Why was Holland + others invaded?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#16

Post by AJFFM » 20 Jul 2014, 19:39

Indonesians of Aceh would disagree about the Dutch "peace" movement. As for the Dutch army, alone it would do much but once the Germans were drawn deep into Belgian and French territory no one could guarantee the British wouldn't force the Dutch hand and open a front in the German rear that would definitely deplete the German attacking strength. Plus if I am not mistaken a large part of the Belgian army was located on the Dutch border and the larger and stronger Belgian army proved itself in battle so from that point the Germans had to neutralise Holland by force.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#17

Post by ljadw » 20 Jul 2014, 21:34

AJFFM wrote:I As for the Dutch army, alone it would do much but once the Germans were drawn deep into Belgian and French territory no one could guarantee the British wouldn't force the Dutch hand and open a front in the German rear that would definitely deplete the German attacking strength.



Plus if I am not mistaken a large part of the Belgian army was located on the Dutch border and the larger and stronger Belgian army proved itself in battle so from that point the Germans had to neutralise Holland by force.

1)This is not correct : the Dutch army was not capable to operate outside the Netherlands .


2)This is not correct : the main part of the Belgian forces were located in the region Liège-Maastricht,there was no need for Belgium to position its forces along the border with Holland :if the Germans attacked Holland,the Dutch would stop them ,if not (what was probable),the Belgium army would withdraw to the line Antwerp-Brussels (K/W line).

Liège-Maastricht was pivotal,because the Germans passed through this region in 1914 .


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#18

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Jul 2014, 21:56

Indonesians of Aceh would disagree about the Dutch "peace" movement.


With the best will in the world - they weren't IN Holland...
As 'for the Dutch army, alone it would do much but once the Germans were drawn deep into Belgian and French territory no one could guarantee the British wouldn't force the Dutch hand and open a front in the German rear that would definitely deplete the German attacking strength.
They didn't manage such a forcing 1914-18...part of the reason the Dutch thought they could maintain the same position during the next war... They made the classic Neutrals' mistake of thinking that Neutrality was a "third way" between two belligerents - when in fact it was having a foot in BOTH camps...trading with them etc. - but your gentleman's vegetables hanging over a knife edge. There was no fence to sit on...it was a constant balance of favouring and not being seen to favour one belligerent or the other, depen0ding almost by the day which posed the greatest threat and which seemed to have the best chance of coming out on top.
Plus if I am not mistaken a large part of the Belgian army was located on the Dutch border...
Half the Belgian Army wasn't "on the Dutch border"...it was in the north of the country by default because it was either in front of or behind the big north west to north east curve of the KW Line that protected Belgium's biggest cities - which just happened to be up towards the Dutch border. They weren't there to cooperate with the Dutch...in fact, until May 10th 1940, all parties (except the Germans) expected Belgium to be dragged into the war by an invasion of Belgium - and not with a parallel invasion of Holland!

The rest of the Belgian Army was in the east of the country, the Chasseurs Ardennais and many others, who were to - and did - conduct a fighting retreat to the west and finally take up positions in the southern extension of the KW Line which extended south from the middle of the northern arc of the Line; from there to the French border the French were supposed to advance into Belgium and form a line, with the British covering the "join" mid-country.
and the larger and stronger Belgian army proved itself in battle so from that point the Germans had to neutralise Holland by force.
??? When? The Dutch capitulated after three days or so, the Belgians fought for most of the month...but they were initially invaded at the same time.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#19

Post by ljadw » 20 Jul 2014, 23:04

2 Belgian divisions were concentrated near Antwerp


4 were along the Albert canal,but far away from the border with Holland

4 were in the south of the province Limburg,close to the Meuse


4 were on the Meuse

2 in Luxemburg

1 south of Brussels

1 in Leopoldsburg for training

The 4 other were second reserve and not operational .

john2
Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: 04 Feb 2003, 00:25
Location: north carolina

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#20

Post by john2 » 21 Jul 2014, 16:28

Sorry I could not get back here earlier. Thanks everyone for a very informative thread!

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#21

Post by AJFFM » 21 Jul 2014, 18:47

ljadw wrote:
AJFFM wrote:I As for the Dutch army, alone it would do much but once the Germans were drawn deep into Belgian and French territory no one could guarantee the British wouldn't force the Dutch hand and open a front in the German rear that would definitely deplete the German attacking strength.



Plus if I am not mistaken a large part of the Belgian army was located on the Dutch border and the larger and stronger Belgian army proved itself in battle so from that point the Germans had to neutralise Holland by force.

1)This is not correct : the Dutch army was not capable to operate outside the Netherlands .
Which is why I said with British-French pressure/help. The British/French navies controlled the seas and moved tens of thousands of French evacuees from Dunkirk to England and then back to France plus 2 British divisions in a matter of one week if I am not mistaken. There is no reason to assume an Anglo-French landing wouldn't encourage the Dutch to go on the offensive.
ljadw wrote: 2)This is not correct : the main part of the Belgian forces were located in the region Liège-Maastricht,there was no need for Belgium to position its forces along the border with Holland :if the Germans attacked Holland,the Dutch would stop them ,if not (what was probable),the Belgium army would withdraw to the line Antwerp-Brussels (K/W line).

Liège-Maastricht was pivotal,because the Germans passed through this region in 1914 .
Not going to argue with you here, no matter how hard I tried I never found a satisfactory English language source on the battle of Belgium so you are probably right.

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#22

Post by AJFFM » 21 Jul 2014, 19:03

phylo_roadking wrote:
Indonesians of Aceh would disagree about the Dutch "peace" movement.


With the best will in the world - they weren't IN Holland...
Responding to this will go off topic but let me say I don't generally agree.
phylo_roadking wrote:
As 'for the Dutch army, alone it would do much but once the Germans were drawn deep into Belgian and French territory no one could guarantee the British wouldn't force the Dutch hand and open a front in the German rear that would definitely deplete the German attacking strength.
They didn't manage such a forcing 1914-18...part of the reason the Dutch thought they could maintain the same position during the next war... They made the classic Neutrals' mistake of thinking that Neutrality was a "third way" between two belligerents - when in fact it was having a foot in BOTH camps...trading with them etc. - but your gentleman's vegetables hanging over a knife edge. There was no fence to sit on...it was a constant balance of favouring and not being seen to favour one belligerent or the other, depen0ding almost by the day which posed the greatest threat and which seemed to have the best chance of coming out on top.
Different regimes means different approaches. I think I clearly explained the difference between the two regimes in Germany and why Holland had nothing to be afraid of from Imperial German while it was under direct threat from the Nazis long before hostilities began and the knew about it. From the German point of view Holand was probably another Hungary but since Mechelen exposed their "theoretical" intentions there was no escape from invasion.
phylo_roadking wrote:
Plus if I am not mistaken a large part of the Belgian army was located on the Dutch border...
Half the Belgian Army wasn't "on the Dutch border"...it was in the north of the country by default because it was either in front of or behind the big north west to north east curve of the KW Line that protected Belgium's biggest cities - which just happened to be up towards the Dutch border. They weren't there to cooperate with the Dutch...in fact, until May 10th 1940, all parties (except the Germans) expected Belgium to be dragged into the war by an invasion of Belgium - and not with a parallel invasion of Holland!

The rest of the Belgian Army was in the east of the country, the Chasseurs Ardennais and many others, who were to - and did - conduct a fighting retreat to the west and finally take up positions in the southern extension of the KW Line which extended south from the middle of the northern arc of the Line; from there to the French border the French were supposed to advance into Belgium and form a line, with the British covering the "join" mid-country.
Please note I said a large part and not half. Again I explained my lack of knowledge regarding the battle of Belgium outside the Ardennes but a the French and the British planned to connect with Belgian forces and Dutch forces in the Rump of Holland so I assume there was a large concentration in the vicinity of Antwerp on the Dutch border.
phylo_roadking wrote:
and the larger and stronger Belgian army proved itself in battle so from that point the Germans had to neutralise Holland by force.
??? When? The Dutch capitulated after three days or so, the Belgians fought for most of the month...but they were initially invaded at the same time.
After suffering massive losses at the hand of the Dutch who still controlled large parts of the Netherlands when they officially surrendered 6 days into the battle. Better coordination on the part of the Dutch with the allies after it was well apparent that the Germans were going to attack (and I think the Germans did assume some kind of coordination regardless if the assumption was correct or not) would have probably altered the course of the war but who knows.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#23

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Jul 2014, 01:08

Indonesians of Aceh would disagree about the Dutch "peace" movement.
With the best will in the world - they weren't IN Holland...
Responding to this will go off topic but let me say I don't generally agree.
Actually - the whole political ethos behind why the Dutch Army wasn't stronger than it was in Europe is intimately bound up with both the huge Dutch domestic pacifist movement....and their desire to not appear to be a threat.

As an example - the huge public protests by the pacifist movement when in 1935 (1936??) the Dutch government announced the replacement of the three largest (but aged) vessels in the Colonial Navy resulted in them having to cave in to an extent to the public pressure and redraft their plans - which resulted in three modern vessels okay...but were weakly armed and armoured for their class 8O Something th Dutch government (in exile) was later to rue in the engagements leading up to and including the Battle of The java Sea.
while it was under direct threat from the Nazis long before hostilities began and the knew about it.
ALL Neutrals within reach were under threat from the Nazis; it's how they scrwed their remarkably favourable trading terms from them. Only in the case (eventually) if Sweden did this change after 1943 when it began to appear that the threat was lessening...part of that "fine balance" I mentioned above.
From the German point of view Holand was probably another Hungary but since Mechelen exposed their "theoretical" intentions there was no escape from invasion.
...apart from the fact, however, that the Allies didn't let the plans captured on that occasion to change THEIR plans in any way!
Again I explained my lack of knowledge regarding the battle of Belgium outside the Ardennes but a the French and the British planned to connect with Belgian forces and Dutch forces in the Rump of Holland so I assume there was a large concentration in the vicinity of Antwerp on the Dutch border.
I take it what you mean by "rump" is the group of large urban areas north of the KW Line...

On the contrary, they never intended to do so - hence all the plans for the "Dyle" Line" from the southern end of the southern extension of the KW Line down to the French frontier.
After suffering massive losses at the hand of the Dutch who still controlled large parts of the Netherlands when they officially surrendered 6 days into the battle.
...so from that point the Germans had to neutralise Holland by force.
To be fair....but equally, to be bluntly honest, the Germans didn't; they "neutralised" Holland in the end by blackmail. Rotterdam???
Better coordination on the part of the Dutch with the allies after it was well apparent that the Germans were going to attack (and I think the Germans did assume some kind of coordination regardless if the assumption was correct or not) would have probably altered the course of the war but who knows.
1/ it's actually very hard to totally hide cooperation, the establishment of military conventions etc. between two nations; in the end the Germans even discovered the EXTREMELY secure early-war cooperation between the French and the Swiss, for example...

2/ the establishment of military conventions, defence agreements etc. between a belligerent and a neutral is equivalent, in the eyes of any party that wants to take it so, as being the Neutral joining that belligerent; Look how the Allied governments regarded the USSR in 1940 for example - as an "ally" of Nazi Germany even though they were only cooperating in one area of military effort, and economically. In Neutral Ireland, despite months of once-monhtly planning meetings between the Irish Army and the British Army in Northern Ireland at a country house outside Dublin - there is exactly one (1) accidental period written reference to such meetings - and absolutely NO paperwork or anyhting else surviving from that protracted liaison.

Further and obvious cooperation/coordination with the Allies was something the Dutch did NOT want to do or have happen....or be seen to happen or welcome...because that would draw the Assyrians down upon the fold if anything would!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#24

Post by steverodgers801 » 22 Jul 2014, 08:18

Since King Leopold refused to allow any discussion between his officers and the allies, there was no way to coordinate with the Dutch. Gamelin sent his one reserve army north to meet up with the Dutch only to find out there were no units to meet, they had withdrawn into fortress Holland. This lack of communication was a major contributor in the French defeat.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#25

Post by ljadw » 22 Jul 2014, 10:59

1)There were a lot of informal contacts between the French and the Belgians.

2)There was no need for contacts with the Dutch,as the farthest the French could go was Breda (and this was even very dubious),and Breda is in the southwest of Holland,far away from the German border,thus,the French being in Breda would not help the Dutch .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#26

Post by ljadw » 22 Jul 2014, 11:29

Following the French plans, it would take the 25 MID (1 AC) 3 days to arrive at Breda (a few units arrived on 11 may),but on 13 may,Breda was occupied by the Germans .

Distances :

Breda-Venlo ( German border) : 117 km

Breda -Rotterdam :52 km

Lille (France)-Breda :182 km .

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#27

Post by steverodgers801 » 22 Jul 2014, 18:54

There were some contacts, but these were prohibited by Leopold when he found out. The lack of contact was a result of Gamelin's lack of information from the Dutch as to what they were going to do.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#28

Post by RichTO90 » 22 Jul 2014, 19:36

AJFFM wrote:Not going to argue with you here, no matter how hard I tried I never found a satisfactory English language source on the battle of Belgium so you are probably right.
The Campaign of May 1940, Belgium - Ministry of National Defence, Historical Service of the [Belgian] Army, ND [c. 1946], Military Cartographic Institute, 2, Abbey Alley, Brussels.

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/sing ... 3188/rec/1

Enjoy! :thumbsup:

Cheers!

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#29

Post by ljadw » 22 Jul 2014, 20:19

steverodgers801 wrote:There were some contacts, but these were prohibited by Leopold when he found out. The lack of contact was a result of Gamelin's lack of information from the Dutch as to what they were going to do.
That's something strange : you are saying that the French had no information about the Dutch,because the Belgian king prohibited all contacts between the Belgian and French military ? :?

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#30

Post by AJFFM » 22 Jul 2014, 20:19

How did I miss this?

Anyway thanks a million! :D

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”