Netherlands Retaining Belgium > No Cultuurstelsel ?

Was the seccession of Belgium the primary factor behind the establishment of Cultuurstelsel in Netherlands' East Indies more then the destructive war against Diponegoro ? Say, if Belgium is retained and Cultuurstelsel is prevented, how exactly will it change Dutch colonial policy and thus, the development of NEI/Indonesia ?
 
I was in the impression that there was a 'cultuur stelsel' implemented in the late 1820ties although on a still limited scale.
The main driving force was the large debt of the (North) Netherlands, which of course dramatically increased due to the Belgian revolt and the maintaining of a large army until 1839.
One of the major discontents of the South Netherlands was that they had to pay, by tax, for the debt of the North, the former Dutch Republic.
In short I doubt a 'cultuur stelsel' will be prevented, simply it is too easy form of extracting money. I do not know how much it limited the development of private owned colonial enterprises. The 'cultuur stelsel' was a state owned system and state owned institutions tend to be on the long run inefficient and hamper private enterprise.
 
Was Belgium a lost cause ?
No, it wasn't. You need either a better policy prerevolt or a more decisive action during the revolt, or a better diplomatic reaction (for example Russia wanted to help, but was busy in Poland), etc.

In short there are far less likely ideas proposed on this forum than a Dutch Belgium.
 
It'll be interesting if Talleyrand can get his Partition Plan through.
I find the entire Talleyrand partition plan rather dubious for various reasons. i could see a renegotiated partition plan though, in which the Netherlands keeps some core areas (Zeelandic Flanders) and Prussia loses some parts of what they would have gotten (no Maas border for example, there was a reason they lost it in Vienna). And even that still contains the problem of the Antwerp Free state, which I doubt the British would want, at least the variant proposed in the Talleyrand plan. The British were retreating from Europe after all. Also I doubt the British would want France to grow in size.

And it is ignoring the wishes of the Belgian population, but to be fair, that is hardly out of the norm, ignoring the populations wishes. To be fair, that Walloon coals fields becoming French would be a very interesting POD and would certainly reshape European history.
 
When considering the aftermath though, also consider how the inceptors of cultuurstelsel thought that it was a benevolent act, or at least fair. Much of the atrocities and hunger attributed to it was due to mismanagement and corruption. Thus the aftermath would follow the same lines.
 
And it was inevitable. Calling it naive would be an understatement. No good result will be yielded from such scheme when done under the combination of racial class system and feudalism. Frankly, it won't otherwise anyway. The whole state-monopoly nature of the enterprise and the ultimate nature of colonialism means the colonized subjects will still suffer.

There was already a forerunner proto-stelsel system already in effect in West Java IIRC. Certainly it had a model to run with. But my impression is that after Belgian secession, Netherlands was in the state of panic and in need for money fast. I guess the system will still expand out of Priangan, but perhaps at gradual pace and not as thorough as OTL, without the raging motivation to escape default. Low-profile, partial Stelsel system will might allow less restriction for the native subjects to advance while also likely to last much longer.
 
No, it wasn't. You need either a better policy prerevolt or a more decisive action during the revolt, or a better diplomatic reaction (for example Russia wanted to help, but was busy in Poland), etc.

Can you give a shed on what kind of better prevention or decisive counter-revolt action necessary ? I know next to nothing about Dutch-Belgian history. Quick check from wikipedia tells me that there was difference between father and son over the solution and that the Dutch war decision making is implied to be rather poor. I think pre-revolt compromise would be kinda hard since it has to be reconciled with the need to pay the debt quickly, so I guess force is the only way. It might only delay the inevitable, but I guess it will be quite some time before that comes.
 
Can you give a shed on what kind of better prevention or decisive counter-revolt action necessary ? I know next to nothing about Dutch-Belgian history. Quick check from wikipedia tells me that there was difference between father and son over the solution and that the Dutch war decision making is implied to be rather poor. I think pre-revolt compromise would be kinda hard since it has to be reconciled with the need to pay the debt quickly, so I guess force is the only way. It might only delay the inevitable, but I guess it will be quite some time before that comes.
Basicly, if the Dutch king would have treated the Belgians a bit better the revolt could have been prevented. Besides that his son was an idiot and made the situation worse, when he lived in Brussels. Sending his other son could have prevented the revolt or stopped it before it could get out of hand. Also if the Dutch king tried to deal with the situation earlier, instead of waiting to sent his army, he probably would have been able to beat the Belgians before they could have made the diplomatic contacts that ensured the Belgian states survival. The Dutch army was able to defeat the Belgian rvolutionaries relatively easily before the French decided to intervene (and that is ignoring any potential Prussian or Russian help the Dutch might have gotten).
 
At the time the south was more popullated and were second class citizen who were badly represented in the dutch parliament,the catholic church had a huge influence in Belgium and was hostile to the dutch. Only in blood could the united kingdom of the netherland stay together. There are too much "if" for it to work.
 
Top