No Belguim what is WW1 like

If Walonia was French and the Flemish areas either a mini state or part of the Netherlands how different would World War One be.

Would France do better in the early stages with a longer front to start with and better chances of the offensive working?

Would Britain be less close to France anyway?
 
If Walonia was French and the Flemish areas either a mini state or part of the Netherlands how different would World War One be.

Would France do better in the early stages with a longer front to start with and better chances of the offensive working?

Would Britain be less close to France anyway?
If you want to know the answer, first you have to ask more questions. How, why and when did this happen and what are the results of this happening?

Getting rid of Belgium could, and probably will, a lot of other changes. With a French Wallonia, for example, France probably has a stronger industrial might, which could mean it also has a stronger militairy, which could easily lead to France winning the Franco-Prussian war. Or Bismarck trying to prevent going to war with France and thus no Franco-Prussian war.

There are many other butterflies that has to be analysed before you could say what would happen in a WWI without Belgium.
 
Last edited:
If you want to know the answer, first you have to ask more questions. How, why and when did this happen and what are the results of this happening?

Getting rid of Belgium could, and probably will, a lot of other changes. With a French Wallonia, for example, France probably has a stronger industrial might, which could mean it also has a stronger militairy, which could easily lead to France winning the Franco-Prussian war. Or Bismarck trying to prevent going to war with France and thus no Franco-Prussian war.


In 1870, France and Germany were well matched as far as industry was concerned. It was only from about the 1880s that Germany started to pull ahead.

In 1870 as again in 1940 it was not weakness that defeated France but incompetent leadership. Acquiring Wallonia doesn't change that. A lot of details are changed but it's probbaly a wash in the end - perhaps with Bazaine getting trapped in Liege, and Napoleon coming a cropper somewhere against the Flemish border.

Perhaps France ends up ceding Wallonia inatead of Alsace-Lorraine.



There are many other butterflies that has to be analised before you could say what would happen in a WWI without Belgium.

Sure you wouldn't like to rephrase that - or at least reconsider the spelling?
 
It really depends on the circumstances. With a POD that causes Belgium to not exist, say for example, the 1830 Revolution failing, or implementation of the Talleyrand Plan, WWI as we know it would pretty much be butterflied away. There may be an alternate world war, or no world war at all.
 
Wouldn't Bismarck want A-L as a historical German territory? Wallonia really isn't.


Wallonia (indeed all Belgium) was part of the Holy Roman Empire until the 1790s, more recently than either Alsace (1648) or Lorraine (1766). So it's at least as historically "German" as they are.

Also, if the fighting has been wholly or largely further north than OTL, the war may end with Metz and Strasbourg still in French hands, which makes a German claim to A/L far more difficult to justify.
 
the Problem is the British empire wanted Belgium as a state,
it hat to serve as buffer state between Herself France and Prussian.
specially after Belgian revolution and separation from the Netherlands in 1830.
Emperor Napoleon the III play with idea of "buying Luxembourg and Walloon for french Empire"
But this let to a stronger French Empire with Walloon weapon maker at Liege.
this however it could change the 1870 french prussian war, what let to NO GERMAN EMPIRE !

I know this is more for "Discussion before 1900:" but it lead to this TL problem describe by Derek Jackson

let's looks on Flanders part of Netherlands and Walloon part of France
Emperor Wilhelm the II forbid it generals, the invasion of Netherlands under Schlieffen Plan.

with Independent Flanders is just same as Belgium in WWI, the germans troops rush true Flanders on way to Paris...
 
Wallonia (indeed all Belgium) was part of the Holy Roman Empire until the 1790s, more recently than either Alsace (1648) or Lorraine (1766). So it's at least as historically "German" as they are.

Also, if the fighting has been wholly or largely further north than OTL, the war may end with Metz and Strasbourg still in French hands, which makes a German claim to A/L far more difficult to justify.

But Bismarck was also able to justify the annexation on the basis of providing security for his new Empire, as Alsace-Lorraine cut off France from the Rhine, gave Germany the critical fortress city of Metz, and also on the basis that the vast majority of Alsace and a significant portion of Lorraine spoke a German dialect.

In terms of the war; even OTL, it only ended with the complete defeat of France through the fall of Paris and the defeat of virtually every French army, so I don't think that whether Metz and Strasburg have fallen would make any difference (Belfort OTL was not annexed, but this was at least as much because the population were all francophone and to let France keep it helped it save face as the fact that up until the end of the war, it had not yet fallen).
 
Top