I don't think so. It would give them a land border that they'd have to defend which would probably be lost anyway in the first stages of a large war.
An outlet completly surrounded by one country...France....so no, not paticularyYes, I imagined that the Pale's plain hinterland doesn't exactly make it a fortress.
But I forgot to add that this isn't a question purely for a military POV. For instance, wouldn't the British somehow commercially profit with an outlet in the Continent?
Not 1 but 2.An outlet completly surrounded by one country...France....so no, not paticulary
(while allotting Dunkirk to the Dutch so that the Netherlands would border the Pale on its east)
Calais isn't on the border - it's about 55 km west of it. If you'd have Britain control the whole area from Calais to the Belgian/Southern Netherlands border, you'd be taking a sizable chunk of territory from France and it will not be happy.
The city centers, yes. But I believe the historic Pale of Calais and the French Flanders (that is to be awarded to the Netherlands along with the Austrian Flanders) roughly border each other.Calais and Dunkirk aren't all that close to each other (about 40-50 km apart, I believe).
That's the point. The farthest from England the merrier.If you take both away from France, you're eliminating France's entire North Sea coastline.
France won't be happy, no.There will be calls for revenge in France if that happens.
Keeping France's pre-Revolution territory intact was considered important to maintaining Louis XVIII's credibility as king. Taking this much away would make his job that much tougher.
I see.It is far too late for this at this point.
Any France worth its salt will feel the need to take back such valuable and historically significant territory and Britain is not at its best if it has to commit forces to a ground war in the continent for a sustained periods.
It sometimes found it necessary to do so but that has a rather mixed record and policy makers would be horrified at the idea of needing a permament standing army in the continent to defend a land that it has not held for centuries and will inevitably lead to an expensive war.
Also more French speakers in the Netherlands will be asking for a worse revolt and OTL that almost ended in the French annexing Flanders but didn't as a means of placating the British, in this scenario the French will probably accept.
Though its not like Britian is at war 24/7 (despite British tendency during the time period to stick their dick into everything). Important question is what commercial gains can Britain get from Calais in peacetime (and form cutting off France's north eastern coast).I don't think so. It would give them a land border that they'd have to defend which would probably be lost anyway in the first stages of a large war.