Belgium? You mean northern France, southern Netherlands, and small western portions of Germany. Other then those countries, it’s also the city state if The Hague.
True. I don’t know why anyone still believes in this so called nation of ‘Belgium’. It’s just France, Germany, Netherlands, and city state of The Hague.
In our timeline Sweden also wanted the Congo and considering that they are also a neutral country, many European powers would find it preferable rather than letting one of their rivals get it. So in a world without Belgium, we might have had Swedish Congo 😂
@@Wendeta-hq2cpyes. In fact the heir is actually heir to 2 separate thrones of Europe: Germany and Russia. Edit: slight error. Maria is not heir to the German throne. Her husband is one Whilhelms great grandchildren from his sixth and youngest son. The true German Heir is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen (prince of Prussia)
A few notes: (1) France had a defensive doctrine before 1912. Plan 16 as opposed to the Offensive A Tout Prix plan 17. (2) if the Belgians were able to hold off the Germans and destroy their rails and 20% of their tunnels I assume the Dutch would be able to do even better and have a long history of strategic flooding. Maybe Germany wins but maybe it goes worse for them.
I doub that the dutch would do better,wil they fo good stopping Germany? Yeah butt their history is in floodings and bridge destruction belgium only really had railway so i belief they would be better at it And if i remember correctly the Belgian rmstate railway company was more valuable than the dutch at the time due to greater industrialization in the south and therefor greater loaders on its railways
@@BubbaJ18 Best Option is Bavaria and Saxony perhaps making an alliance backed by France in exchange for the Rhine, with many smaller German states convinced to by the prospect of taking land from Prussia? Realistically a union would only work in terms of economy and diplimacy though, since Austria, Prussia and Britain have stakes in preventing the smaller states from growing in power.
As a historian as well, i believe that the Russian bolshevik revolution would still happen because what year it is doesn't matter or contribute to the revolution. Only being at war for so long and then also losing it meant the revolution happened. This means that even in your timeline, the revolution happens because Russia still lost the war and still fought for a few years. It would still happen just earlier than in our timeline.
While the first revolution might happen. The bolshevik one won't. That happened because the provisional government refused to end the war, a shorter war means no long period of the people demanding peace but the prob government refusing. Thus the extreme minority bolsheviks never get the support to overthrow the prob government. Personally I think a spainish civil war scenario happens several decades later, not a OTL style bolshevik revolution.
@@Carpediem357 Well that technically happened (Kingdom of Germany) so in order to prevent the HRE I would say that either East Rome has a second wind or Italy unifies by itself (Lombards). This leaves Italy to become the seat of Rome by itself and Remain independent, thereby resulting in Germany remaining Germany. The main issue is the Agnatic succesion which would crumble Germany and without, say, a title such as Holy Roman Emperor, the state would not be so important and therefore would end up overtaken by France. If it does survive the Agntic succession would be dropped and thr basis of a centralized state would emerge probably, with some dynasty managing to strengthen central authority like the French ones did.
@@Wendeta-hq2cp Maybe the Lombards or Romans help unfiy them? And they place an heir of theirs on the throne and thus the agnatic succession wouldn't crumble or would be delayed further
@@Carpediem357 Well yeah, but the agnatic succession is kinda designed to crumble. Donno if you know, so I will mention it here: The agnatic succession basically passed the land first to the head of the senior branch (brother of the king, perhaps even an uncle if the uncle lived long enough) and then, only after the old branch was done with, the land would end up distributed to the rest of the sons. Unlike primogeniture, which settles disputes, Agnatic succession does not, which is why these sons used to fight each other, or simply partition the land and go their separate ways, maintain some sort of alliance sometimes. It was for this exact reason that the HRE became an electable seat, with the Prince-Electors having the privilege of primogeniture and therefore keeping their lands from crumbling. The Agnatic succession would affect Germany btw, not Italy, since in this alternate timeline Italy may become the new HRE (and the seat would be electable), or East Rome takes over and they had primogeniture I'm pretty sure.
@@Wendeta-hq2cp so we'd have to find a way to make the Kingdom a Prince-elector system to start and then the german lands would have to be given titles and land like HRE did. Let's say they also are given a elevated status similar to Emperor of Rome like Charlemagne and Otto were given. What sort of title would work?? Emperor or King of the Germans? Or say if Rome gave them a elevated status after they became Christianized with a title like Little Romans?
@@Carpediem357 Well if Germany Christianized we'd Probably look at a Regnum Germania (or Regnum Teutonicorum if I wrote that correctly). If the Agnatic succession stays, then the King of Germany would have to be elected through a prince elector system. If not, then perhaps Rome being the one needed to recognize the crown would enforce a proto-primogeniture structure, which would develop into proper primogeniture. The Crusades might go better and also I imagine that the "Teuntonic State" covering the baltics and cutting off poland from the the Baltic sea would become part of Germany in this timeline. I have no clue what would happen to Bohemia though, but I imagine it might end up Germanized.
Nah…. Don’t think so….. belgium also did great innovations to the congo, no néed to always bring up the négative things, think of the conquestadores, anyway, I’m belgian…..
No Talleyrand Plan? Sad. Now, what if Belgium had been created in 1814 as a Secondgeniture of Austria (just like Tuscany) with Archiduke Charles as its king?
You are missing some nuance here with the real history. Belgium also definitly had a historical identity beyond that past 200 years. There's the fact that Belgium was "sort of" united before this under the Spanish, Austrians Netherlands, which also kept them split from the north for about 500 years. You don't really put a lot of emphasis on how they were longer split than ever united. There was the Brabantian revolution too in 1789-90, which did establish a proto-"United-States-Of-Belgium". Then the Burgundians in the 15th century who first united most of the southern lowlands, though they also brought parts of the Netherlands into the fold too.
I think it would be possible thst France would be awarded Wallonia as compensation for the congo, being seen as a preservation of the balance of power. Also maybe some of French Africa (maybe Djibouti, or islands off the coast of East Africa, if not Madagascar itself) would be awareded to the Netherlands for the same reason.
The Schlieffen Plan was also scaled back due to other factors, like the threat of Russia on Germany's east border. Plus, the original plan was not just to take Paris but to press all the way to the Franco-German border and pin the French there. It was a far larger operation than what the Germans sent in our timeline.
I don't think Germany would invade the Netherlands in that time line, because the then Queen Wilhelmina had an uncle-niece like relationship with Kaiser Wilhelm II. I don't think he would want to damage that
I mean it's kinda impossible. Reality is that *our timeline* is the exception. The Allies were woefully unprepared and got lucky thanks to dragging out the conflict and then having the US step in. Germany was simply too strong and Austria, the Ottomans and Bulgaria were good enough to sponge some of the forces of the Allies.
@@Wendeta-hq2cp The US intervention was very late in the war (1917) and was only relevant to the war in 1918 when the Germans were already losing to the Franco-British troops. As a french, I don't hate to see what if Germany won WW1 scenarios (its alternate history after all), what bothers me is the fact that many think that Germany had the upperhand while clearly it was stalemate that favored the entente long term (with or without the US). The poilus (french soldiers) fought like lions during the war, thats why Verdun was the bloodiest battle (french memo for the battle: 300 days, 300 nights, 300 thousands deaths for both sides). And seeing so many peoples saying that France would be easy to conquer without its allies or worst, thinking they would surrender easily (I hate that joke) is to me either misunderstanding the french situation in the war or just a bad excuse for a surrender joke which (outside of WW2) isn't fair.
@@spatialex The surrender joke is more because of WW2. Also mon ami, France suffered the most casualties and Germany, as Josh mentioned, did get pretty close to Paris in WW1. The Entente was not favored by the prolonged conflict by much either. We are looking at 51 v 49 advantage for the Entente. US was the one to turn the tide since they had fresh forces to provide while Germany, getting resources from the east, was exhausted and wasn't able to move fast enough to intercept. No US means a protracted conflict where the Central powers, now gaining resources again, can pull through and potentially gain a victory, even if a pyric one.
Cool video, I liked most to all of it. Only 1 complaint, the people of Belgium tried to make a united Belgium for a long time before that. Every now end then there were some aims to get it. Also the name dates from ancient time. Lastily, really cool to think that if Belgium didn't exist, there may not have been a ww2.
@@Sphagetti__ haha , who knows.. But I get why alot of people get shocked by it .. We have a long complicated history with them , but eventually alot of people seem to use history as shield to dodge that idea.. And that's a shame , cause it has potential when you think about it. Eventually , people like to fight the idea with what they call "facts" , but in reality it's all about perspective. You can't change a fact , you can change your perspective.. besides that history has always 2 sides , based on perspective that's a fact that people seem to forget alot..
Howdy Josh! Honestly the best part of No Belgium would the fact that the E U probably wouldn't be as horrible as it is. Belgium, due to being so small, has the Washington D.C. syndrome. (aka has concentrated too much power) That's, of course, assuming everything else stays the same.
Protestantism wasn't forced on the southerners (freedom of religion) and the Language Decision did not apply to Wallonia. The idea that the north wanted to turn the south into Dutch speaking protestants is a lie.
Nice video but one thing is completely wrong russia would lose at most poland and lithuania. Germany offered such peace deals to russia in our timeline and with France defeated russia would want peace (Ok maybe germany pushes for a bit more like the rest of the baltics as they dont have to end the war with russia like in our timeline)
they held resisted the germans for almost 4 years in ww1 they get not get obliterated, also have more cultural and historical identity than the US and many other countries which were founded in the timeperiod that Belgium was. 💀💀
So you're saying THIS guy "roasted" possible history?? Nah man out of everything on the internet i never expected a beef between whos imaginary world of these man children is more "realistic"
Sorry but you are mixing up some stuff at 1:05. The hapsburg monarchy evolved over time, in the 1500 hundreds we were under SPANISH hapsburg. The revolt was against them, and then with the War of the Spanish succession we became Austrian in 1713, then owned by the French RIGHT BEFORE Napoleon.
Why not give the Congo to the Dutch? The Dutch had some colonies in Africa before giving them to the British. So what if the British gave the Congo to the neutral United Kingdom of the Netherlands?
10:45 - If war on the western front ended quickly within a year I doubt Germany would be interested in prolonging the conflict against Russia with the goal of taking so much land. In OTL they managed to occupy the rest of Baltic region and Ukraine only after Brest-Litovsk treaty with one of the main reasons to compenstate scarce resources for the still ongoing war effort by stripping them from occupied territories. With France allready surrendered, what the point for Germany and Russia to continue fighting? The both are major trade partners to each others, didn't had any significant feud before WW1 and had similar geopolitical goals in challenging Great Britain supremacy. So realistically I think they will just sign white truce with no border changes or create buffer state only out of Congress Kingdom of Poland. And after that maybe attempt to revive Treaty of Björkö that both Wilhelm II and Nicolas II showed interest in before as alliance with France became obsolete
Let's go even further. What if belgium, flanders, walloon, france, holland, and luxemburg never existed? It would be a dream come true. People wouldn't have to listen to all of those ridiculous "languages" anymore. People wouldn't have to associate with those wannabe "nationalities" anymore. Peace, plenty, and and easy living would reign over the planet and everyone would treat each other with kindness, sincerity, and empathy.
