WI Belgium got Talleyrand's partition

General Zod

Banned
Roughly speaking, in 1830 the Great Powers agree to partition the Catholic areas of the Kingdom of Netherland then in rebellion instead of setting them up as the united and indepedent neutral buffer state of Belgium. France gets Wallon areas, Netherlands keeps Flemish areas, Prussia gets Luxemburg, Eastern Liege-Namur, and Maastricht.

How would that affect history ? For one thing, no Belgium means other European countries colonize the Congo basin (likely the UK, they were expanding from Rhodesia, or maybe Germany), and maybe partition the area, which means no republic of Congo as we know it, no troubles in the '60s, no wars in equatorial Africa in the 1990s. Another thing, no neutral Belgium state in 1914 might mean no Schliffen Plan: Germany adopts an East First strategy, which butterflies the Entente UK away.
 
Roughly speaking, in 1830 the Great Powers agree to partition the Catholic areas of the Kingdom of Netherland then in rebellion instead of setting them up as the united and indepedent neutral buffer state of Belgium. France gets Wallon areas, Netherlands keeps Flemish areas, Prussia gets Luxemburg, Eastern Liege-Namur, and Maastricht.
For some reason I doubt the Netherlands would accept the loss of Maastricht. It had been part of the Netherlands since the end of 80-year war and one of the most important reasons for keeping the province of Limburg (you know, the appendix of the Netherlands). Still some compromise with Prussia could probably be made and Prussia would no doubt be happy with just Luxembourg and Liege.

Assuming the Netherlands keeps Flanders (or at least most of it, Brussels and probably Leuven and other places near the Walloon border that are now Dutch speaking would probably go to France) would mean a larger Franco-Prussian border and later a larger Franco-German border, assuming German unification isn't butterflied away (and lets assume that or else Susano will be angry). It is almost unavoidable that France and Germany go to war in the late 19th and early 20th century for the dominance in Europe. In this case the Netherlands will probably not get involved, going through it doesn't offer a very big advantage (at least in my opinion).

I think a scramble for Africa will still happen, at least Africa will still be devided by the European countries although maybe not in an as 'civilised' way as happed at Berlin. I think that (most) of the continent will end up in French hands, although parts could go to Portugal, Germany and Britain. (I do not think that the Netherlands would care one bit about it, so no Dutch congo as you sometimes see in maps in which the Netherlands keeps Belgium).
 
With more catholics in the netherlands i hope we get the same rights earlier the old Netherlands werent always nice to catholics.
 
With more catholics in the netherlands i hope we get the same rights earlier the old Netherlands werent always nice to catholics.
I think that changed in 1815 and certainly in 1848 with the new liberal constitution from Thorbecke. But with more catholics in the Netherlands there would be a major shift in the pillarization.
 
I suppose a bigger RKS? Maybe they now can really compede with the ARP?

Im not really an expert on the liberal constitution in 1848 (but i just answered many questions of it in my exam)

Or would the Flemish catholics organise themselves in a new party? Then you wouldnt have a mayor shift in the verzuiling (is that pillarisation?) because there still 2 catholic parties. they may have the same goals but still other parties.
 
I suppose a bigger RKS? Maybe they now can really compede with the ARP?

Im not really an expert on the liberal constitution in 1848 (but i just answered many questions of it in my exam)

Or would the Flemish catholics organise themselves in a new party? Then you wouldnt have a mayor shift in the verzuiling (is that pillarisation?) because there still 2 catholic parties. they may have the same goals but still other parties.
I don't think that the catholics from (Dutch speaking) Belgium and the Netherlands differ enough to found their own party. They probably would join the KVP, like the Catholics in Brabant, Limburg, Twente, etc. But not all of them would join the KVP, some would become liberals and socialists. It would mean that the catholic pillar (and yes, with pillarisation i mean verzuiling, i nicked that translation from wikipedia. I don't think that I should use Dutch words on a English forum.) would become stronger than OTL, but the socialist and liberal pillar would also gain strength, while the protestant pillar wouldn't. This could mean that the protestant split (Nederlands Hervormd-Gereformeerd) would be butterflied away, because they don't want to lose the influence they had. This of course assumes that pillarisation itself isn't butterflied away.

Btw i searched the web for some information about the Dutch catholic emancipation and got this source from the Dutch wikipedia (yes, that does mean it is in Dutch):
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katholieken
I know wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but it is the only one I have until I can check my own sources at home. But wikipedia confirms my assumtion that when the kingdom of the Netherlands was founded, the catholics gained (in theory) all rights the protestants had, eventhough this wasn't always the case in practice. That last bit changed whith the new constitution (and Thorbeckes government) although gradually.
 

General Zod

Banned
For some reason I doubt the Netherlands would accept the loss of Maastricht. It had been part of the Netherlands since the end of 80-year war and one of the most important reasons for keeping the province of Limburg (you know, the appendix of the Netherlands). Still some compromise with Prussia could probably be made and Prussia would no doubt be happy with just Luxembourg and Liege.

Good observation, IIRC Talleyrand's original plan did assign Maastrict to Prussia, but no doubt the exact borders of the partition might change during negotiations.

Assuming the Netherlands keeps Flanders (or at least most of it, Brussels and probably Leuven and other places near the Walloon border that are now Dutch speaking would probably go to France) would mean a larger Franco-Prussian border and later a larger Franco-German border, assuming German unification isn't butterflied away (and lets assume that or else Susano will be angry).

Besides the fact I rather sympathize with Susano's feelings :p, I see no reason why this should butterfly German unification away, quite the contrary. A more sated France, a slightly more powerful Prussia, France closer to the Rhine (that would make German minors less hesitant about unification), would all make Bismarck's job easier.

IMO, the issue here is different: given that an TTL Schiliffen Plan would go through French Wallonia, essentially, would France fortify the area as heavily as they did with OTL French Lorraine, which would butterfly Schliffen Plan away, and cause a Russia First strategy ? Anyway, no Belgium most likely means UK neutrality in WWI.

It is almost unavoidable that France and Germany go to war in the late 19th and early 20th century for the dominance in Europe. In this case the Netherlands will probably not get involved, going through it doesn't offer a very big advantage (at least in my opinion).

I agree. I also think a Dietsland Netherlands would be somewhat more sympathetic to Germany than OTL Belgium. Up to 1914, France was more or less the expansionist menace to the Dutch, not Germany, they had invaded under Lousis XIV and Napoleon.

I think a scramble for Africa will still happen, at least Africa will still be devided by the European countries although maybe not in an as 'civilised' way as happed at Berlin.

Shadow Over Fashoda ???

I think that (most) of the continent will end up in French hands, although parts could go to Portugal, Germany and Britain. (I do not think that the Netherlands would care one bit about it, so no Dutch congo as you sometimes see in maps in which the Netherlands keeps Belgium).

Well, Congo was the personal aggrandizement ploy of the Belgian King, so I agree. Dietsland will have its hands full colonizing Indonesia.

I hardly think Germany and the UK would allow France to gobble all or most of Africa, much less the Congo. They might try, but no doubt this would trigger a war with UK and Germany sometime in the 1880s-1890s. Such a rich area (the Congo basin) in the hands of a minor European monarch is one thing, to a major power like France is another. IIRC Cecil Rhodes was expanding the borders northward till he met with the southward expansion of Congo's borders in the midst of the Katanga mineral basin, I assume that the UK would simply colonize all of southeastern Congo. Portugal might expand the borders of NAgola eastward a bit but not too much, they would run into UK soon. Germany might make a good claim over Central and Eastern Congo, they would gain a really worthwhile African colony for a change. Might France cross the Congo river border and expand in western Congo ?
 
Besides the fact I rather sympathize with Susano's feelings :p, I see no reason why this should butterfly German unification away, quite the contrary. A more sated France, a slightly more powerful Prussia, France closer to the Rhine (that would make German minors less hesitant about unification), would all make Bismarck's job easier.
You are right, I realy doubt that in this case German unification would be butterflied away.
IMO, the issue here is different: given that an TTL Schiliffen Plan would go through French Wallonia, essentially, would France fortify the area as heavily as they did with OTL French Lorraine, which would butterfly Schliffen Plan away, and cause a Russia First strategy ? Anyway, no Belgium most likely means UK neutrality in WWI.
On the other hand, world war I probably would.

I agree. I also think a Dietsland Netherlands would be somewhat more sympathetic to Germany than OTL Belgium. Up to 1914, France was more or less the expansionist menace to the Dutch, not Germany, they had invaded under Lousis XIV and Napoleon.
True, although I don't think Dietsland would be used, probably just the Netherlands.
I hardly think Germany and the UK would allow France to gobble all or most of Africa, much less the Congo. They might try, but no doubt this would trigger a war with UK and Germany sometime in the 1880s-1890s. Such a rich area (the Congo basin) in the hands of a minor European monarch is one thing, to a major power like France is another. IIRC Cecil Rhodes was expanding the borders northward till he met with the southward expansion of Congo's borders in the midst of the Katanga mineral basin, I assume that the UK would simply colonize all of southeastern Congo. Portugal might expand the borders of NAgola eastward a bit but not too much, they would run into UK soon. Germany might make a good claim over Central and Eastern Congo, they would gain a really worthwhile African colony for a change. Might France cross the Congo river border and expand in western Congo ?
For some reason I said continent when I meant country. You could be correct about your analyses though.
 

General Zod

Banned
You are right, I realy doubt that in this case German unification would be butterflied away.

On the other hand, world war I probably would.

Why would WWI (not the specific 1914 occurrence, the general clash for power between Germany vs. France/Russia in the late 1800s and early 1900s) be butterfiled away ? And which kind of lineup would instead occur as the Great Powers of Europe vie for continental and world dominance under th spur of industrialization ?

True, although I don't think Dietsland would be used, probably just the Netherlands.

Quite true, OTOH, using Dietsland as an OOC moniker here and there is easier on the typing hand than Greater Netherlands. ;)

For some reason I said continent when I meant country. You could be correct about your analyses though.

OK. :)
 

Susano

Banned
Well, there was a reason the planned failed IOTLL, and that was virtually no European power wanted to see any French expansion in that area. I dont say its impossible, I just say you need to have some major changes in the diplomatic scene of the time, and that hasnt been talked about at all yet...

And Im touched about the considerations for my feelings shown here ;) :D
 
Well, there was a reason the planned failed IOTLL, and that was virtually no European power wanted to see any French expansion in that area. I dont say its impossible, I just say you need to have some major changes in the diplomatic scene of the time, and that hasnt been talked about at all yet...

And Im touched about the considerations for my feelings shown here ;) :D

You dont like French? Everyone loves the French!! *cough* not *cough*
 

General Zod

Banned
Well, there was a reason the planned failed IOTLL, and that was virtually no European power wanted to see any French expansion in that area. I dont say its impossible, I just say you need to have some major changes in the diplomatic scene of the time, and that hasnt been talked about at all yet...

Hmm, something like the French agreeing to a bit of territorial exchange, giving up Dunkirk and district to Netherlands, Thionville to Luxemburg (AKA Prussia), a bit of Mediterranean litoral, as it was suggested in that other timeline ? Plus Netherlands making a more stubborn diplomatic stand for keeping ethnically and culturally Dutch Flanders ? A stronger Netherlands had the backing of UK, giving Liegi and Luxembourg to Prussia means a raher stronger Prussia (and later Germany), let's say the powers agree a stronger NL and Prussia are in the end a better check to a France made stronger by Wallonia than a weak buffer state whose only fragile unifying factor was Catholicism.

And Im touched about the considerations for my feelings shown here ;) :D

Never mind. If I may go a bit offtopic here, besides the respect for your feelings and hard work here :), it's more a factor of shared opinions, I deem. I quite strongly dislike TLs that keep Germany and Italy divided as a strong factor of European instability, and quite fancy uberGermany Bismarckwank/Kaiserwank/1848 wank TLs as a rather better outcome for Europe overall. Greater Germany victorious in late 1800s and early 1900s means no Nazis (at most a nasty French or Russian racist fascism with less resources), no Holocaust (or at worse a uberpogrom in Russian-held areas), no or greately contained Communism, an earlier European Confederation under German supremacy, and the French lose yet another war ;):p
 
Top