The Netherlands as neutral country during Second World War

Jukra · Nov 13, 2007

Inspired by "Dutch in Central Powers" thread, let's present an another Dutch dilemna:

POD: Early in 1940 the German plans to attack France and Benelux countries are revised. A decision is made by Hitler not to attack Netherlands. This will be done because the goal of attack on the West is not to cause a total defeat for Allied forces, but to gain advance bases for air war against Great Britain and France. The war will be probably long, and it serves more German interests to have a neutral Netherlands to serve as a neutral air barrier against RAF attacks, and also to have a trade outlet to the outside world. In case the Allies decide to violate Dutch airspace, they will be the first ones to do it, if in some odd case the Dutch join the Allies, they will be easy to finish.

Thus, the attack goes on without assault on the Netherlands. The result is same as with the historical attack, sans occupation of the Netherlands. What happens next?

I'm particularly intrigued by the status of the Netherlands East Indies. It will be the prime target of Japanese Southern Campaign, if there's need for it, as the Netherlands can be held hostage to Germany in order for them to continue oil sales to Japan. As the Japanese High command was in suicidal mood, will this result Japan joining up the attack on Soviet Union, or just additional resource pouring to Operation Endless and Fathomless Quaqmire in China?

Additional effects will be the effect on eventual Allied bombing campaign. Without use of Dutch airspace the avenues of approach towards Germany are much more limited. Does the Combined Bomber offensive have a chance to crush Luftwaffe before D-Day? (presuming it will happen quite around same time as in OTL)

Michele · Nov 14, 2007

Jukra said:
Inspired by "Dutch in Central Powers" thread, let's present an another Dutch dilemna:

POD: Early in 1940 the German plans to attack France and Benelux countries are revised. A decision is made by Hitler not to attack Netherlands. This will be done because the goal of attack on the West is not to cause a total defeat for Allied forces, but to gain advance bases for air war against Great Britain and France. The war will be probably long, and it serves more German interests to have a neutral Netherlands to serve as a neutral air barrier against RAF attacks, and also to have a trade outlet to the outside world. In case the Allies decide to violate Dutch airspace, they will be the first ones to do it, if in some odd case the Dutch join the Allies, they will be easy to finish.

Thus, the attack goes on without assault on the Netherlands. The result is same as with the historical attack, sans occupation of the Netherlands. What happens next?

I'm particularly intrigued by the status of the Netherlands East Indies. It will be the prime target of Japanese Southern Campaign, if there's need for it, as the Netherlands can be held hostage to Germany in order for them to continue oil sales to Japan. As the Japanese High command was in suicidal mood, will this result Japan joining up the attack on Soviet Union, or just additional resource pouring to Operation Endless and Fathomless Quaqmire in China?

Additional effects will be the effect on eventual Allied bombing campaign. Without use of Dutch airspace the avenues of approach towards Germany are much more limited. Does the Combined Bomber offensive have a chance to crush Luftwaffe before D-Day? (presuming it will happen quite around same time as in OTL)

I'm afraid the premises are not credible.

Having the Netherlands as a neutral country trading with Germany isn't going to have much appeal with Hitler. He remembered the British policy as to contraband in WWI. Trading with the USSR is OK because the British can't stop trains; trading with the Netherlands isn't going to be of much use save for local foodstuffs. Oil and rubber from the East Indies is a no-no.

As to the Netherlands as an air buffer against RAF attacks, that would be very useful if Hitler thought the Luftwaffe needed to defend itself and Germany from the RAF. Since he thought the reverse, i.e., that the Luftwaffe would be attacking and the RAF defending, having both the Dutch airspace and the airfields is better than letting them be a no-fly zone.

Gearing for a long stand-off on the Western Front is even less credible. Hitler was in this war business in order to gain Lebensraum in Ukraine; therefore, the Western threat had to be shut down ASAP, so that he could turn to the real objective. Otherwise, it's like putting Germany in the WWI situation of fighting on two fronts.

Now, let's assume that with all of that, this really happens anyway.

The Battle of Britain is won even more easily by the British, since the German bombers have less airbases and less approaches. This gives a more aggressive RAF both over Germany and in the desert.

Not much good comes to Germany through Dutch trade. Actually the British shut down most of the traffic from the NEI, so that even the Dutch face shortages in key raw materials. The Germans do buy Dutch foodstuffs, but they cost much much more than taking them as "payment" for the maintenance of the occupation forces there in OTL.

I suspect the Germans don't get much leverage on the Dutch, with regard to the NEI and Japanese demands about them. If on the one hand the Germans may always invade the Netherlands, the British OTOH can strangle them single-handedly, and wreak havoc through bombardment. So the Dutch will try to be truly neutral.

We could explore the options Bomber Command is left with (note that many raids stayed NE over the North Sea for much of their approach, exactly in order not to fly over German radar stations and night fighter bases), but given Hitler's usual reaction when he felt frustrated with a country, I think his decision to leave the Dutch alone will be reviewed before the strategic bombing campaign really goes in all-out attack mode.

pompejus · Nov 14, 2007

Eventhough a neutral Netherlands would be unlikely I do not consider it impossible.
I don't think, if the Netherlands can maintain its neutrality during the war, it would realy change the war war in Europe. Its main effect would be after the war. Because the Dutch Neutrality tactics works, I doubt they will join NATO, the EU, or would form the Benelux (without the Benelux the EU could even be butterflied away). The end result would be that the Netherlands would become a sort of Switserland at the sea.
The interesting part will be the war in the pacific. Would Japan attack the Dutch East Indies if the Netherlands wasn't occupied? If they did, what would happen to the Dutch neutrality, would they join the allies? Would Germany brake its alliance with Japan, just to keep the Netherlands out of the European war or would they invade the Netherlands as soon as possible? Would the allies refuse to help the Dutch in Asia only because they didn't join the war in Europe?

NomadicSky · Nov 14, 2007

Corrie Ten Boom might still help save Jews although this time she'd be helping them get into the Netherlands.

Promethean · Nov 14, 2007

Do you really think hitler is going to give up his japenese distraction shield and give the americans free play in europe because japan is queit

Tyr · Nov 14, 2007

I'd think the Dutch would go to war with Germany once the tide has truly turned against them- maybe in the hope of grabbing a bit of land along the border, maybe just a token declaration of war to show they support the side of good (ala Turkey).

Michel Van · Nov 15, 2007

This TL dosent work because

Belgium and the Netherlands were neutral State in europe.

Hitler don´t care for "neutral State"

he wandet to invade

pompejus · Nov 15, 2007

Michel Van said:
This TL dosent work because

Belgium and the Netherlands were neutral State in europe.

Hitler don´t care for "neutral State"

he wandet to invade

Switzerland, Sweden and Spain were neutral states, he didn't invade. So Hitler did respect some neutralities, we now need to find a reason for Hitler to respect Dutch neutrality

Michele · Nov 15, 2007

pompejus said:
Switzerland, Sweden and Spain were neutral states, he didn't invade. So Hitler did respect some neutralities, we now need to find a reason for Hitler to respect Dutch neutrality

Right. I think I already posted the good reasons not to respect it, and shown why the reasons to respect it are not good.

von Adler · Nov 15, 2007

Not having German forces coming from the north would leave the Belgians and the French and British troops in Belgium in a far better position than in OTL, probably delaying the Fall of France two weeks or so.

Anyway, the Germans would not get rubber or oil from the Dutch, but the Dutch also provide the British with some nice things (an easy way into occupied Europe for spies and agents et al). The Dutch were in the midst of a large re-armament program at the time, if they get another year or two they'll have a far better army and air force.

This will also effect Sweden a lot. The Dutch were buying artillery from Sweden and Sweden was buying aircrafts and engines from the Dutch - rubber and oil going to Sweden and iron ore the other way is quite possible. There's really no reason for either side to limit this trade too much - the British cannot afford more enemies and wants strong minor nations to keep the Germans at their toes. The Germans want their Swedish iron ore and transit rights and need the Dutch to defend their "hole" in the Atlantic wall well.

The main question is indeed the Dutch East Indees - will there be more resoiurces available for its defence? Sure, but will the Americans sell weapons there under these circumstances? They impounded large Swedish orders. Will the Dutch eb in on the oil embargo on Japan? If not, will the Japanese go to war with the USA and Britain? If they do not, will the British attempt to take over administration to enforce it? Would that drive the Dutch into the axis camp?

Jukra · Nov 16, 2007

Michele said:
Gearing for a long stand-off on the Western Front is even less credible. Hitler was in this war business in order to gain Lebensraum in Ukraine; therefore, the Western threat had to be shut down ASAP, so that he could turn to the real objective. Otherwise, it's like putting Germany in the WWI situation of fighting on two fronts.

Umm, the original objective of the assault on West was not to crush the France, but to attain a base area for continuing operations. Crushing France was a windfall, not the predicted result. Thus, defensive barrier might make sense as well as even limited trade route. Hitler might also hope for the Netherlands to join his Germanic cause.

Michele said:
The Battle of Britain is won even more easily by the British, since the German bombers have less airbases and less approaches.

Only one KG was based in the Netherlands (KG 4), so this won't mean any difference at all.

Michele said:
Not much good comes to Germany through Dutch trade. Actually the British shut down most of the traffic from the NEI, so that even the Dutch face shortages in key raw materials. The Germans do buy Dutch foodstuffs, but they cost much much more than taking them as "payment" for the maintenance of the occupation forces there in OTL.

I strongly doubt this, historically forced labour has proven less effective than paid one.

Michele said:
I suspect the Germans don't get much leverage on the Dutch, with regard to the NEI and Japanese demands about them. If on the one hand the Germans may always invade the Netherlands, the British OTOH can strangle them single-handedly, and wreak havoc through bombardment. So the Dutch will try to be truly neutral.

Sure, and that's what makes this really interesting, it presents the Dutch dilemna by late 1941.

Michele said:
We could explore the options Bomber Command is left with (note that many raids stayed NE over the North Sea for much of their approach, exactly in order not to fly over German radar stations and night fighter bases), but given Hitler's usual reaction when he felt frustrated with a country, I think his decision to leave the Dutch alone will be reviewed before the strategic bombing campaign really goes in all-out attack mode.

Hitler being Hitler is always the issue, but note that with the Dutch neutral the shortest route between UK and Ruhr is limited to either Belgium or going round the northernmost part of the Netherlands. This means that the Germans have a lot easier time to concentrate their defensive forces. For example, the Kammhuber line can be kept much shorter.

I would figure that Bomber Command raids would still go on, albeit perhaps with somewhat less effect than OTL, but the crushing of Luftwaffe by 8th AF effort will be slower. First off, the defense against initial 8th AF raids will be much more effective, perhaps cutting down initial unescorted raids sooner than initially. Now, the statistics naturally tell the Luftwaffe won't have a long standing chance against 8th AF, but with more effective initial defense (and thus less wear on the fighter forces), I would guess that Allied tactical airpower would have slightly less effect on Normandy campaign than in OTL. Additionally, with bombing raids with less results German forces will have more equipment and fuel than OTL.

David S Poepoe · Nov 16, 2007

pompejus said:
Switzerland, Sweden and Spain were neutral states, he didn't invade. So Hitler did respect some neutralities, we now need to find a reason for Hitler to respect Dutch neutrality

Neither of these three were important or between Germany and an enemy. Sweden supplied iron ore and other items. Spain and Switzerland weren't important and would have been forcibly brought into the 'fold' of German dominated Europe quickly after an Axis victory.

Michele · Nov 19, 2007

Jukra said:
Umm, the original objective of the assault on West was not to crush the France, but to attain a base area for continuing operations. Crushing France was a windfall, not the predicted result. Thus, defensive barrier might make sense as well as even limited trade route. Hitler might also hope for the Netherlands to join his Germanic cause.

Only one KG was based in the Netherlands (KG 4), so this won't mean any difference at all.

I strongly doubt this, historically forced labour has proven less effective than paid one.

Sure, and that's what makes this really interesting, it presents the Dutch dilemna by late 1941.

Hitler being Hitler is always the issue, but note that with the Dutch neutral the shortest route between UK and Ruhr is limited to either Belgium or going round the northernmost part of the Netherlands. This means that the Germans have a lot easier time to concentrate their defensive forces. For example, the Kammhuber line can be kept much shorter.

I would figure that Bomber Command raids would still go on, albeit perhaps with somewhat less effect than OTL, but the crushing of Luftwaffe by 8th AF effort will be slower. First off, the defense against initial 8th AF raids will be much more effective, perhaps cutting down initial unescorted raids sooner than initially. Now, the statistics naturally tell the Luftwaffe won't have a long standing chance against 8th AF, but with more effective initial defense (and thus less wear on the fighter forces), I would guess that Allied tactical airpower would have slightly less effect on Normandy campaign than in OTL. Additionally, with bombing raids with less results German forces will have more equipment and fuel than OTL.

1. Yes, sure, the original plan provided for gaining limited objectives.
But that was the plan of Directive n.6, dated October 1939. That's what the Germans thought they could afford right on the tail of the Polish campaign. The German plans for Fall Gelb, as you certainly know, evolved considerably over the next few months, and in the final version, Belgium (and Holland) would serve as a trap for the best Allied troops, not just as a place where to park German aircraft. With the loss of the BEF, a sizable part of the French army, and the key central hinge of the French frontage, the general collapse of France might not be a given – but it was no casual event either.

2. Yes, only KG 4 was based on Dutch airbases. Then again, KG 3 was based on Belgian airbases close to the Dutch border, and had the Frisian Islands across their most direct route to England. If they had needed to respect the Dutch airspace, they would have needed either to change bases like KG4, or to change routes. Besides, while KG3 and KG4 are just two Kampfgruppen, not having them deployed as they historically were would have changed the fulcrum of Luftflotte 2. What's even more important, with Luftflotte 2 and those two KGs deployed as they were, the British had to defend a long arc from Brest to Amsterdam (and the most important targets were in the Eastern part of that arc, BTW). If the Germans had deployed in France and Belgium only, the approaches, as I said, would have been restricted.
The effect would be felt.

3. Don't confuse forced labor, as in, slaves working under duress in German factories and production centers, with the levying of "occupation duties" from countries like the Netherlands or Norway. The latter was extremely effective, not the least because the rules (such as, exchange rates, prices etc.) were set by the Germans. Dutch dairy products were a sizable contribution to German internal consumption for most of the war. The value of Dutch foodstuffs for the Germans is confirmed by the deliberate deprivation they subjected Dutch civilians to in 1944.

4. As to the issue of Allied raids against Germany, you might have some ggod points about them. The problem is however that, as I mentioned, defense against enemy raids won't even be a doubt in Hitler's mind when, in the fall of 1939, he has to decide whether to respect Dutch neutrality or not. Nobody could think about the thousand bomber raids or the US entry in the war with a strategy for escorted daylight attacks, and so on. Therefore, it's all irrelevant, as I said.