what if the lowlands not neutral?

[Marcel]

I know some of you like to do some mind games with alternatives in ww2.

There is this thread about an American expeditional force in 1939 and it got me thinking.

The Netherlands has been anti military and anti war for many years before ww2. Apart from that, there was quite a lot of confidence in the country's natural defenses. As we have seen this was not justified, as the Germans broke the defense in only 5 days. So I was wondering, what if the Dutch and the Belgians would have sided with the French and the British?

The situation would have been quite different as it was now:

1. Cooperation between The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Great Britain would have been much smoother.
   
2. The French army could have prepaired and occupied positions way up north, closing off the road into France.
3. Germany would have had to defend a much larger
4. Germany's west border would have been much more vulnerable during the attack on Poland, giving the allies much more opportunity to attack over a wide front on a virtual unprotected ground north of the Siegfried line, while the German army was occuupied in the east.

So what do you think, did the neutrality of Belgium and The Netherlands seal France's fate? Would Germany even have attacked in that situation? Or did it just not matter?

 

[The Basket]

Don't think it mattered as the military forces of Holland and Belgium and Denmark included was not large enough.
The only thing that could have mattered was if British and French forces were on Dutch soil in large numbers. And wouldn't have been neutral but highly belligerent.
Odd that ww1 they went through Belgium so maybe than ww2 might just go same way.
Holland was originally part of the Schieffen plan but the Germans copped out in ww1. In my view it was very naïve of Holland and Belgium to think they could stay neutral.

 

[pbehn]

. In my view it was very naïve of Holland and Belgium to think they could stay neutral.

Belgium as a state was neutral from its creation, its Neutrality was enshrined in the 1839 Treaty of London, If Belgium wasnt neutral it would either be on one side or the other in any Franco German rivalry. Since its neutrality was guaranteed by treaty an invasion of it is a declaration of war against the parties giving the guarantee.

On my first day in Belgium a lady told be that "Belgium was created by the British" which is a bit of a twist of history. Unlike most countries with a constitutional monarchy the monarch is not the king of Belgium but king of "The Belgians".

 

[pbehn]

The neutrality of Belgiums constitution meant that the Maginot line was rendered useless. Building it with Belgium behind it would violate neutrality and building it with Belgium on the outside abandoned Frances guarantee to Belgium.

 

[The Basket]

Neutrality didn't help in 1914....or 1940.
So pattern emerging.
When the Fox hears the Rabbit scream he comes a-runnin', but not to help.
Trusting Hitler in 1940 was bad juju so when Hitler invaded Denmark after signing a non aggression pact then neutral means zip.

 

[swampyankee]

Belgium as a state was neutral from its creation, its Neutrality was enshrined in the 1839 Treaty of London, If Belgium wasnt neutral it would either be on one side or the other in any Franco German rivalry. Since its neutrality was guaranteed by treaty an invasion of it is a declaration of war against the parties giving the guarantee.

On my first day in Belgium a lady told be that "Belgium was created by the British" which is a bit of a twist of history. Unlike most countries with a constitutional monarchy the monarch is not the king of Belgium but king of "The Belgians".

I would think the German invasion of Belgium in 1914 made its permanent neutrality moot.

Belgian had and has some rather serious internal divisions: an alliance with France may have torn the country apart

 

[pbehn]

Neutrality didn't help in 1914....or 1940.
So pattern emerging.
When the Fox hears the Rabbit scream he comes a-runnin', but not to help.
Trusting Hitler in 1940 was bad juju so when Hitler invaded Denmark after signing a non aggression pact then neutral means zip.

I agree completely The Basket, I was just saying that Belgiums neutrality wasn't a whim of the people it was a political fact and as you say, actually a problem. As a neutral nation it couldn't arm itself without provoking someone else by taking sides.

 

[pbehn]

I would think the German invasion of Belgium in 1914 made its permanent neutrality moot.

Belgian had and has some rather serious internal divisions: an alliance with France may have torn the country apart

Completely true SW, in those two statements you explain why Belgium as a state had to be neutral with its neutrality guaranteed. If it had its own military forces open to political influence they would be an enemy or friend of either Germany or France. Belgium was supported as a buffer zone.

 

[The Basket]

Holland was neutral in ww1 and so was Denmark.
Maybe same trick twice?
I dunno. I am trying to find why Holland was avoided in the original Schieffen plan.
If anyone know that would be grand.

 

[pbehn]

Holland was neutral in ww1 and so was Denmark.
Maybe same trick twice?
I dunno. I am trying to find why Holland was avoided in the original Schieffen plan.
If anyone know that would be grand.

That is a complex question, for example Fokker is a Dutch company founded by a Dutchman but only moved to the Netherlands in 1919. Also very important to note that the Netherlands are much bigger than they used to be , with about 26% of its area and 21% of its population located below sea level, and only about 50% of its land exceeding one metres above sea level.

 

[Shortround6]

Sometimes neutrality works if the country in question is more trouble to take over than it is worth, either in raw materials or as a path to get somewhere else. Neutrality has worked for both Sweden and Switzerland but then both had relatively strong militaries, not much for resources (Swedish Iron ore excepted) and didn't happen to be an obstacle separating two warring countries.
You also have world opinion. Switzerland and Sweden hadn't been in a war in about a century in 1914 so most people might believe they would stay neutral. Neither was a colonial power either.

 

[The Basket]

Holland suffered during ww1 so even been a non combatant neutral ain't no sunshine.
The UK occupied Iceland during ww2 although it was very nice and gentlemanly.
And the invasion of Norway always is fun for a who did what first kinda way.
As Shortround said... neutrality is in the eye of the beholder. And since those eyes were Hitler and Stalin then you're stuffed.
Spain was in my view the most important neutral country. Could have been a sticky wicket in Madrid joined the Axis in 1940.

 

[swampyankee]

Ireland's neutrality was not that comfy -- they lost merchant ships and fishermen to U-boats and mines, were [probably] accidentally bombed, had citizens lose their lives to loose mines, and had a significant number of interned Axis soldiers to feed and house.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not sure what Spain brings to the table.
It was pretty chewed up by the civil war and not particularly industrialized. Yes they had a small arms industry but not really much in the way of an auto industry (in terms of tens or hundreds of thousands of vehicles per year)
Air craft industry was also small, pretty much branch of Hispano Suiza (also factories in France and Switzerland but production capability was ???) I don't know if Spain was a food importer or exporter at the time.
Pool of manpower?

It had a strategic location for threatening the British trade routes but how was that to be capitalized on?

Was what Spain could bring to the table worth hundreds of miles more of "Atlantic Wall" or German help in defending Spain from British attacks?

 

[The Basket]

Spain offered new u boat bases but if Gibraltar fell in 1940 then the shock of that loss could be catastrophic.

 

[swampyankee]

Spain offered new u boat bases but if Gibraltar fell in 1940 then the shock of that loss could be catastrophic.

Retaining Gibraltar would be more important than Malta. Spain had also just finished a close-run civil war. Franco was still eliminating his opposition; he wouldn't be able to trust a big enough army to matter

 

[Shortround6]

Spain may offer harbors that can be turned into bases but then those bases have to be built and then defended. The Spanish Navy only had two bases on the Atlantic coast. Ferrol on the north east 'corner' and Cadiz which is less than 50 miles from Gibraltar.
You need AA guns and several squadrons of fighters at the least.

 

[pbehn]

I know some of younlime to do some mind games with alternatives in ww2.

There is this thread about an American expeditional force in 1939 and it got me thinking.

The Netherlands has been anti military and anti war for many years before ww2.
So what do you think, did the neutrality of Belgium and The Netherlands seal France's fate? Would Germany even have attacked in that situation? Or did it just not matter?

I don't know that the Netherlands were any more military or anti military than the uk between the wars. The UK did nothing about Czechoslovakia because it couldn't at the time but it could re arm. Were the Netherlands constitutionally neutral at the time? Perhaps if both countries believed in armed neutrality things would have been different however driving an army through Switzerland is a much tougher task than across Belgium and the Netherlands. Please remember that even in UK in the pre war years Churchill was viewed as a bit of a warmongering nut case and as late as 1940 there were British politicians wanting to sue for peace with Adolf.

Did the Netherlands have any scope for armed neutrality? From the many times I crossed the German Netherlands border the only telling feature was a sign on the road, there are no real geographical features to defend.

 

[swampyankee]

The Netherlands is flat. Also, for at least a century, the Netherlands' defense spending, from what I'v, outside of the Dutch East Indies, is probably best described as "penurious." I think part of it was simply because they were near two of the three most powerful armies on the Continent.

 

[Marcel]

I don't know that the Netherlands were any more military or anti military than the uk between the wars. The UK did nothing about Czechoslovakia because it couldn't at the time but it could re arm. Were the Netherlands constitutionally neutral at the time? Perhaps if both countries believed in armed neutrality things would have been different however driving an army through Switzerland is a much tougher task than across Belgium and the Netherlands. Please remember that even in UK in the pre war years Churchill was viewed as a bit of a warmongering nut case and as late as 1940 there were British politicians wanting to sue for peace with Adolf.

Did the Netherlands have any scope for armed neutrality? From the many times I crossed the German Netherlands border the only telling feature was a sign on the road, there are no real geographical features to defend.

The Dutch believed naively that water would be their strong defense. Large area in front of the Grebbe line and the New Water line could be flooded, which they thought would stop an enemy from entering Holland, which is the western part of the Netherlands. They were convinced that"tanks would still into the soft, wet soil". Very naive of course as they did not include modern weapons in t thinking, like aircraft.