>Half the country is Dutch. >Half the country is French

>Half the country is Dutch
>Half the country is French
>Named after a Celtic(?) group they have little to do with other than location
Why does this country even exist? Like, what’s the deal here? Did the Netherlands lose a war and as such have to give up the land? Who is responsible for this? Was it the french? Germans? Brits?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They are just French. Flemish were considered Frankish speaking French 500 years ago

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >>Half the country is Dutch
      we're not dutch, we're flemings, brabanters, and limburgers

      >source: britopedia

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >we're not dutch, we're dutch, dutch, and dutch

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Some Brabanters and Limburgers are Dutch yes, the powers from abroad have divided us brothers among two states which owe no loyalty to us

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    British puppet state

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      England made it up to troll mainlanders

      >Why does this country even exist?
      Belgium was basically created by the Anglos to make it sure that the French couldn't properly fortify the Rhine to defend themselves against a German invasion.

      >Belgium was basically created by the Anglos to make it sure that the French couldn't properly fortify the Rhine to defend themselves against a German invasion.
      Belgium was created by the Anglos because if you want to invade Britain, the best place to do it from is the mouth of the Scheldt.

      take your garbage back to /int/, thank you

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >t. belgian upset his country only exists as an area denial strategy

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Belgium is literally a country at the same level as Belarus and Ukraine, geographic buffer as a state.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        No, he's right. Britain was terrified at the prospect of a hostile power occupying the channel ports. One of the reasons for Germany's desire to make Belgium a vassal in WW1 was to have a dagger pointed it at Britain to deter the Eternal Anglo's bloodthirst.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          please educate me on how the british carved out some land out of france and the netherlands at random and called it belgium
          and put a prussian noble on the throne as well because why not

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    England made it up to troll mainlanders

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      myth

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does this country even exist? Like, what’s the deal here? Did the Netherlands lose a war
    Sort of. At the start of the 16th century, more or less the entire territory of the low countries was under Habsburg control for dynastic reasons. Then the Dutch revolted, but only managed to hold on to the territory more or less approximating the modern borders of the Netherlands at the end. "Belgium" was retained by the Habsburgs - first the Spanish, later transferred to the Austrians. Finally, after the Napoleonic wars, it went to the Netherlands.

    Which is where the dutch losing a war comes in. As a result of being held by the Habsburgs before, Belgium was Catholic. As the Catholic part of the Netherlands, they didn't like being Dutch, so they revolted, and won.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      why would belgium be connect to netherlands in anyway, dutch culture is similar to northern germany and unlike belgium or even flanders

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why did you let them revolt and get off so easy?
      Belgium was sold to the Netherlands after Napoleon and everyone recognized it as your rightful property.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >you
        I'm not d*tch, fuck off

        why would belgium be connect to netherlands in anyway, dutch culture is similar to northern germany and unlike belgium or even flanders

        Bongs wanted a buffer between the German states and France, or something.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm not d*tch, fuck off
          Why the fuck not? Do you not know about their drug and sex culture?

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Named after a Celtic(?) group they have little to do with other than location
    this is no less true for any other country
    the alemani, the franks, the angles, have little to do with modern populations, so i don't know why this statement would be more applicable for belgium

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They remained loyal to Catholicism and the Habsburgs when Maurice of Nassau was fighting against Catholic Imperialism to make the Netherlands a Protestant free state iirc.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Who is responsible for this? Was it the french? Germans? Brits?
    the belgians

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    belgium was far more relevant and richer than the netherlands back then (19th century)

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    1830 Opera revolt, leading to secession and getting international support. French helped because interest in the French population. French population was maintained in Belgium because other Great Powers didn't want that part adding to French power/industry in wake of Napoleon (plus France's own 1830 revolts were again anti-monarchist).
    Subsequent treaties in the decade led to international treaties defending Belgian neutrality and Dutch renouncing their claims on the lands, and this treaty in 1830s is what got Britain involved in WW1.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    IS ER LEVEN OP PLUTO
    KUN JE DANSEN OP DE MAAN

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Hitlor
      >Wat nou dood

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Celtic
    GERMANIC

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does this country even exist?
    Belgium was basically created by the Anglos to make it sure that the French couldn't properly fortify the Rhine to defend themselves against a German invasion.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      source?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Belgium was basically created by the Anglos to make it sure that the French couldn't properly fortify the Rhine to defend themselves against a German invasion.
      Belgium was created by the Anglos because if you want to invade Britain, the best place to do it from is the mouth of the Scheldt.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    belgium is indeed two nations
    but it's not "Flanders" and "Wallonia", that's made up
    there are two nations and it's Southern Netherlands and the Liege princebishopic

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      And the Africans who are now about 30%

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >>Half the country is Dutch
    >>Half the country is French
    And all of it is redundant

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Meme tier state that should have been divided between France and Netherlands. Complete cosmopolitan as it it's the center of many European organizations. Also seems to love importing a shit ton of nigg*rs and sandnigg*rs, especially Moors.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      neither the french nor the dutch have any historical claims to the region
      >but they controlled the area for like a decade
      fuck off. if anything it belongs to germany

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The Dutch do have a historical claim. Their revolt wasn't some revolution devoid of legitimacy and continuity, it was the revolt of the States General, the parliament for all the Seventeen Provinces that had existed since mid 15th century and continues to exist to this day in the north.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          the dutch have as much historical claim to belgium as belgium has to the netherlands
          it's retarded

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Belgium and all its national institutions only traces back to 1830, so no they don't.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              so we're playing the semantics game eh

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It's not semantics. The Dutch revolt was a war between the parliament and the monarchy of the Netherlands, in the end the parliament got the north and the monarchy the south, but since then the Habsburg monarchy lost the south and therefore the south no longer has continuity with the pre-revolt Netherlands.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                so how does a war of succession supposedly gives you a claim over a region you never ruled over?

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Well, while under Spanish rule, while the whole province was up in arms at one point, the southern Netherlands remained loyal to the crown while the northern Netherlands didn't.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *