Why was Holland + others invaded?

[steverodgers801]

two subjects, sorry. there was some contact between the Belgians and French, but was halted by Leopold. There was no contact between the French army and the Dutch because the Dutch didn't discuss anything with the French

[BDV]

two subjects, sorry. there was some contact between the Belgians and French, but was halted by Leopold. There was no contact between the French army and the Dutch because the Dutch didn't discuss anything with the French

Source?

[steverodgers801]

May strange victory page 300 305 I don't remember where else Ive read this

[BDV]

So, to the original question "Re: Why was Holland + others invaded?", the answer is:

For no good (political or military) reason.

[steverodgers801]

a very good military reason, airfields

[BDV]

a very good military reason, airfields

And how was this "very good", historically?

[steverodgers801]

Obviously the Germans thought it was enough of a good reason to launch the invasion. I agree it was costly, but it achieved its goal.

[BDV]

politically - there was no goal.

militarily, no worthwhile goals were achieved. was one terror bombing away from a total debacle.

[steverodgers801]

for the operation the goals were achieved. Holland was an important base for the battle of Britain. Just because the war didn't work out doesn't mean the operation didn't work.

[BDV]

Holland was an important base for the battle of Britain.

How did THAT one pan out?

[ljadw]

There was one good military reason : the success of Sichelschnit without an attack on Holland was dubious .

[BDV]

There was one good military reason : the success of Sichelschnit without an attack on Holland was dubious .

What does success in Ardennes and at Sedan have to do with Netherlands?!?? On the contrary, 750 tanks here, 850 planes there, soon you're talking taking a sizeable reduction of the first blow against the French (and/or from the reserve to push through the Sedan gap, OR from the force to be paraded on the Lithuanina border - "Kamerad Djugashvilli, that would really not be a good ideea").

Criminality of the action notwithstanding, one can understand the military necessity of the invasion of Belgium, but Holland, 2 major rivers over?

[ljadw]

The irony is that in 1914 a neutral Holland was hindering the German advance,while in 1940,the attack on Holland was helping the German advance .

[BDV]

while in 1940,the attack on Holland was helping the German advance .

How?

[ljadw]

There was one good military reason : the success of Sichelschnit without an attack on Holland was dubious .

What does success in Ardennes and at Sedan have to do with Netherlands?!?? On the contrary, 750 tanks here, 850 planes there, soon you're talking taking a sizeable reduction of the first blow against the French (and/or from the reserve to push through the Sedan gap).

Criminality of the action notwithstanding, one can understand the military necessity of the invasion of Belgium, but Holland, 2 major rivers over?

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) .

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

a) it was preventing the Belgian retreat to Antwerp

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.

And, the Panzergruppe Kleist was strong enough to execute Sichelschnit : there is no proof that a stronger PzG would have obtained bigger successes.