>be under complete control of the Netherlands
>two thirds of the country speaks Dutch with one third speaking French
>French storm in and establish the entire area as "belgium" a literal non country that didn't exist because they wanted to establish a puppet state there
>Europe begrudgingly allows this state to exist as a buffer between the powers to keep the peace
>does nothing but desperately try to justify it's existence for half a century
>king hoaxes the entire world into giving him the entire Congo for "humanitarian reasons"
>abuses the populace in the most horrific ways imaginable
>state takes control of the Congo because the King was literally just slicing Africans up
>finally invaded by Germany en route to France
>Britain remembers it promised to look after this little shit
>causes the most devastating conflict in human history
>gets rewarded for this with stolen German land, yet more non Belgians for this made up shit tip
>continue brutalising Congolese for 20 years
>finally get shit kicked in by Germany
>divided between Netherlands and France, as should be
>allies liberate western Europe
>non-country restored for no reason
>founds the EU for "humanitarian reasons"
>>causes the most devastating conflict in human history
so you are blaming belgium for WWI? not gavrilo princip for assasinating franz ferdinand? not schliffen for saying that invadeing a neutral country won't enrage britain? not nikoali II for not letting the A-H punish serbia for murdering their archduke?
this is cheap b8
Britain was going to get involved anyway, bro.
You think Britain got involved because of treaty entanglements? From a treaty that specifically said the would NOT attack Germany in this exact scenario?
>You think Britain got involved because of treaty entanglements?
That's exactly what I think. I don't know where you're getting your information, but since Britain was a guarantor of Belgium's independence it must be somewhere pretty ridiculous.
Reminder that this is the history of Belgium
Literally Cuckolding: The country
Lel, what a naive kid
Britain had an alliance with France and Russia for long before the war started
Belgium was used as casus belli because it was a better pretexte to give to the British pleb than "We're going to war to help the country we've constantly fought these last nine centuries".
If literally nobody in Britain wanted war they wouldn't have gone to war. Treaties get ignored all the time. Their was intense debate in Britain over whether they should join or not, before the Germans moved into Belgium. It was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. But there's no reason to assume they couldn't or wouldn't join in at a later date.
The actual text of the treaty of London has many, many problems with this. The first being that it actually has no guarantee of independence. It appears no where in the text.
If you want to pull Appendix B in as an implicit guarantee, then there is a slight problem:
>"It is clearly understood that Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland does not engage herself by this Treaty to take part in any of the general operations of the war now carried on between the North German Confederation and France, beyond the limits of Belgium, as defined in the Treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands of April 19, 1839."
Also, this guarantee was specifically renounced in the text itself
>"This Treaty shall be binding on the High Contracting Parties during the continuance of the present war between the North German Confederation and France, and for twelve months after the ratification of any Treaty of Peace concluded between those Parties; and on the expiration of that time the independence and neutrality of Belgium will, so far as the High Contracting Parties are respectively concerned, continue to rest as heretofore on Article I of the Quintuple Treaty of the 19th of April, 1839."
Hurr durr. Screw reading the actual treaty.
Now, you can argue that the British Cabinet critically misunderstood the Treaty of Belgium, except...
Oh wait, they had already decided to enter the war (in a Naval Capacity) on August 2nd...two days before the Invasion of Belgium.
If Belgium was the cause of War, how would John Burns and Viscount Morley resign in protest on the 2nd?
The violation was based on ultimatums by British diplomats to Germany during the July Crisis, not the original guarantee provided upon Belgian independence which was mainly to ward off French/Dutch taking it. Also the decision of the cabinet was based on Germany's invasion of Luxembourg which was on the 2nd, not on the Belgian violation of sovereignty. I will agree that the British were just giddy to get in the war because they stood so much to gain and it provided the first opportunity in a very long time to engage in a two-front war against Germany.
That still ammounts to the fact that Britain entered the war without any violation of Belgium's neutrality.
With that, we don't even have to engage in hypotheticals about would Britain enter the war if there was no Belgian neutrality to violate: Britain entered the war without any violation of Belgian neutrality.
They entered the war in naval terms against Germany as a response to the violation of Luxembourgish sovereignty which was an obvious first step towards entering Belgium. British officials already expected the Germans to invade Belgium at this point so why risk letting the French lose anything in the straits if it could be helped? The Germans had already made their intent to invade clear.
Belgium is responsible for German victory over France in 1940. First they refused to continue Maginot line on their territory and declared neutrality, then, when the war started, they stuck with neutrality and refused to let France army in to defend their borders. When Germans finally attacked Belgium (What a surprise!) French army had to rush forward from their defensive positions to fight Germans, leading to encirclement and destruction of French Army.
If only Belgium weren't so stupidly and childishly selfish and joined Allies, they could have had nice defensive positions on Belgium borders and Germany would bleed dry attacking them.
The "nations" of Belgium are Flanders in the North and Wallonia in the South. People aren't that nationalistic and people in Brussels usually know French/Dutch/English. Source is a friend from Brussels.
Why is Belgium such a horrible invention? So fucking useless. Switzerland did it's job as a German-French buffer, Belgium just tried and got raped every time. Belgium really doesn't deserve to be a country, most Belgians don't even think it should be a country.
That's not what happened at all. Belgians revolted against the Dutch in the hopes of becoming part of France. But France couldn't annex Belgium because it would have led to Britain starting another European war. Britain "guaranteeing" Belgium's neutrality meant that they would never accept Belgium becoming part of France (this was the reason for the second coalition war and subsequent wars against Napoleon). They never expected Germany would one day be the one to invade Belgium.
So in short, Britain is responsible for Belgium's existence, not France.
And Belgium had nothing to do with founding the EU, that was a Franco-German (mostly French) project.
Belgium was a major centre of commerce before the Renaissance. Besides that, right before WWI, Belgium was the most industrialised nation on the European continent. WWI fucked everything up for them, and they never recovered.
I think the flag is best possible way a color-combination like that could look, if Belgium cases to exist one day, Germany should adopt it, because their flag is the definition of ugliness
you know where the maginot line would have been build in belgium? Pretty much on the French-Belgian border, NOT on the Belgian-German border
so France was demanding Belgium put considerable resources towards a defensive plan that didn't benefit them in any way and at the same time ensure the Germans would invade
there's not a single reason Belgium should have agreed to the plan, not a single one
>I guess he means Flanders, so present day Belgium
Which is by definition part of the Netherlands. He's acting like Belgium used to be a thing back in the day, it most definitely was not a thing.
You forgot an important thing
>be pissed at underrepresentation, Dutch King prefers dutchmen
>entire parliamentary system is drastically changed, making it Bicameral
>lol we still don't want it
>be dutch in 1500-1600
>have to ask for permission like a child to be allowed to do anything
>be told to stay put by the ebin meme empire and spain
>get taxed to hell and back for acting out of self-interest
>be literally known as "The lands over there" by the majority of europe
>spanish enforce heretical iconoclastic imagery all over the land
>you draw the line there
>begin fighting for independance and the end of the cuckoldry
>doing pretty good, get the spanish jimmies twisted by causing the Beeldenstorm
>all of a sudden, the south wants to give up and become a catholic cuck again
>they want to taste mediterranean semen again
>leave the cucks to their bulls
Sorry anon, they wanted to stay cucked.
>you know where the maginot line would have been build in belgium? Pretty much on the French-Belgian border, NOT on the Belgian-German border
It would have been enough to render invading them useless though