What if no Belgium?

[pompejus]

Does anybody here have the details for the OTL suggested plan to partition the Southern Netherlands during that period? I have a feeling that it might have been a French idea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talleyrand_partition_plan_for_Belgium

There is also the often suggested Talleyrand-Wellington partion plan (basicly a split of Flanders and Wallonia), which is only mentioned on the Dutch wikipedia site and i have my doubts actualy existed.

 

[Vnix]

Does anybody here have the details for the OTL suggested plan to partition the Southern Netherlands during that period? I have a feeling that it might have been a French idea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talleyrand_partition_plan_for_Belgium

it was indeed a french plan

 

[Simreeve]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talleyrand_partition_plan_for_Belgium

There is also the often suggested Talleyrand-Wellington partion plan (basicly a split of Flanders and Wallonia), which is only mentioned on the Dutch wikipedia site and i have my doubts actualy existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talleyrand_partition_plan_for_Belgium

it was indeed a french plan

My thanks to both of you.

 

[pompejus]

My thanks to both of you.

Mind you, I don't think it will be accepted as proposed. There are a couple of things that the netherlands would be unlikely to give up. Zeelandic Flanders has been part of the Netherlands since the 80-year war for example. I doubt Prussia would get as much with doing basicly nothing, etc.

 

[Vnix]

Mind you, I don't think it will be accepted as proposed. There are a couple of things that the netherlands would be unlikely to give up. Zeelandic Flanders has been part of the Netherlands since the 80-year war for example. I doubt Prussia would get as much with doing basicly nothing, etc.

I have to agree, the creation of Belgium was a hard thing to swallow, but taking land that has been Dutch for so long I dont think that'll work. Furthermore it would strenghthen Prussia too much too

 

[pompejus]

I have to agree, the creation of Belgium was a hard thing to swallow, but taking land that has been Dutch for so long I dont think that'll work. Furthermore it would strenghthen Prussia too much too

My suggestion for a renegotiated Talleyrand plan would roughly be this:

Luxemburg and the northern part of the province of Liege to Prussia. All of Limburg and the east and north of the province of Antwerp to the Netherlands, just like Zeelandic Flanders.

The rest of the province of Antwerp, West and East Flanders and western Belgian Brabant to the Free state of Antwerp

The rest Namur, Hainaut, western Liege and eastern Belgian Brabant to France.

The end result is basicly the same, but Prussia gains a bit less and the Netherlands keeps (almost) all parts that have been Dutch before the French revolution.

Edit: For fun I added my counterproposal.

 

[miguelrj]

My suggestion for a renegotiated Talleyrand plan would roughly be this:

Luxemburg and the northern part of the province of Liege to Prussia. All of Limburg and the east and north of the province of Antwerp to the Netherlands, just like Zeelandic Flanders.

The rest of the province of Antwerp, West and East Flanders and western Belgian Brabant to the Free state of Antwerp

The rest Namur, Hainaut, western Liege and eastern Belgian Brabant to France.

The end result is basicly the same, but Prussia gains a bit less and the Netherlands keeps (almost) all parts that have been Dutch before the French revolution.

Edit: For fun I added my counterproposal.

Your version makes more sense than Talleyrand's. It also narrows the Franco-Prussian border which is good because even without hindsight one wants to buffer those two.

Maybe this calls for a different thread but I wonder how would a Free State of Antwerp evolve into the 20th century...

 

[Opunium]

Your version makes more sense than Talleyrand's. It also narrows the Franco-Prussian border which is good because even without hindsight one wants to buffer those two.

Maybe this calls for a different thread but I wonder how would a Free State of Antwerp evolve into the 20th century...

I wanna know how long it takes before it returns to the Dutch, for the sake of nice borders!

 

[miguelrj]

I wanna know how long it takes before it returns to the Dutch, for the sake of nice borders!

I like those borders too but TTL Antwerpians are even more likely to develop a Flemish national identity than OTL's. I guess the Dutch must do some serious flirting to help the Flemish to think of themselves as Dutch under British occupation/administration...

 

[ingemann]

Interesting demographic facts.

The United Kingdom of the Netherlands had a population which was split between 2 million Dutch, 2 million Flemish and 2 million Wallon

By 1900 Netherland had 5 million people and Belgium 7 million (the numbers is rounded to nearest million)

In Belgium the Flemish now made up around 4 million and the Wallon 3 million.

This mean that Netherlands grew 150%, Flandern 100% and Wallonia 50%.

We fundamental had a society and development (as Wallonia was the centre of the industrialistion) which favoured the Wallons, and the Flemish population grew much faster. At the same time the Dutch population grew even more. If the Flemish could have a similar birth rate as the Dutch the UKoN anno 1900 would have 13 million people, if we also included Luxembourg and a slightly lower emigration and higher immigration, we could push the population up to 14 million. Spain at the same point had 18 million people, and with the greater Dutch industrialisation and higher GDP, it would likely put both countries in the same weight class international.

Luxembourg are interesting, in OTL their language are seen as either a independent language or a dialect of German. Here it will likely (official) be seen as a dialect of Dutch (a very weird one), at the same time as a integrated part of UKoN it will likely see greater development. At the same time the Wallon Luxembourger are more likely to emigrate to the Wallon industrial areas in Western Wallonia, while Luxembourg instead will see German immigrants. As Wallon Luxembourg was always one of the least developed and most conservative areas of Wallonia, I can see a less proud identification with the liberal and secular Wallon identity. So it may be one of the few areas where the "Dutch" language win terrain. In the rest of Wallonia there will be a too strong Wallon/French identity so Dutch will have a lot of trouble spreading there (so the language border more or less stay where it is, at best I can see all of South Brabant going fully Flemish/Dutch).

The development of cities will also be different. Brussel lies well as the capital for Belgium, in the middle of the country at the language border. But without a Belgium being independent, it really serve little purpose, it do not lie at the major coal fields, not central on a transportation route. Most likely Brussel will be reduced to another Ghent, just another regional centre. Instead Antwerpen will be seen as the great South Netherlandic city, while Liege or Mons will be seen as the capital of the Wallons.

Maybe UKoN will set up/keep a few colonies in Africa, but really don't matter much in the greater perspective, what matters is that there position in Indonesia have been improved, and we may see more competion between Calvinists and Catholic missionaries in Indonesia (causing extra activity), maybe putting Christianity in somewhat stronger position. At the same time the bigger population in the homeland, will likely lead to a bigger Indo population (maybe a increase from 1% of the population of Indonesia to 2-3%).

 

[Viriato]

I don't really think a larger Netherlands would have really expanded in Africa since at the time the Netherlands was busy expanding its East Indies empire. The Dutch had the relics of slave trading forts in West Africa until 1872. With the slave trade long dead, they hadn't been profitable in a long while and they traded this for British recognition of Dutch rights over Sumatra.

We often forget that the Netherlands was conquering new islands and pacifying areas of Indonesia until the early 20th century. While other colonial powers were conquering the interior of Africa, the Dutch were extending their control beyond Java and the Moluccas. The map below, shows how much they really acquired during the scramble for colonies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Evolution_of_the_Dutch_East_Indies_(ru).png

 

[ingemann]

I don't really think a larger Netherlands would have really expanded in Africa since at the time the Netherlands was busy expanding its East Indies empire. The Dutch had the relics of slave trading forts in West Africa until 1872. With the slave trade long dead, they hadn't been profitable in a long while and they traded this for British recognition of Dutch rights over Sumatra.

We often forget that the Netherlands was conquering new islands and pacifying areas of Indonesia until the early 20th century. While other colonial powers were conquering the interior of Africa, the Dutch were extending their control beyond Java and the Moluccas. The map below, shows how much they really acquired during the scramble for colonies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Evolution_of_the_Dutch_East_Indies_(ru).png

I agree, but if Netherlands is in a stronger position and richer, they may see no need to sell their African coastal area, and when the Europeans decides to partition Africa, these coast area may get a thin finger of territory into the hinterland (thing Senegal or Gambia).

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I agree, but if Netherlands is in a stronger position and richer, they may see no need to sell their African coastal area, and when the Europeans decides to partition Africa, these coast area may get a thin finger of territory into the hinterland (thing Senegal or Gambia).

It depends on the Dutch relationship with the Great powers and who want's what they have. Look at Portugal, it was forced to give up claims to the center of southern Africa by the UK so the same could happen to the Dutch.

 

[katchen]

I think you might be overestimating the capabilities of the Dutch. I mean the dutch had been in decline for nearly the entire preceding century, so I find it hard to believe that they could regain great power status and compete with France and Britain. Sure some of your suggestions sound reasonable, like rapid industrialization or expanding the east Indies, but others are WAY out of left field. I can't see the dutch willingly antagonizing the most powerful of the Great powers by messing around in Southern Africa, nor can I see a colonial swap with Portugal. Nor can I see them building the Suez or Panama canals. For one, Egypt had long sense been in France's sphere of influence, so the French wouldn't take that lying down. And second, I doubt the US would appreciate the Dutch getting involved in the Americas either. The Monroe doctrine ring any bells? Personally I don't think adding Belgium's resources would help all that much. I mean the dutch would still have idiotic, incompetent leadership.

I suppose the British would have something to say about Portugal agreeing to such a swap. After all, Portugal and Great Britain are old allies So I'll concede your point on that score
And yes, Suez will be French dominated. I have to agree with you on that score.
On the other hand, the Monroe Doctrine did not make the US protest too heavily when Ferdinand de Lesseps attempted to build a Panama Canal in the 1890s. And that was AFTER the problems the US had with France attempting to create a puppet state in Mexico. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty only applied to the US and Great Britain. And neither the US nor Great Britain attempted to make it apply to third parties. And I think from an engineering standpoint, the Dutch would have quickly seen the problems with the Panama route and seen the greater potential with the much shorter Respereda (only 14 miles as opposed to 84 miles and maybe one lock on either side as opposed to three on either side on Panama) Canal and actually finished the thing in 5 years. It's the sort of thing that could sneak up on American and British policymakers, since the actual canal is between two rivers deep in the Colombian rainforest and the only explorer who showed that the canal was feasible was Alexander von Humboldt. Both the British and the Americans could be depended upon to believe that a Respereda Canal built by a private Dutch company would be a boondoggle until it actually opened for business and ships started steaming through it from Atlantic to Pacific and vice versa. Under Colombian sovreignty. But with the Dutch neatly acing out the British as the top importer and exporter in Colombia, especially since the Atrato, Respedura Canal and San Juan Rivers parallel the Magdalena and Cauca Rivers and are within 50 miles of both Medellin and Cali, making imports to and exports from Colombia's Valle de Cauca easy as soon as railroads can be built to handle them.
And on top of that, the Netherlands now has a shipping route to the Dutch East Indies that does not depend on either Africa or Suez but reaches New Guinea and Batavia from the other direction while also enabling American shipping, merchant and naval to reach the US West Coast easily. It could be enough to take the wind completely out of calls in the US to build a canal through Nicaragua that would be America's own while tying the US and the Netherlands together as allies in the same way that the US and Great Britain are tied together as allies IOTL (which does not preclude the US and UK being allies ITTL too).
.
Still, you might well be right about Netherland's incompetent leadership in the 19th Century. And rapid industrialization might or might not change that.

 

[katchen]

It depends on the Dutch relationship with the Great powers and who want's what they have. Look at Portugal, it was forced to give up claims to the center of southern Africa by the UK so the same could happen to the Dutch.

True, but Portugal was not industrialized. And the way the British got Portugal to back off on it's claims to Central Africa was by making a treaty with the Barotse that truncated Angola's eastern border. That and King Leopold's pressing of HIS claim to Katanga east of Angola's Lunda region east of Luanda.
Of course none of that would have happened if Portugal had managed to interest a German or American railroad company in building a railroad, say from Lourenco Marques to Benguela or Luanda finished by 1882. The physical presence of a railroad and the settlement that a railroad would bring would trump all the machinations of Cecil Rhodes and force him to develop Rhodesia someplace else, in East Africa, Ethiopia/Aden, Australia or New Guinea.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

True, but Portugal was not industrialized. And the way the British got Portugal to back off on it's claims to Central Africa was by making a treaty with the Barotse that truncated Angola's eastern border. That and King Leopold's pressing of HIS claim to Katanga east of Angola's Lunda region east of Luanda.
Of course none of that would have happened if Portugal had managed to interest a German or American railroad company in building a railroad, say from Lourenco Marques to Benguela or Luanda finished by 1882. The physical presence of a railroad and the settlement that a railroad would bring would trump all the machinations of Cecil Rhodes and force him to develop Rhodesia someplace else, in East Africa, Ethiopia/Aden, Australia or New Guinea.

Not my point. What I mean was Portugal was an ancient ally of Britain but when they stepped on British toes, they got slapped down. Settlement or no settlement if Britain wants it Britain will get it. After all a British naval squadron could easily sail very close to Lisbon to make a point. The same could happen with Amsterdam. Gunboat diplomacy was a favorite tactic of British foreign policy.

 

[Vnix]

My suggestion for a renegotiated Talleyrand plan would roughly be this:

Luxemburg and the northern part of the province of Liege to Prussia. All of Limburg and the east and north of the province of Antwerp to the Netherlands, just like Zeelandic Flanders.

The rest of the province of Antwerp, West and East Flanders and western Belgian Brabant to the Free state of Antwerp

The rest Namur, Hainaut, western Liege and eastern Belgian Brabant to France.

The end result is basicly the same, but Prussia gains a bit less and the Netherlands keeps (almost) all parts that have been Dutch before the French revolution.

Edit: For fun I added my counterproposal.

I do not think the Netherlands or the free state of Antwerp would accept Brussels to be French. But actually I'd like to have Belgium remain Dutch as a whole.

Not my point. What I mean was Portugal was an ancient ally of Britain but when they stepped on British toes, they got slapped down. Settlement or no settlement if Britain wants it Britain will get it. After all a British naval squadron could easily sail very close to Lisbon to make a point. The same could happen with Amsterdam. Gunboat diplomacy was a favorite tactic of British foreign policy.

IF the Netherlands remains in control of all of Belgium and Luxembourg, this would mean that the Netherlands is quite capable of maintaining a stronger fleet aswell. Also during these times there was a certain amount of Anglophobia in the Netherlands which would result in a stronger fleet. The REAL Anglophobia in the Netherlands in OTL only happened with the Boer wars, but prior to that there was some already also.

 

[pompejus]

I do not think the Netherlands or the free state of Antwerp would accept Brussels to be French.

I don't know. I was thinking of adding Brussels to the freestate, but Brussels was a Fench speaking city; at least the upper and probably the middle class considred themselves that way. So in the end I decided to add it to the french areas. Still i could see it different in a negotiated Talleyrand division. Although to be fair, I don't think the Netherlands would care that much. They are losing a big part of their country anyway and wether Brussels was French, Antwerpian, Dutch or Prussian wouldn't realy matter for them.

But actually I'd like to have Belgium remain Dutch as a whole.

Personally I prefer a Flanders-Walloon split between the Netherlands and France, which I think would be better for the Netherlands, the Flemish, France and probably even the Walloons (they will be a very important part of a much stronger country). I am perfectly willing to give up the Walloon industrial base for a lack of linguistic problems. Also the Catholic-Protestant divide will not be as unbalanced as when Wallonia would be part of the Netherlands. If Flanders would be part of the Netherlands, it would be 40% protestant/60% catholic. If the Walloon areas were included the catholics would totaly dominate the country, which would probably cause problems in the traditional protestant Netherlands (OTL was 60% protestant/40% catholic).

 

[Simreeve]

Mind you, I don't think it will be accepted as proposed. There are a couple of things that the netherlands would be unlikely to give up. Zeelandic Flanders has been part of the Netherlands since the 80-year war for example. I doubt Prussia would get as much with doing basicly nothing, etc.

Britain didn't want the [additional] continental entanglement that would have been involved, either.

 

[pompejus]

Britain didn't want the [additional] continental entanglement that would have been involved, either.

True, that was a major strike against it. I would propose to do the same thing as with Belgium. Antwerp (or however it would be called) would be a neutral nation and Britain, France, Prussia, the Netherlands (and perhaps Austria and Russia) would guarantee its neutrality.