Well not exactly, they still would have to live under colonialism for like 70 years. Probably a better outcome than Belgium though…

@@josephinee.becker6406 exactly

​​@@josephinee.becker6406They probably would have been a German or British colony so slightly better outcome.

​@@josephinee.becker6406anything but Belgium they slaughtered the Congolese and then didn't even invest into the land after

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 😂

Norther France, Soutern Netherlands and Western Rhineland-Westphalia lol.

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.

The Hague is in the Netherlands you silly goose.

nah that aint belguim thats north western luxembourg

We can all agree at least Belgium doesn’t exist and it really just three countries there instead of the four.

a variant (West-Flemish) almost qualified to be, and is according to the French both West-Flemish and French-Flemish are languages

@@wcthunder6940 Yes it is indeed very distinct.

Is there still a royal family though?

Yes but who is the rightful heir to the Romanovs is still in dispute. ​@@Wendeta-hq2cp

​​@@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)

@@Carpediem357 Ah cool!

​@@Wendeta-hq2cp despite the efforts of the bolsheviks the Romanov family is still large enough to have a disputed headship

Angolo😂

what does the third one even mean lol

Another European nation would have colonized it instead. Congo has always been open for the grabs.

@@saladspinner3200 would have been better than Belgium

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.

Then we finally would have better roads..

@@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…..

@@maximilienleroux1704true

​@@maximilienleroux1704"great innovations"? Fair. The wat they were able to cull the population could be described as "innovative"

I'm still standing... Yeah yeah yeah!

He also tried to buy Crete from Greece. It would have been cool to have a Mediterranean colony to go to for the holidays!

Me!

bruh.

@smal750 Are you a Belgium citizen? 🤣 Wanna be ein DEUTSCHER STAATSBÜRGER? It’s GREAT.

What a combination (no offense)

*Saxon Netherlander. She is a native Drentian of course.

britain wouldnt have done shit

Your hate is immense​@@smal750

Hi Josh, I’m Josh

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.

The moors have nothing to do with europeans

As a Belgian / Dutchman.. Not in a 1000 years.

As a Belgian / Dutchman.. We would be unstoppable...

No

@@belgium_solo_vers Can we ask you why not?

@@ArienvanRijswijck He's scared of being a citizen of one of the most powerful countries in the world

@@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..