Napoleon III and Belgium

I have heard that Napoleon III wished to annex Belgium and Luxembourg, however could he actually do this without starting a serious confrontation with Britain?
 
I have heard that Napoleon III wished to annex Belgium and Luxembourg, however could he actually do this without starting a serious confrontation with Britain?

Good question. Highly doubtful given how sensitive Britain was about Antwerp. Although if the Belgian Revolution of 1830 had gone a bit differently then the Netherlands might have been able to hold Flanders, leaving France free to take Wallonia. You'd need input from a Belgian though as this isn't my area of expertise.
 
You don't need someone from belgium, you need someone who knows about British foreign policy. Would Britain in the 19th century go to war over Belgium? My gutt feeling says yes and probably would find countries like Prussia on its side.

The only way I can see France attacking Belgium without other countries responding, if is Belgium forsake its neutrality for some (offensive) reason. Leo II at one point wanted to attack the Netherlands, hoping to annex the catholic south. If he does that for some reason (no idea how though, Belgian parliament would not agree), I can see France helping the Netherlands, kick some Belgian ass and annex part of it, without Britain reacting (Belgium was the agressor in the war after all). I doubt France will (or can) annex all of Belium in this case though. Both France and the Netherlands will probably only get small parts, while Belgium remains mostly intact.
 
I have heard that Napoleon III wished to annex Belgium and Luxembourg, however could he actually do this without starting a serious confrontation with Britain?

I think that France could realistically get Luxembourg but Belgium is a no-no. If I recall, the Second Empire had many plans that were fantastical, such as the House of Wettin giving up Saxony in exchange for a restored Poland, Austria getting back Silesia in exchange for France getting the Rhineland and many more. Annexing Belgium was just another crazy plan. The only way it would be realistic is if Belgium continues to be part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and for some stupid reason William III declares war on France, and promptly gets his ass handed to him. In the resulting peace treaty he seeds Belgium and Luxembourg to France.
 
You don't need someone from belgium, you need someone who knows about British foreign policy. Would Britain in the 19th century go to war over Belgium? My gutt feeling says yes and probably would find countries like Prussia on its side.

The only way I can see France attacking Belgium without other countries responding, if is Belgium forsake its neutrality for some (offensive) reason. Leo II at one point wanted to attack the Netherlands, hoping to annex the catholic south. If he does that for some reason (no idea how though, Belgian parliament would not agree), I can see France helping the Netherlands, kick some Belgian ass and annex part of it, without Britain reacting (Belgium was the agressor in the war after all). I doubt France will (or can) annex all of Belium in this case though. Both France and the Netherlands will probably only get small parts, while Belgium remains mostly intact.
The Belgian parliament would have never agree to that. A war with the dutch is not impossible but belgium would not be the agressor if such a war happend.
 
The only way I can see France attacking Belgium without other countries responding, if is Belgium forsake its neutrality for some (offensive) reason. Leo II at one point wanted to attack the Netherlands, hoping to annex the catholic south. If he does that for some reason (no idea how though, Belgian parliament would not agree), I can see France helping the Netherlands, kick some Belgian ass and annex part of it, without Britain reacting (Belgium was the agressor in the war after all). I doubt France will (or can) annex all of Belium in this case though. Both France and the Netherlands will probably only get small parts, while Belgium remains mostly intact.

I've seen Leopold II accused of many things, but not yet of planning an attack on The Netherlands. What is your source for this ?

To my knowledge, the only time when there was talk of annexation of Dutch territory by Belgium was right after WWI,
where a couple of hotheads designed hairy schemes to that effect. It was absolutely not supported by King Albert, though, but the noise was loud enough to create real concern in The Netherlands.

And on the main topic of the thread, agree that Britain would not have let it happen. See the two treaties signed with France and Prussia at the start of the Franco-Prussian war.
 
Last edited:
The Belgian parliament would have never agree to that.
Of course not, but it was basicly the only way I saw France being allowed to annex part of Belgium without the rest of Europes declaring war on France.

A war with the dutch is not impossible but belgium would not be the agressor if such a war happend.
And neither would the Netherlands be the agressor. The Netherlands pretty quickly decided they didn't care about Belgian territory anymore.
I've seen Leopold II accused of many things, but not yet of planning an attack on The Netherlands. What is your source for this ?

http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/..._Leopold_II_wanted_to_conquer_the_Netherlands

There are other sources (mostly Dutch), it was well published a couple of years ago.
Eh? I thought that Flanders was the old Catholic part of The Netherlands?
No, the south of the Netherlands (Brabant and Limburg) was still catholic and a pretty large part of the inhabitants of the rest of the Netherlands were catholic too. I believe in the 19th century roughly 40% of the Dutch were catholic and 60% protestant.
 
The best case scenario - for France - was probably something like the Talleyrand partition plan:

300px-Partition-plan-Talleyrand-en.svg.png


And yet, as we all probably know, Talleyrand's partition plan was rejected by the other powers. And that was with no established treaty obligations to an existing state, and with a weak Bourbon running France, not some gentleman with the last name of "Bonaparte."

Which is a shame, perhaps, because a partition like this probably made more sense, ethnographically, economically, and linguistically. Of course, it has the disadvantage of giving Germany (once it came into existence) and France a longer and flatter border, which could have had interesting consequences in 1914 or thereabouts.

But then there also wouldn't be the Congo Free State and its attendant genocide, either.
 
I am pretty sure that Napoleon III discussed with Bismarck that if France remained neutral in the seven weeks war, Prussia would remain neutral in a french attempt to annex Belgium.

I'm pretty sure you're incorrect.

Napoléon III wanted Luxembourg, not Belgium.
 
That's like saying any X ruler wanted to conquer the world. It has absolutely no backing.
It is an educated guess. France wanted the Rhine border for centuries and looking at the FFranco-Prussian war and the attempt of aquiring Luxemburg, it looks like Napoleon III inherited that claim.
 
That's like saying any X ruler wanted to conquer the world. It has absolutely no backing.
The book "The Franco-Prussian War: The German Conquest of France in 1870-1871" by Geoffrey Wawro, states that Napoleon III did have the desire to annex both Luxembourg and Belgium. The question I proposed with this thread is if France could actually do this without starting a war with Britain and if so how?
 
It is an educated guess. France wanted the Rhine border for centuries and looking at the FFranco-Prussian war and the attempt of aquiring Luxemburg, it looks like Napoleon III inherited that claim.

It's not a very educated guess if you're applying generalizations.

The book "The Franco-Prussian War: The German Conquest of France in 1870-1871" by Geoffrey Wawro, states that Napoleon III did have the desire to annex both Luxembourg and Belgium. The question I proposed with this thread is if France could actually do this without starting a war with Britain and if so how?

I've read this book, and a) it doesn't mention anything of the sort, while b) it's a Germanophilic tome that I wouldn't exactly call a reliable source. Wawro spends the greater part of his work prancing on about how awesome Bismarck is and how great Prussia/Germany was. He's basically regurgitating what other, better, writers have said long before - and what other, better writers, have long since rebuffed.

Now, placing Belgium in Paris' sphere of influence? Oh yes, certainly. But that's far and away quite a different beast altogether from annexation & integration into France proper.
 
It's not a very educated guess if you're applying generalizations.



I've read this book, and a) it doesn't mention anything of the sort, while b) it's a Germanophilic tome that I wouldn't exactly call a reliable source. Wawro spends the greater part of his work prancing on about how awesome Bismarck is and how great Prussia/Germany was. He's basically regurgitating what other, better, writers have said long before - and what other, better writers, have long since rebuffed.

Now, placing Belgium in Paris' sphere of influence? Oh yes, certainly. But that's far and away quite a different beast altogether from annexation & integration into France proper.

Ok, in that case what source do you have that sais Napoleon III was not interested in Belgium?
 
Ok, in that case what source do you have that sais Napoleon III was not interested in Belgium?

Literally everything else ever written on him by someone competent?

Baguley's Napoleon III and His Regime.
Duff's Eugenie and Napoleon III.
Wetzel's A Duel of Giants.

Etc., etc.

Hell, even Wikipedia if you just comb through enough articles, check their sources, and read through the German, French, Dutch, Italian, etc., Wikipedia pages for the same articles, and check their sources.

The issue in regards to Belgium wasn't Napoléon III, it was the jealous and paranoid Belgian King Leopold I, who had been squawking about the imminent and existential threat a Bonapartist France posed to his kingdom since 1848.
 
Top