WI: Not-So-Brave Little Belgium?

[Flashman]

As you likely know, the Belgians made a futile but brave decision to fight back against German invasion in World War 1, briefly delaying the German advance.

Had the Belgians, due to some minorly divergent personality on the part of the King, decided not to bravely fight back to spare the lives of their people and of the Germans, what would the impact have been? Would the removal of the delay been enough for the Germans to overwhelm the French and march on Paris? Or would the lack of resistance remove the need for German atrocities, and thus significanntly change the PR outlook? Would the lack of atrocities delay British entrance into the war? Would it prevent American entrance entirely?

 

[Cornelis]

As you likely know, the Belgians made a futile but brave decision to fight back against German invasion in World War 1, briefly delaying the German advance.

Had the Belgians, due to some minorly divergent personality on the part of the King, decided not to bravely fight back to spare the lives of their people and of the Germans, what would the impact have been? Would the removal of the delay been enough for the Germans to overwhelm the French and march on Paris? Or would the lack of resistance remove the need for German atrocities, and thus significanntly change the PR outlook? Would the lack of atrocities delay British entrance into the war? Would it prevent American entrance entirely?

What happened to the 1900 boundary ?

On 1914, the Germans did attack immediately after the declaration of war. At Liège, they did not manage to take the fortresses of the city. Not because the Belgian army put up a raging desperate fight to the death - they were courageous nonetheless - but because German intelligence underestimated the strength of the garrison. No Belgian leader could have wanted to capitulate when there was still a battle ongoing. Had the Germans took Liege in a day or two, things might have been different.

 

[Flashman]

What happened to the 1900 boundary ?

Already asked the mods to move it. Though I suppose arguably one could say something happened to the King to change his personality pre-1900, but still.

 

[Aphrodite]

It would take a lot more than a minor personality change- like mass insanity for the Belgians not to fight. Both Leopold and Albert were adamant in defending Belgium. They were well aware what the fate of the country would be if the didn't.

If Germany won, they would never leave. If the French won, they would treat Belgium as an enemy. In either case, Belgium would have no future other than slavery

 

[Flashman]

If Germany won, they would never leave.

What's this based on? The Germans certainly gave guarantees to the contrary.

 

[Aphrodite]

What's this based on? The Germans certainly gave guarantees to the contrary.

When Albert heard that one his response was "What kind of fool does he take me to be?" What guarantees could the Germans offer? Nothing the Belgians could enforce. If the Germans wouldn't respect Belgian neutrality that they had pledged, why would they honor the offers made in 1914

 

[Flashman]

When Albert heard that one his response was "What kind of fool does he take me to be?" What guarantees could the Germans offer? Nothing the Belgians could enforce. If the Germans wouldn't respect Belgian neutrality that they had pledged, why would they honor the offers made in 1914

What would the Germans have to gain through perpetual occupation of Belgium?

 

[GDIS Pathe]

What would the Germans have to gain through perpetual occupation of Belgium?

what do they have to lose?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

What would the Germans have to gain through perpetual occupation of Belgium?

what do they have to lose?

Who said anything about a perpetual military occupation? Enforcing THAT would be stupid. Now, putting pressure on Belgium to "better integrate" its economy with the broader German Reich, maybe allow the High Seas Fleet to recoal at your major ports? You know what, we'll even supply the coal and a the place to put it if you'll let us keep a tiny garrison there... after all, we ARE signatures of a gurantee of your future security. And if you'll let our companies build railroads through the Congo why, that would greatly benefit your local economy and insure that its protected by the full might of Germany's native contigents in the event of a revolt or invasion. So what if we'll be using it during peacetime too?

Its the prospect of being inescapably under German economic and political dominance, and losing their multi-party guranteed neutrality and security, that's the threatening prospect. Nothing so cartoonishly evil as Wolfenstein: Kaisrreich Edition.

 

[Riain]

what do they have to lose?

Apparently German politicians and industrialist were concerned to the point of paranoid about having punitive trade barriers erected against them around the world, a MittelEuropa was no substitute for global trade to the German economy. As such they were quite careful to ensure any changes to the status of the likes of Belgium would be acceptable to the other great trading nations even though they'd been defeated.

That's what they'd have to lose; free access to global markets.

 

[Aphrodite]

Apparently German politicians and industrialist were concerned to the point of paranoid about having punitive trade barriers erected against them around the world, a MittelEuropa was no substitute for global trade to the German economy. As such they were quite careful to ensure any changes to the status of the likes of Belgium would be acceptable to the other great trading nations even though they'd been defeated.

That's what they'd have to lose; free access to global markets.

Nah, the yakkity yak of civilians will mean nothing. The Germans will impose harsh terms like Versailles because no one could stop them. The September plan is an attempt to present modest demands. It would never have happened.

The second the Germans marched into Belgium, the Belgians were going to finance the German War effort. Once France is beaten, then there's Britain to deal with.

A big point in Grey's speech to the Commons was that even if Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark weren't occupied, they would lose their independence. Germany would be so powerful that none of them could stand up to the Germans. The minor powers would have their economic and political fate determined in Berlin The same fate awaits the Austrians

 

[NoMommsen]

Nah, the yakkity yak of civilians will mean nothing. The Germans will impose harsh terms like Versailles because no one could stop them. ...

... very "logical" and reasonable arguementation ...

However.
The Brits would be "in" nevertheless, as they have to watch/guard for the channel coast. Dunno, if they would be able to place a ... "securing force" (made of what troops ?) against belgian objections in i.e. Antwerp.
Though without the "rape of Belgium" aka the named atrocities it might be allowed to ask, if the Kitchener army would be as much a success, as it was without a doubt IOTL.
American entry would/could still happen as IOTL, depending on the germans behavior regarding sub-warfare adn stupidity (mexico.telegram).
In being some days "faster" the first encounters with the Brits as well as the french will happen already on french soil, what could make for a successfull "race to the sea" already in september.