Holland remains neutral

[John T]

I have one question for you posters:

Would the Dutch East Indies be better or worse defended in this neutral Holland-situation? IRL the DEI were such a picking for the Japanese because of their bad defense (and ofcourse the myriad of oil etc).
Would the Dutch military commanders pull back all forces to the Netherlands or would they try to move as much equipment and men as possible to DEI?
I really don't have a clue as both would make sense.

Thanks in advance.

I'd bet on slightly better off.

NEI did bought US arms but (faik) mainly after the fall of Netherlands, Before the war the DEI colonial department (Seine Excelenz, Der Herr Minister der Kolonien) where one of Bofors largest customers.
And here comes a part that might affect the Issue-
DEI happened to have an important part in US containment strategy versus Japan, sitting on the oilfields, a bit more than just having a common enemy. But also a country that was important to deny to the Japanese. As Netherlands remains free in this scenario I think the Dutch could use their assets in Asia as a leveller dealing with the Allies. Thus recieving some advantage up to the Japanese attack on DEI. Then Germany probably have to declare war.

So the Dutch influence on US domestic/pre-war policies would if anything been greater.

My 2 cents.
/John T

[John T]

So, situation was little better than my “worst case scenario”. But conditions were harsh and quantities meagre – just to meet (to same extent) the needs of civilian population, most of military items not even considered (of course, Army find the way to smuggle some semi-military stuff; again not much in quantity; problems with serviceability, etc.)

If we divide 300 ships with the duration of WWII (number of months), that’s less than 5 ships per month. I also believe time-table was more dense in first part of the war, until the Fall of France. After USA became Allied nation, deliveries probably decreased even more… 3 to 4 ships a month? Not much, in any case.

Sweden had a trade agreement with UK from December 1939 limiting trade levels at the 1938 level and no reexport to Germany. Otherwise Sweden could trade pretty freely, bringing in Oil, etcetera at resonable volumes. In addition, the US war zone started south of Bergen i Norway, and Churchill forbade RN to control US shipping so you could freely send anything on US keels to Bergen up to April 1940.
The German occupation of Norway pushed the import up through the Finnish harbour of Petsamo (Limhammari) up to Barbarossa. This negotiated trafic started early 1941 and remaind in effect up to 1945. So your worst case scenario for Sweden without being able to trade with a neutral Netherlands is one thing.

Let’s back now to Holland. Under USA pressure, Britain would probably allow shipments to Holland. Quantities and kind of articles will be negotiated with both Britain & Third Reich (Germans would probably demand to place their men in Dutch ports to control what’s going in/out). Let’s say Holland would get 3 to 4 ships a month (one of them with oil). That’s bare minimum for civilian needs (plus very little for military).

Why should the Dutch get in the same situation as the Swedes?
In 1940 we would have Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands able to trade by transfers through Germany. Netherland could thus import the quotas for all four countries as being Neutral trade.

The Netherlands would be at the frontline between Britain and Germany, there where a lot of mine warfare in the Channel area but not that kind of uncontested mine barrage that Germany established in Skagerack.

It would not been easy for GB or US to invade NEI before 1942, so keep Netherlands strong in Europe is a selfinterest to avoid a situation like the French colonies.
The British also had far more at stake in NEI, relative Sweden who was completely written off from the Allied cause between the summer of 1940 and up to Stalingrad.
So the British would like to see a flow from the Netherlands to NEI, while the Germans would like to see a flow in the oposite direction supporting the four neutrals trade with Germany of goods not imported through the blockade. Germany recieves more stable supply of Swedish iron ore, Swiss ammo, Dutch manufactured goods and Finnish copper while the Germans strangehold on these countries lessens.

So Nuyt’s “best case scenario” is unattainable – Holland has nothing to offer, except cash from "better days" – no “oil for steel”, no “rubber for AA guns”, etc. Rearmament program would be seriously hampered, and lack of fuel (and raw materials for ammo production) would made Dutch soldiers/airmen/seamen even less trained for eventual combat.

Jumped conclusion, The Best case scenario might be too much but not nothing.
Time to produce and time to train would be available for the Dutch.
And Dutch industry would probably have to spend a greater part on exports than the simple, "guns for rubber" scheme. Just look at the development of Swedish armed forces between April 1940 and the summer of 1943.

This opportunity could be used to sell some of them also – couple of subs to Sweden, one pair to Franco, destroyer or two to Portugal…

Wow! I found a way how Holland could make some significant trade in 1940/41! [/color]

If you knew what kind of money Sweden spent on design and build their cruisers..
To sell a Dutch cruiser whould keep the trade balance in Dutch favor for a long time.
And Swedens subs where Dutch designs.
Shippbuilding in general was highly profitable during the war.

That sounds as interesting story. Any link for it?

Not on the net, I have no English language source at all,
but it's from reliable, academic sources.


Cheers
/John T

[John T]

Any sign of refusal to become co-belligerent of Nazi Germany during 1941-43 or cooperating with Allied would have ended up occupation of Holland in all realistic scenarios.

They would have to trade with Germany and not to forcefully reject the idea of German economic superiority but why wasn't Sweden invaded in such case?

Countries don’t join in alliances just to fight for last of their countrymen just for fun.

Agree, and that is the basis of the following.

Alliance with Sweden where both parties fight for last Finn and Swedish for each other was not an option as Sweden was not ready to fight for last Swedish for Finland but Sweden was ready to fight for last Finn to secure Swedish eastern border.

Have to comment on this as it of course is the Finnish description.
The most common Swedish description is that the Finns prefered a strong German ally that could give her back the old borders..
Anyhow Finland had a problem with negotiating in foreign affairs, two examples:

During the summer of 1939 The Finnish minister of defence, Niukkanen(spelling?) was asked what Finland could do for Denmark as part of Scandinavian solidarity. His answer where "Nothing". To the Swedes who opposed the ideas of a Scandinavian defence union this was a good example that everyone are closest to their own.

I have read the transcript of a meeting between the Finn in charge of procurements, Grandell and his Swedish equivalent, Lewin in 1938. The Finns asked what deliveries Sweden could guarantee, and the Swede responded with asking what Finland could guarantee Sweden. This was not on Grandell’s agenda and he answered with some heat that he had no authority to discuss such matters.The Swedes persisted that any discussion had to be based on mutual interest - Now Grandell understood the Swedes were serious and eventually they calmed down in a civilized manner. But the Finns came obviously to the meeting with the idea to get, not to give.

Holland did not shared terrain with huge mountains and easily defended narrow passes like Switzerland that gave Swiss better negotiation position and ability to remain under more "pure" neutrality. Neutrality is only good option for small country when there is two evenly strong parties that compite eatch other so you can get best out of both parties that cannot afford you to fall to enemy house.

Or if you can see the benefit of status qou.


Cheers
/John T

[Sturmabteilungsmann]

This topic has had a nice opportunity to ferment now for many years. Alot of good ideas, theories and little known facts have come out of it. I'm grateful to all the contributors of this thread.

I would like to make one more remark about the whole "neutral Holland" speculation. When Hitler/Vichy allowed Japan to occupy IndoChina, the allies could have jumped to the conclusion that NEI would be next. Thus, unless the Japanese simultaneously occupied NEI at the same time as IndoChina, I beleive that an allied occupation of NEI would be a logical conclusion. I dont think the British could have pulled it off by themselves pre-PH, so I think it would have been an American endevor. Then NEI could join the occupation club of "neutral" USA (Iceland, Greenland, Surinam, etc.).

The Japanese occupation of IndoChina itself was not a clean operation, and I doubt that a Japanese occupation of NEI would have been any better.

Please read the entire thread of this topic, and let us all know how you think this would have played out.

[Carl Schwamberger]

I would like to make one more remark about the whole "neutral Holland" speculation. When Hitler/Vichy allowed Japan to occupy IndoChina, the allies could have jumped to the conclusion that NEI would be next. Thus, unless the Japanese simultaneously occupied NEI at the same time as IndoChina, I beleive that an allied occupation of NEI would be a logical conclusion. I dont think the British could have pulled it off by themselves pre-PH, so I think it would have been an American endevor. Then NEI could join the occupation club of "neutral" USA (Iceland, Greenland, Surinam, etc.).

In the short run the US aid or occupation of NEI would have only been by a token force. Between a incomplete mobilization & training and competing requirements for cargo ships the US was unable to adaquately garrison the Phillpines. Perhaps a senior general, a understrength brigade, a understrength air group, & a cruiser? Since Japanese leaders did choose to attack the US directly at Hawaii it does not seem likely a few battalions on Java would change anything, at least for late 1941 in our history.

[Sturmabteilungsmann]

Agreed. But in this alternate history that I'm assuming you have already read through, it would have meant an American entry without the pretenses of a 'Neutral' attacked by an "aggressor" (Pearl Harbor).

[Sturmabteilungsmann]

btw, this would have been before the presidential election of 1940 when FDR was the 'peace' candidate.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Agreed. But in this alternate history that I'm assuming you have already read through, it would have meant an American entry without the pretenses of a 'Neutral' attacked by an "aggressor" (Pearl Harbor).

Not necessarily. The IJN still has a powerfull incentive to make a suprise attack on the USN to gain a better advantage. The US leaders were confined by US politics to not making a preemptive attack, and the nature of the US mobilization left its options very limited for defending itself aggresively. A few token soldiers & aircraft in NEI wont change the calculation much for either Japanese or US leaders. A somewhat paralle situation existed in Iceland. The presence of the US 1st Marine Brigade there from mid 1941 & some Marine & USN aircraft annoyed the German leaders, but changed little in the overall calculus of either side. Hitler still initiated war against the US while Roosevelts policy was to wait.

[Mostlyharmless]

I agree that the Luftwaffe wanted Germany to occupy the Netherlands over the 1939-40 period but it is clear that Germany had benefited during 1914-17 from Dutch neutrality. Thus I suspect that the reason that an invasion of the Netherlands was agreed was because it ensured that Army Group B's advance was not blocked by the Belgian fortifications around Liege. These are described at http://niehorster.orbat.com/021_belgium ... art_03.htm. If you want to avoid a German invasion of the Netherlands, you need to make the German's confident that they can reach Hannut by 12th May without needing to enter the Netherlands.

I had not seen this thread when I posted a few ideas for defeating the forts at another site http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/ ... p?t=105520 in 2008. My idea was to speed up the production of the 60 cm mortar 'Karl' and, as an alternative, to drop converted 2.2 ton mortar shells from KG 100's He-111s using X-geraet, which I hoped might be accurate enough at such short range.

If the Netherlands had not been invaded in May 1940, I doubt if Germany would have considered invading until late 1942 or early 1943. One issue would have been if British bombers had flown over the Netherlands by night and the other would have been the possibility of an Allied invasion mentioned by other posters.

I diverge from other posters in strongly doubting if there would have been a Pacific War. It is possible that Japan would have run out of money to buy oil from the Netherlands East Indies. However, it seems to me that the Dutch would have tried to extend credit until they were confident that they could defend themselves. It should have been quite clear that if the NEI were once taken by Japan, the Dutch would never get it back. Thus selling oil and minerals on credit would seem a cheap form of defence. There is very little available from the Philippines or Malaya that cannot be purchased from the NEI or taken from Indochina (e.g. chromium). Just possibly, Japan might strike at New Caledonia (with Vichy permission?) to get nickel.

If there is no reason to attack to seize resources, Japan might focus on China. After Barbarossa, Japan can be fairly sure that there will not be a Soviet attack and can also move troops from Manchuria to China South of the Wall. Thus I do not see why Japan would risk an attack on anyone else.

[Carl Schwamberger]

....
I diverge from other posters in strongly doubting if there would have been a Pacific War. It is possible that Japan would have run out of money to buy oil from the Netherlands East Indies. However, it seems to me that the Dutch would have tried to extend credit until they were confident that they could defend themselves. It should have been quite clear that if the NEI were once taken by Japan, the Dutch would never get it back. Thus selling oil and minerals on credit would seem a cheap form of defence. There is very little available from the Philippines or Malaya that cannot be purchased from the NEI or taken from Indochina (e.g. chromium). Just possibly, Japan might strike at New Caledonia (with Vichy permission?) to get nickel.

If there is no reason to attack to seize resources, Japan might focus on China. After Barbarossa, Japan can be fairly sure that there will not be a Soviet attack and can also move troops from Manchuria to China South of the Wall. Thus I do not see why Japan would risk an attack on anyone else.

Thats a interesting fork. If for lack of political cohesion a strong embargo cannot be organized in mid 1941 then Japan has far less incentive to strike, and the US has time to progress its mobilization. While the US had difficulty establishing any combat power beyond Hawaii in 1941 a tipping point would have been reachedd in the spring of 1942. Significant reinforcements were scheduled for the Phillpines in early 1942 and some of those were already enroute in December. Those included critical supplies like artillery ammunition and construction material for storing supplies outside the Manilia depots. Elsewhere the defenses of Oahu are stronger & better trained. A functional tactical air defense command would have made a huge differenece there, and over Manila. There equipment and personnel for that existed but were not yet trained. Two more USN aircraft carriers were completing their work up in the spring & the cargo ship problem was slowly improving. Lacking US entry into the war winter of 41-42 the German Operation Drumbeat does not set back improvemnt in the US cargo shipping and Operation Bolero is not started which further reduces stress in the winter/spring of 1942.

Bottom line here is if the Netherlands & NEI leaders want more than a token US reinforcement in the spring of 1942 they can have it. No guarantee they would ask for it absent a direct Japanese threat, but the possibility may influence Japanese thinking, and it may encourage the Dutch leaders to change their policy and back the Allies vs Japan.

....
.... Thus selling oil and minerals on credit would seem a cheap form of defence. ...

The US would certainly be bidding long cash vs Japans smaller treasury and credit.

[Buchan]

If Japan is getting Dutch oil and other goods via Dutch ships and trade from Europe it will not attack Pearl Harbour.
This will mean the American's will either have to provoke the Japanese off the Philippines or enter the war against the European Axis over merchant sinking if they wish to enter the war that badly.

[LWD]

If Japan is getting Dutch oil and other goods via Dutch ships and trade from Europe it will not attack Pearl Harbour.

Perhaps. It's not clear that the Dutch could supply all the oil Japan needed nor that they would have had the exchange to buy it and the other resources that were needed. It's also not clear how they would have reacted to the AVG or the build up of the defences in the Philippines.

This will mean the American's will either have to provoke the Japanese off the Philippines or enter the war against the European Axis over merchant sinking if they wish to enter the war that badly.

There had already been exchanges of fire between US and German vessels in the Atlatnic. Another USN vessel or two sunk would have probably been enough. Note that by Nov 41 the Gallup polls showed that the majority of Americans saw war with Germany as inevitable. FDR's military advisors were hopeing that it wouldn't start until the second half of 42 though.

[Buchan]

If Japan is getting Dutch oil and other goods via Dutch ships and trade from Europe it will not attack Pearl Harbour.

Perhaps. It's not clear that the Dutch could supply all the oil Japan needed nor that they would have had the exchange to buy it and the other resources that were needed. It's also not clear how they would have reacted to the AVG or the build up of the defences in the Philippines.

This will mean the American's will either have to provoke the Japanese off the Philippines or enter the war against the European Axis over merchant sinking if they wish to enter the war that badly.

There had already been exchanges of fire between US and German vessels in the Atlatnic. Another USN vessel or two sunk would have probably been enough. Note that by Nov 41 the Gallup polls showed that the majority of Americans saw war with Germany as inevitable. FDR's military advisors were hopeing that it wouldn't start until the second half of 42 though.

I would think Hollands logical choice would be to provide the Japanese with what they need or risk invasion of the Dutch East Indies.
As you mention it is still likely America would enter the war.
Probably over a shipping incident in late 1942.

[California]

But even before america's entry into WWII, it were American forces that defended Suriname! With Suriname under american control America could take that bauxiet, whether the dutch liked it or not...

i remember reading something about it, can you post any links about it?

[LWD]

It's not clear that the Dutch could supply all the oil Japan needed nor that they would have had the exchange to buy it and the other resources that were needed. ....

I would think Hollands logical choice would be to provide the Japanese with what they need or risk invasion of the Dutch East Indies. ...

The question is would the Dutch fields produce enough oil to satisfy Japan's needs. Remember that up until the oil embargo 80% of Japan's oil came from the US. The Dutch are also going to want some reimbursement for their oil otherwise they might as well go ahead and risk the invasion. The British and the US are also likely to bid up the price of Dutch oil making it more costly too Japan. The question becomes at what point will the Japanese decide war is the prefered option. If the Dutch initially increase Japan's alotment then will they might indeed hold off attacking the US although their strategic posture gets worse over time.