Why was Holland + others invaded?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#46

Post by ljadw » 29 Jul 2014, 18:05

BDV wrote:
ljadw wrote:while in 1940,the attack on Holland was helping the German advance .
How?
See post 45.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#47

Post by BDV » 29 Jul 2014, 21:13

ljadw wrote:You don't get it : in 1914,the neutrality of Holland was confining the German advance to the region between Liege and Maastricht,this narrow front was making things easier for the Belgians.When the Belgian resistance in this region was broken,the Belgian army was retreating to Antwerp and from Antwerp,it was attacking the German flanks.(battle of Haelen) .
The key Fall Gelb attack was at Sedan, afaik. The attack in Belgium was a secondary attack, drawing the french forward.

Reserves would have been of key importance if the attack through Belgium needs to become the main attack.

In 1940,the attack on Holland had 2 positive effects for Germany:

a) it was preventing the Belgian retreat to Antwerp
With neutral Holland how is that any skin of Wehrmacht's nose? Especially if french/british units also withdraw there?

b) it forced the French to send their mobile troops to the north,to prevent a collaps of the Belgian front in the north .The Belgians could not defend and the frontline between Antwerp and Maastricht and the line Maastricht -Liege.

If Holland was not attacked,the French mobile forces could remain in the south,which would endanger the success of Sichelschnit.
The French would have rushed north no matter what, if Belgium was attacked. To posit that the belgium front will not collapse, when attacked with same, or larger force than historical is untenable.

As such, the attack on Holland was a indefensible military error (drawing off scarce military assets to an unnecessary objective that borne little import historically on the battle), and a major political blunder (up there with Weserubung).

And, the Panzergruppe Kleist was strong enough to execute Sichelschnit : there is no proof that a stronger PzG would have obtained bigger successes.
Trier - Dunkirk 460 km (through Sedan). Kleve - Dunkirk 330 km. If the attack on Holland was such a no brain cakewalk, why was the german right wing nowhere close to Dunkirk?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion


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

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#48

Post by ljadw » 29 Jul 2014, 21:23

BDV wrote:
The key Fall Gelb attack was at Sedan, afaik. The attack in Belgium was a secondary attack, drawing the french forward.
NO: the attack in Belgium AND Holland was as important as the attack at Sedan :you can't separate both :without the advance of AGB (Bock) PzG Kleist could have no success .

PzG Kleist was the hammer who would crush the Allied forces on the anvil (AGB): if there was no anvil, Sichelschnit would fail .

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

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#49

Post by ljadw » 29 Jul 2014, 21:32

BDV wrote:
Trier - Dunkirk 460 km (through Sedan). Kleve - Dunkirk 330 km. If the attack on Holland was such a no brain cakewalk, why was the german right wing nowhere close to Dunkirk?
Because it was not needed that AGB was close to Dunkirk(neither was von Kleist) : Dunkirk as such was not important : the mission of von Kleist was NOT to encircle the allies at Dunkirk;it was to drive them to the north where Bock was waiting on them .

The Halt Order was given on 24 may,and on that day, more than 1 MILLION Allied soldiers were encircled : from Gravelines to Terneuzen,and from Dunkirk to Valenciennes .

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?

#50

Post by BDV » 30 Jul 2014, 00:06

Not attacking Holland does not preclude attacking Belgium and at Sedan. Actually, the Wehrmacht can do it more forcefully than historical. The historical Bock-anvil was just fine with the forces that poured through the Reich-Belgium frontier.

P.S. That Anglo-French-Belgian soldiers were hardly "encircled". With their backs to the sea - yes.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”