What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#16

Post by nuyt » 20 May 2021, 22:39

OK, some extra thought on this matter:

Luxembourg after 1815 was not meant to be part of the United NL, but it was in personal union with the King (who was the Duke of Lux). No Dutch rule applied in Lux and the city/fortress received a Prussian garrison (including on paper 1/4 Dutch troops).

Apart from the personal interests of the Dutch King, the United NL would not be interested in territorial expansion, just trade and colonies- for which you need international peace. There were plenty of Dutch politicians IRL who wanted to lose Lux, because being involved their through the King constituted a security risk and the country could be drawn in a Franco-Prussian war.

This almost happened in 1867 when France almost bought Lux from the Dutch King for 5 million guilders, a sale that was vetoed by Prussia (it was a casus belli). Nevertheless, the Prussian fortress was dismantled. Lux was guaranteed eternal neutrality at the Treaty of London of that year (a cause mediated by Russia :) ). A few years later it would still come to war, though Lux stayed out of it. The personal union of the Dutch Royal house with Luxembourg came to an end in 1890 already, because the male line died out and Lux found another family to run as dukes.

I think a United NL would have been better off without Lux (as it was on the map shown above). So they would have let it go in our scenario and may have even added a few adjoining lands (Bouillon, Eastern Liege prov) to go with it. By now the United NL would run less of a security risk in case of a Franco-Prussian conflict. It would stay behind its Meuse fortresses, while war could rage in the Ardennes. It would have better chances of survival by making itself a bit smaller :) No need for anybody to invade. And with the added bonuses of a more homogeneous nation (90% NL speaking), good borders and a clear focus on intl trade and empire. It's possible that Lux falls to Prussia in or after 1870, but that's fine. The German Empire is still the United NL largest trade partner, so let them.

Strategic industries like armaments and steel however would have been moved away from the border lands towards safer Antwerp or Dutch cities to the north (this was Dutch policy before WW1). That means Walloon cities do not grow as much as IRL and do not receive Flemish workers that will become French speaking over the years. Instead Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam will see a large influx of Walloons who become Dutch speaking over the years. Brussels with its growing number of Dutch speaking bureaucrats and businessmen, without French immigration, will also become a largely Dutch speaking city.

The Army by 1914 can raise about 500.000 with a deeper reservoir of another 500.000. 200.000 are in the Field Army, with 8 divisions and two cavalry Divisions, 200.000 are fortress troops (mainly reserves) and another 100.000 are in the Burgerwacht/
Schutterij. Colonial troops are the 30.000 strong Colonial Army (80% locals) and the 20.000 strong Korps Fusiliers (open to all Europeans as IRL).

Empire:
Like I wrote before only as a neutral small country could the NL survive as a colonial power. In the case of a United NL the Indies are united a bit faster and become a bit bigger. Sumatra is acquired as IRL after an earlier treaty of London (that left Singapore and Malacca in British hands, but did not take care of Borneo). Northern Borneo can thus also be slowly acquired by the Dutch, before adventures such as Brooke can settle in. Maybe the Dutch also acquire eastern parts of New Guinea, instead of the Germans. The extra manpower from the southern NL as well as southern businesses give the Dutch extra momentum to expand its empire as well as raise the number of troops and other Europeans in the colonies to almost twice the number than IRL (from 200000 in 1914 to 350000).

Having lost the Cape to the British, the Dutch establish a supply base on the route towards the Indies at Walvisbaai in the first half of the nineteenth century. They had been there before and it was up for grabs until the 1870s. They do not take all of present day Namibia, but just go south towards the Orange and establish contact with the Boers in other parts of Southern Africa. But the Brits still establish their overland route through Kimberley north and the Dutch will not risk war with them.

So my bet for the survival of the United NL is a smaller European territory - minus Lux, Ardennes, and a larger Indies (plus Sabah/Serawak/eastern New Guinea) and a base at Walvisbaai. That's how it is by 1914. Does the United NL stay out of the war?
I'd say it has a very good chance.

It will have mobilized 500.000 men in August, sitting behind its relatively strong lines of fortresses. It has access to raw materials for armaments in the Indies, it has a modest though well equipped navy and colonial force that is capable of actions far away (and harass German colonies). And it may join the other side if attacked.
Yes, it can be overrun in the south perhaps, but a great cost...

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#17

Post by nuyt » 21 May 2021, 20:10

Ok, so WW1 breaks out and the German Army rushes west through neutral (enlarged) Lux and no war with the United NL/Belgium follows. The German columns steer away from the Meuse and turn south. WW1 more or less develops as IRL. As IRL the United NL are the lifeline of Germany to the world, though caution towards the Brits keep the Dutch from too much trade with their eastern neighbour.

A non -event perhaps, this United NL timeline?

Well, as you can imagine, the neutral and peaceful United NL emerge intact from WW1, with its colonies booming to supply the motherland with oil, coal, rice, spices, rubber, iron ore and more, its industries surging, and with a strong reputation: it is unbeaten. Not being part of Versailles, just there as observer, they also continue to remain on friendly terms with their biggest trade partner, Germany. Which puts the United NL in pole position to survive the next round of wars....while growing its wealth and indirect power.....

Too much fairy tale?


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15673
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#18

Post by ljadw » 22 May 2021, 13:05

nuyt wrote:
14 Feb 2021, 22:17
depending on the scenarios:

1 The "United NL are allied with Germany" scenario. In this scenario the Dutch are organized and trained and maybe equipped like the German Army. There is no need to face an enemy to the East, so all there is to do is position a mobilized field Army of 10-12 divisions to the southwest.
Further troops man the fortresses of Namur, Antwerp, around Brussels and further south defenses around Tournai, Mons and Ostend. In this scenario the Dutch have a standing regular force of two or three divisions always on standby to guard against the French, so not just reservists. They can also call up a crack colonial division, battlehardened from the never easy expansion campaigns in the Indies. As I sketched out above, the Dutch border in this scenario has moved south after the 1870 war and the fortresses of Dunkirk, Lille and Maubeuge now are Dutch and add a bit of depth to the southward defense. I'd say the Fortress troops are good for another 10 divisions, which gives a total of 500-600.000 troops facing France upon mobilization, of which roughly 100.000 are regulars (standing divisions, colonials and cadres of the reserve formations).

2. In the Neutral united Netherlands scenario the territory is the same as present day Benelux. Troops have to face all directions as in OTL to maintain strict neutrality, with some divisions on the coast, some facing south and some facing east, fortresses and defense lines all over have to be manned. The Dutch are able to mobilize close to a million reservists, while only about 30.000 are professional cadres, plus some Gendarmerie, marines and the colonial Fuseliers. Defense is impossible without making hard choices.
Point two is wrong : in 1914 the Netherlands would be considerably smaller than in 1839,as it is out of the questions that the Walloons would have accepted the loss of their privileged position and to be on the same level of the Dutch speaking majority of the Netherlands : a multi-cultural,bilingual Netherlands was impossible in the 19th century : Wallonia would have become independent or a part of France .

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#19

Post by nuyt » 22 May 2021, 15:24

HI, I partly said that also in my last posts. In 1914 the United NL would be the present day Benelux minus Luxembourg state and the Belgian province of the same name. These would have been split off in the 1860s or so, with at least Lux Duchy going to Prussia, and maybe like you suggest the province to France. That would add to the balance of power.

I do not think Walloon nationalism existed that much in the first half of the 19th century, there were Orangists and secessionists, the latter advocating a Flemish/Walloon Belgium = a multicultural state come to think of it :).

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15673
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#20

Post by ljadw » 22 May 2021, 16:35

I think that you are underestimating the strength in Wallonia already before WWI,not of Walloon nationalism, but of the desire for an Anschluss to France, not of Wallonia, but of what is today Belgium :what people as Jules Destrée said before WWI,was not something isolated, but was carried by a big part of the French speaking people in Belgium :
the aim of the revolution of 1830 was the annexation by France .initially, the son of the French King was elected king of the Belgians,but Britain opposed this manoeuver . They never admitted its failure and tried to remake the new state as a mini France, a state that would become de facto a new France, a French colony ,a state with only one language (French ) and where the majority would follow the orders of the ruling minority .And this mentality is still very living .

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#21

Post by nuyt » 23 May 2021, 14:50

Hi, we are talking about the 19th century. Not sure if I agree that Belgium was a French colony from the start....I thought it was run by arch conservative elites and the RC church :) Yes, they spoke French, but elites did that everywhere.

In any case the whatif question is what would happen if the secession had failed (no French intervention, UK and Prussia upholding integrity of the United NL, etc). Hardcore secessionists would probably have moved to Paris after their failed revolution, so that would even thin out their numbers. With the proper incentive the House of Orange would have won over some crucial figures from the southern provinces that still had doubts. Than the state needs to survive another century or so.

After 1830 I do not see another chance of Wallonia (it was not yet what is is now break away to France if the United NL remain a neutral actor. UK and Prussia would not allow that. Instead I proposed a breakup or division in the 1860s of the original Luxembourg between France and Prussia, instead of splitting it into a neutral part and a Belgian part....

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15673
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#22

Post by ljadw » 23 May 2021, 16:17

If the revolt of 1830 would fail, other revolts would happen : the Walloons would never admit to be ruled by people who did not have French as common language and were speaking Dutch/Flemish .For Wallonia to remain a part of the Netherlands bilingualism in Wallonia would be needed, and this, they would never accept it .After WWI,they accepted bilingualism in Flanders, but never in Wallonia It was the same in Germany in the 19th Century : there were a lot of Poles in Silesia, but Polish was not admitted as an official language .It was the same in France : the regional languages were persecuted and not admitted as an official language .There were a lot of Flemish immigrants in Wallonia, but Dutch was not allowed as an official language .How would Walloon conscripts be commanded in the Dutch Army ?
The Dutch governments could never trust the Walloons.

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#23

Post by nuyt » 23 May 2021, 20:51

Well, I detect a bit of resistance here :)
As I said the elites in the United NL would all speak French for a long time, throughout the 19th century. I do not see any peasant from Namur or an arms trader from Liege to oppose that...
And there could be Francophone units in the Unite NL Army with its own officers. Officers, most of them from the upper classes, would all be speaking French or be bilingual. It's not the Dutch army you know.
So I do not take resistance very serious...at my peril of course :)

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10063
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#24

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 23 May 2021, 22:45

nuyt wrote:
23 May 2021, 20:51
...
As I said the elites in the United NL would all speak French for a long time, throughout the 19th century. I do not see any peasant from Namur or an arms trader from Liege to oppose that...
Reminds of the Prussian General Blucher & Wellington speaking to each other in French after the Battle of Waterloo.

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#25

Post by nuyt » 24 May 2021, 00:11

A map to give you guys an idea of the various IRL partitions of Lux:
Attachments
LuxembourgPartitionsMap_english.png
LuxembourgPartitionsMap_english.png (61.96 KiB) Viewed 655 times

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#26

Post by nuyt » 31 May 2021, 15:02

OK some additional thoughts:

In 1914 the following situation arises due to earlier events:
- The United NL still exist but the Luxembourg of 1815 is not part of it. In 1867 it was partitioned between a Prussian eastern half (present day Lux) and a French western half (roughly today's Belgian province of Luxembourg). The Prussians kept the mighty fortress of Lux and it was not dismantled as in reality. During the F-P war of 1870 the French western half of Lux was conquered and the Prussians have kept the "Germanic/Letzeburgisch" area of Aarlen/Arlon/Arel, but the rest of the area was French speaking and was returned to France in 1871.
- In 1914 as war is imminent France and Germany are opposing forces along the inner Luxembourg border, the front line being much longer than in reality and the Germans are halfway in the Ardennes already.
- The United NL have staid out of conflict and declare strict neutrality. Their line of fortresses along the Meuse, most notably Namur and Liege are stronger than in reality. Why? Well, the United Dutch manage to build up the concrete layers of the fortresses also during the night, so the fortresses harden out really well. In reality the fact that the Belgians had not built on during night time had caused the various layers not to attach to each other and the walls were easy prey for the German gunners. That they held out longer than expected was a bonus. Now they can hold out even longer. Also because the artillery park on the United NL side is a bit better. In reality the Dutch and Belgians were busy modernizing their artillery, They had in 1914 mostly similar types of older 12 and 15 cm Krupp guns or howitzers, but also a combined force of more than 600 75 mm Krupp 1903 or 1905 models (some already locally produced in Belgium). Both armies were also buying modern howitzers: the Dutch bought Krupp 8 pieces of 12cms and the Belgians had 12 15cm Krupp 1909 mobile fortress howitzer. The Dutch also had a few ultramodern Krupp 105mm long guns for counter battery fire. In this scenario these last three types are more numerous (several dozen each) and are also locally manufactured. All this adds to the strength of the United NL defence lines. Though they are not impeccable, the cost of overpowering the United NL defence lines will be higher to Germany than in reality and much time will be lost, creating a bitter enemy on the right hand flank in the process.
So, the survival of the United NL may very well lead to the country staying out of the war and the Allied and Germans slugging it out to the south after an initial German assault head on to Sedan. The Germans will not be able to carry out the wide moves of the Schlieffen Plan but will have to focus their force on smaller areas, like Sedan or elsewhere. Well, I do not know much about WW1 initial battles, but is this possible? Will a German attack on France succeed or fail, without the added move through Belgium?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15673
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#27

Post by ljadw » 01 Jun 2021, 07:28

In the HTL, the Schlieffen Plan ,with the move through Belgium, failed .
And,also in the HTL, in 1870,Germany succeeded,without the move through Belgium .

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#28

Post by nuyt » 01 Jun 2021, 09:19

There you have it, possibly no Schlieffen Plan in this scenario, but a replay of the successful 1870 attack, so Germany defeats France in 1914?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15673
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#29

Post by ljadw » 01 Jun 2021, 15:43

Very unlikely ,as the Schlieffen Plan failed because of the Battle of the Border : Moltke admitted already before the Battle of the Marne that the Schlieffen Plan had failed .
French was defeated in 1870 because Prussia and its allies were stronger and because the French made big mistakes .

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: What if Belgian secession in 1830 failed

#30

Post by nuyt » 01 Jun 2021, 16:20

Depends what the objectives are in this scenario. Does Germany again want to completely defeat France (and UK) by taking Paris and destroy all the forces in between, or do they deploy their heavy guns to the Meuse, take Sedan and Verdun and then dig in? Or they do not attack at all?

Also we need to take in some changes to the French and German OOBs. There would be Prussian troops and a huge fortress in Luxembourg, but the French advance forces would be in present day Belgian province of Lux. The Germans could possibly have deployed at least one or two armies to the East, now they are not needed for the Schlieffen move.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”