Modified partition of Belgium

[Eurofed]

An interesting alternative outcome to the situation created by the Belgian Revolution was the partition of Southern Netherlands. Proposals in this sense were made in 1830-31, the Talleyrand Plan (quadruple partition between Netherlands, France, a British protectorate, and Prussia) and the Talleyrand-Wellington Plan (partition between Netherlands and France).

However, IMO both proposals had serious flaws, namely the creation of a British protectorate in the 'free state of Antwerp', which would force the unwilling British to resume continental committments, or to give all of Wallonia to France, which would be easily more than the other great powers would stand, given the fresh memories of the Napoleonic Wars.

Having considered that, I propose that a third ATL partition plan does arise that combines ideas from both OTL ones, is approved by the great powers, and implemented. According to it:

- the Netherlands keeps the provinces of West Flanders, East Flanders, Antwerp, and Limburg;

- France gets Hainaut, Brabant, as well as the western parts of the provinces of Liege and Namur, west of the river Meuse;

- Prussia gets the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, as well as the eastern parts of the provinces of Liege and Namur, east of the Meuse river.

A possible PoD might be a more decisive reaction of the Dutch defeats the Belgian revolt, France intervenes to support the Belgian revolutionaries, Prussia intervenes as well to support the Netherlands, and a three-way partition becomes the natural solution to avoid a major war.

 

[wolf_brother]

And the British go along with this plan over the OTL solution because... ?

Hell, why do the Belgians agree to such a thing?

 

[Eurofed]

And the British go along with this plan over the OTL solution because... ?

Their main concerns were to avoid France getting the Flemish ports or becoming too much aggrandized. At the same time, they were unwilling to burden themselves with a continental protectorate. In 1830-31, they weren't especially enamored of the OTL independent buffer state solution, in comparison to possible alternatives. Cfr. who was the co-author of the Talleyrand-Wellington Plan.

Partition plans of Belgium were an option that was seriously discussed in 1830-31, and there is plenty of room for political and diplomatic divergencies to get them adopted. The OTL solution did not carry much of an irresistible force.

Hell, why do the Belgians agree to such a thing?

They submit to the will of the great powers. Their agreement is not an important issue. Given a choice, they would prefer the Talleyrand-Wellington plan among the various partition options, but that's not the PoD here.

 

[wolf_brother]

Their main concerns were to avoid France getting the Flemish ports or becoming too much aggrandized. At the same time, they were unwilling to burden themselves with a continental protectorate. In 1830-31, they weren't especially enamored of the OTL independent buffer state solution, in comparison to possible alternatives. Cfr. who was the co-author of the Talleyrand-Wellington Plan. In short, there is room for diplomatic butterflies.

OTL prevents French Flemish ports, the idea of a continental buffer state, and upholds British aloofness. You need to establish why exactly your idea didn't happen IOTL, or rather at least why it could happen ITTL. Simply saying "butterflies" isn't a real response. Once again, why would the British go for the plan you've outlined instead of simply recognizing the new Belgian state as they did IOTL?

They submit to the will of the great powers. Their agreement is not an important issue.

You're a fool if you think that the will of a people who had just fought and a won a revolution is not important in deciding their fate. When the Greeks revolted the great powers were able to install an monarchy on a restive people; they didn't dare try to partition their newly won state. The history of rebellions and revolutions in Europe during the Vormärz clearly shows that the 'agreement' of the revolutionary people is of the highest priority for the great powers if they wish to impose any sort of order without committing themselves to a bloody campaign of conquest.

 

[Xgentis]

That's not going to end well. I can see guerilla warfare in the whole region hapening. Peoples were fed up being rulled by foreigner.

 

[pompejus]

- Prussia gets the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, as well as the eastern parts of the provinces of Liege, of Limburg, and of Namur east of the Meuse river.

Personally I always have my doubts about eastern Limburg going to Prussia, as a large part of it had been traditionally Dutch (as in it belonged to the Dutch republic). Also during the congress of Vienna they actually created the border in a way that Prussia did not border the river Meusse. The Netherlands actually gained small parts of Prussian territory that way.

Also Luxemburg is a whole other story. It wasn't part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, but in a personal union. Although to be fair, in a way it was de facto part of the Netherlands.

Besides that I have my doubts of Prussia getting anything as they weren't really involved in the Belgian revolt. If they were, they would have supported the Dutch and crushed the Belgian troops (which the Dutch did anyway), or at least intervened when the French intervened. This could be an interesting POD BTW. The Dutch crush the Belgian revolt, the French intervene, the Prussians intervene on the Dutch side and in the end Belgium is roughly split between the occupying powers.

 

[pompejus]

That's not going to end well. I can see guerilla warfare in the whole region hapening. Peoples were fed up being rulled by foreigner.

I doubt it. This isn't the 21st century. People didn't go guerilla in those days. Most lower and middle class people didn't really cared if they were ruled by the French, Dutch, Prussians or an independent Belgium. Most people probably would accept whoever ruled them.

 

[Xgentis]

I doubt it. This isn't the 21st century. People didn't go guerilla in those days. Most lower and middle class people didn't really cared if they were ruled by the French, Dutch, Prussians or an independent Belgium. Most people probably would accept whoever ruled them.

The middle class was actually the core of the revolt. If they accepted anyone to rule them over we would not have revolted in the first place.

 

[pompejus]

The middle class was actually the core of the revolt. If they accepted anyone to rule them over we would not have revolted in the first place.

But the middle class has the most to lose with a guerilla. You really need the lower class for that.

 

[wietze]

The middle class was actually the core of the revolt. If they accepted anyone to rule them over we would not have revolted in the first place.

i thought it was the nobility and the clergy?

 

[wolf_brother]

I doubt it. This isn't the 21st century. People didn't go guerilla in those days. Most lower and middle class people didn't really cared if they were ruled by the French, Dutch, Prussians or an independent Belgium. Most people probably would accept whoever ruled them.

... You do realize that 19th century middle class Spaniards popularized the term 'guerrilla,' correct?

If most Belgians simply 'accepted whoever ruled them,' there never would have been a Belgian Revolution to begin with!

 

[Vingilótë]

I doubt it. This isn't the 21st century. People didn't go guerilla in those days. Most lower and middle class people didn't really cared if they were ruled by the French, Dutch, Prussians or an independent Belgium. Most people probably would accept whoever ruled them.

The Spanish and the Lutzow Freikorps would like to have a word with you.

 

[Eurofed]

Personally I always have my doubts about eastern Limburg going to Prussia, as a large part of it had been traditionally Dutch (as in it belonged to the Dutch republic). Also during the congress of Vienna they actually created the border in a way that Prussia did not border the river Meusse. The Netherlands actually gained small parts of Prussian territory that way.

Yes, but also note that what is now Dutch Limburg between 1839 and 1867 became the Duchy of Limburg, a part of the German Confederation, in a personal union with the Kingdom of Netherlands (same as the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg). Given this precedent, and the fact that Prussia had previously owned bits of that area, it seems far from unreasonable to make it part of the Prussian gains.

Also Luxemburg is a whole other story. It wasn't part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, but in a personal union. Although to be fair, in a way it was de facto part of the Netherlands.

As you say, it was just a personal union, Luxemburg was a part of the German Confederation, and hosted a Prussian garrison. So plenty of possible justification for it to go to Prussia in a territorial revision.

Besides that I have my doubts of Prussia getting anything as they weren't really involved in the Belgian revolt. If they were, they would have supported the Dutch and crushed the Belgian troops (which the Dutch did anyway), or at least intervened when the French intervened. This could be an interesting POD BTW. The Dutch crush the Belgian revolt, the French intervene, the Prussians intervene on the Dutch side and in the end Belgium is roughly split between the occupying powers.

This seems a very good PoD, I think we may adopt it.

 

[Jozon]

That's not going to end well. I can see guerilla warfare in the whole region hapening. Peoples were fed up being rulled by foreigner.

Don't project 20th century thought onto 19th century people. The Belgians didn't really care who ruled them, as long as they could get on with their daily lives, and keep being Catholics.

Even if there would be guerilla warfare, it would mostly be in Wallonia. The majority of the Flemish weren't opposed to being a part of the Netherlands. That doesn't mean they were happy with the situation before the revolt, but mostly the lower classes didn't really care about being under Dutch rule.

The middle class was actually the core of the revolt. If they accepted anyone to rule them over we would not have revolted in the first place.

Uhm... no. It was the French speaking upper classes (the upper classes in Flanders spoke French as well) who didn't like being ruled by the Dutch (who were trying to get the upper classes to speak Dutch) who were the core of the revolt, together with the Roman Catholic clergy.

 

[Xgentis]

Except that Prussia was dealing with war debt at the time.

 

[Eurofed]

OTL prevents French Flemish ports, the idea of a continental buffer state, and upholds British aloofness. You need to establish why exactly your idea didn't happen IOTL, or rather at least why it could happen ITTL. Simply saying "butterflies" isn't a real response. Once again, why would the British go for the plan you've outlined instead of simply recognizing the new Belgian state as they did IOTL?

Well, we may adopt the PoD Pompeius proposed: the Dutch crush the Belgian revolt (honestly, with a bit more decisive Dutch reaction, it would have been easy), the French intervene to uspport the Belgian revolutionaries, the Prussian intervene as well to support the Dutch, a three-way partition becomes the natural solution to prevent a major war.

You're a fool if you think that the will of a people who had just fought and a won a revolution is not important in deciding their fate. When the Greeks revolted the great powers were able to install an monarchy on a restive people; they didn't dare try to partition their newly won state. The history of rebellions and revolutions in Europe during the Vormärz clearly shows that the 'agreement' of the revolutionary people is of the highest priority for the great powers if they wish to impose any sort of order without committing themselves to a bloody campaign of conquest.

Bah. The success of the Belgian Revolution is almost entirely due to the ineptitude of the initial Dutch response, and later the meddling of the French. The Belgian revolutionaries themselves did not make much of an impressive military performance.

 

[Jozon]

... You do realize that 19th century middle class Spaniards popularized the term 'guerrilla,' correct?

If most Belgians simply 'accepted whoever ruled them,' there never would have been a Belgian Revolution to begin with!

There is a huge difference between having your fields burned and your female family members raped by a foreign invading power, and simply having your region switch hands through diplomatic channels. The Belgians had always been part of some foreign country.

 

[Xgentis]

There is a huge difference between having your fields burned and your female family members raped by a foreign invading power, and simply having your region switch hands through diplomatic channels. The Belgians had always been part of some foreign country.

It is for that we revolted to have our own country.

 

[pompejus]

Yes, but also note that what is now Dutch Limburg between 1839 and 1867 became the Duchy of Limburg, a part of the German Confederation, in a personal union with the Kingdom of Netherlands (same as the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg). Given this precedent, and the fact that Prussia had previously owned bits of that area, it seems far from unreasonable to make it part of the Prussian gains.

It only became part of it as compensation for the loss of half of Luxemurg after the Belgian revolt. De facto it was as much a part of the Netherlands as any other province. If they cared, they generally preferred to become Belgian instead of Prussia (although there didn't exist a secessionist majority, at least in 1848 according to my information).

Still I must admit I am a bit biased towards Limburg. I grew up there and I (kinda) like it. I usually prefer it to be Dutch.

 

[pompejus]

That for they we revolted to have our own country.

Tell that to the Flemish peasants who were oppressed for decades by the Francophone ruling classes.