry native men. Plus, maybe have an active Belgian Pacific campaign, or even helping out the Siege of Tsingtao. This leads to Belgium being more integrated with the Congo and ending the "steal what you can and burn what you can't" time in Congolese history, plus a coast at Lake Victoria, some land in Kamerun, and even a few islands or even a piece of German New Guinea or China, along with a decent sliver of German Rhineland. (though it would be easier of the Russians were able to avoid the Russian Revolution and make some more significant fight against Russia, though that's an entire other thread of discussion).

What do y'all think?
Top