WW1, but No Belgium

Friedrich der Große

Friedrich der Große

What if in an alternate timeline, The Netherlands kept Belgium because there is no Belgian Revolution in 1830. I think that in this case, it is reasonable to assume that World War One would still happen: Franz Ferdinand is still killed in 1914 and the Great Powers like Germany, France and Russia still go to war.

But how would this war look like? What role would a still alive United Kingdom of the Netherlands play in it? And what would be the other differences?

Thoughts?
 

Peg Leg Pom

In this case it Imperial Germany will also be at war with and have to occupy the Netherlands. It wouldn't make a great deal of difference to the war but would stretch the German Army even more.

20 years later Hitler faces a Netherlands that has learned the lesson that neutrality and weak defences are no defence and faces a much harder fight.
 

Garrison

Donor
The British will want that piece of coast in friendly hands so their actions will be the same, I can't see it making a difference, mainly since a pre-1900 POD means that any war in Europe will be substantially different.
 

ArtosStark

A Netherlands including Belgium may have a much more active part in European Politics. That alone can create a heap of butterflies. Their view and actions during German Unification and the Franco-Prussian War for example.
 

pompejus

ArtosStark said:
A Netherlands including Belgium may have a much more active part in European Politics. That alone can create a heap of butterflies. Their view and actions during German Unification and the Franco-Prussian War for example.
Click to expand...
How about Luxemburg. OTL Luxemburg was effectively an integral part to the Netherlands before Belgium split. That alone would cause butterflies for German unification. No Luxemburg crisis for one. Secondly, maybe you could get a Schleswick-Holstein war over Luxemburg if the Dutch want to completely annex Luxemburg, or at least refuse further integration in to Germany.

Also the Netherlands probably would have better relations with Germany than Belgium did, completely changing the international dynamics.

And lets not forget the elephant in the room. Britain went to war with Germany over Belgium, because they signed a treaty that they would protect Belgian neutrality at the end of the Belgian revolt. That treaty would not exist in this timeline (that said, I believe Belgium was just an excuse, but Britain would need a different excuse).
 

Nivek

Dude butterflies but using a net, no invasion as Germany appreciated dutch neutrality and that means France has to execute plan 17 ie kicking and screaming in eltass Lothringen
 

ArtosStark

Nivek said:
no invasion as Germany appreciated dutch neutrality
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. The Schlieffen plan did include going through the Netherlands at various points. And supposedly Moltke's fall back if Liege held too long was to go through Dutch territory to get around the city. They didn't really want to widen the confrontation to include the Netherlands but were willing to go over Dutch Neutrality too if they felt it necessary.

That said, ITTL I expect that, assuming most else goes as OTL, German diplomacy will focus on either bringing the Netherlands into their camp or preparing to invade it. It is still by far the best way into France. Which one probably depends on the shared history to this point.
 
Osman Aga

Osman Aga

Banned
PBErik said:
What if in an alternate timeline, The Netherlands kept Belgium because there is no Belgian Revolution in 1830. I think that in this case, it is reasonable to assume that World War One would still happen: Franz Ferdinand is still killed in 1914 and the Great Powers like Germany, France and Russia still go to war.

But how would this war look like? What role would a still alive United Kingdom of the Netherlands play in it? And what would be the other differences?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I am not sure if the Netherlands keeping Belgium ensures enough butterflies that still leads to WW1.

But for the sake of it...

The Dutch were pretty pro-German, especially with the Boer Wars the British had started. They may be convinced by the Germans to pass the German troops from the North although even with Belgium, the Dutch would be a constitutional monarchy with the parliament leading the country. So they may not be urged to let Germany pass and draw the ire of the British against Dutch Ship.

But...! The Germans can just hold their ground in the Elzas while the French lose many men. If the French do something like trying to move through the Ardennes against Germans, the Germans have legal grounds to enter the area that would have been Belgium and with the Dutch fighting along with them.

Considering how close France was at a mutiny in 1917 in OTL, there is a good chance France will lose this, with or without British aid.
 

NoMommsen

PBErik said:
Which butterflies?
Click to expand...
Atll happens the Third Partition of Luxembourg or not ? ,,, as well as the notorious Treaty of London of 1839 with the even more notoriuos guarantee for Belgium ? ... as well as for the rest fo Luxembourg in the Treaty of London of 1867 ?
What happens with the Prussian-French War of 1870/71 and esp. another (though only temporary) british guarantee for belgium by the synchrone Gladstone treaties with Berlin and Paris threatening each with british belligerency ion cas of their violotion of belgian neutrality ?
What happens to the ... "belgian Congo" of OTL ? Who migth seize it instead with no belgian King supporting Stanley as he wasn't a ... 'vafored' by the British goverment at that time IIRC ? Would there still be a Berlin Congo conference giving Bismarck an international stage ?

... these as the most ... obvious (?) ... first and possibly biggest that come to my mind.
 
Aghasverov

Aghasverov

Peg Leg Pom said:
In this case it Imperial Germany will also be at war with and have to occupy the Netherlands. It wouldn't make a great deal of difference to the war but would stretch the German Army even more.

20 years later Hitler faces a Netherlands that has learned the lesson that neutrality and weak defences are no defence and faces a much harder fight.
Click to expand...
20 years later and there might be no Hitler, at least worth speaking of... he could've wound up dead atop some contested hilltop somewhere in the Eifel, or wound up painting streetscapes in Amsterdam :)
 

Riain

Banned
Just on the face of the the combined Belgian and Dutch army would be over 600,000 men, which is no pushover but if Germany conquered it they could move the HSF to Antwerp to really threaten the British.
 

James Proffer

PBErik said:
Which butterflies?
Click to expand...
Napoleon in OTL was a loose cannon lurching from one crisis t of his own making to another. A United Provinces too strong to easily bully and with friendly relations with the UK implies he makes different mischief.

A different Napoleon III with a different back story or some other French Head of State entirely and France doesn't declare war on Prussia. No loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Better FrancoGerman relations. No automatic French support for Serbia in the hypothetical assassination

Another is perhaps no third Republic. No aggressive French colonial expansion in the late 19th century.

Yet another btterfly flapping might be if the second empire doesn't collapse in 1870 but sometime later in the century France experiences another civil war. As I read "Collapse of the Third Republic" the French right of that time was kinda dumb.
 

Questerr

Isn’t it likely that the French-speaking mostly-Catholic regions of Belgium would continue agitating for independence from Dutch-speaking Protestant Netherlands?
 

Peg Leg Pom

Questerr said:
Isn’t it likely that the French-speaking mostly-Catholic regions of Belgium would continue agitating for independence from Dutch-speaking Protestant Netherlands?
Click to expand...
Belgium could have been divided between the Netherlands and France rather than gaining independence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top