WI - No Belgium Neutrality 1920 onwards?

Per Wikipedia....

As Belgium had suffered so much damage in World War I, there was little appetite within the country to involve itself in any potential European conflict. In October 1936, King Leopold III announced that Belgium would remain neutral in the event of another war in Europe as part of what he termed an Independent Policy (Politique d'Indépendance).[7] To this end, the Belgian government tried to steer a path away from alliances: leaving the Locarno Treaty, repudiating a defence pact with France signed in 1920[8] and receiving a guarantee of neutrality from Nazi Germany in 1937.[8]


Well, we know that didn't work out well for Belgium in 1939. So, let's have a 1934 reaffirmation and strengthening of the Franco-Belgian Accord of 1920 (due to Nazi rise in 1933), with Britain joining the Accord in early 1935. The immediate effect is the lengthening of the Maginot Line right across Belgium's borders with Germany, Luxemburg and the Netherlands (on the presumption that the Dutch will fall to the Germans).

Beginning in summer 1939, the BEF deploys to Belgium, not France. By end 1939, that's 310,000 British soldiers, 500 aircraft, 25,000 vehicles, etc, etc. ready to fight alongside the Belgiums. We know that the Belgiums alone fought off the Germans for over two weeks, so with British help they should hold longer.

With such a force, would the Germans bypass Belgium? If so, they'd be leaving a massive flank open directly on the German border. Perhaps Germany attacks Belgium immediately after Poland, giving Britain less time to deploy to Belgium in strength.

What if Belgium's example leads the Netherlands to also reject neutrality and to join with the alliance with Britain, France and Belgium? Surely a united western front would rattle the German high command as they prepare to invade Poland and to bring the USSR's western border closer to Berlin?
 
I'm not sure it's too easy to build huge fortifications along the North Sea coast like that - the ground is pretty marshy. More to the point, the objective with the Maginot line wasn't to meet the German main attack, but to funnel it into an area (i.e., Belgium) that could be predicted, so the main Franco-British force could meet it and stop it cold. That didn't work, but it was the intention, and if you work to close all of the gaps, then that plan doesn't work as designed and you're no longer certain where the Germans will attack. In the meantime, your forces are spread even thinner manning the longer fortifications, so the Allied ability to respond to breaches in the line is even worse than OTL.

As for offensive use, the Belgium-Germany border is kind of narrow, so without violating Dutch/Luxembourg neutrality, it's not very useful either.

Also, that Wikipedia summary is misleading. Belgium was very, very eager to keep siding with France in the immediate aftermath of the war. It wasn't until the 1923 Ruhr Occupation yielded no fruit that they lost interest in actively defending against the Germans.
 
Having the Netherlands join seems beyond possible, really.

After all, they'd seen how horrible WW1 was, and that they could stay out (and while that wasn't all fun and games, it sure beats being Belgium of WW1 in the new go round). It didn't work in WW2, but it had worked comparatively well in WW1, so why wouldn't the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. not try again?

Of course, no Dutch means the Maginot line can really only be realistically extended to Liege/Maastricht or thereabouts - but then again, that chunk of Belgium was fortified. It's just that the Germans breached the line by inventive tactics (Eben-Emael, especially). Now there's a chance the Ardennes sector would receive more attention, and that would help a lot - but it's also possible it'd still be ignored as 'not good enough for the main assault' and fortifications are developed west to Antwerp instead.

A significant advantage, however, is that the British/French armies don't need to rush north and then back south if the Germans try the Ardennes - they're already north, so are perfectly placed for a rested flank assault south into the German spearheads (if the Germans try the historical plan), or for an attack north to connect to Holland (not ideal, but Rotterdam and Antwerp can supply the BEF as well if the Germans cut the rails down south).
 

NoMommsen

Donor
The germans might have gone withan even more pronounced version of the original Manstein plan, than with the "watered down" version they implemented OTL (see window b in the attachement).

Politically ... hmmm Hitler might have tried his war to start in the west first and earlier after comming to terms with Poland (in the mid-30ies Poland was Poand was at some times a favored kind of a "junior partner" as long as there wasn't the possibilty seen to get something like the Ribbentrop-Molotov-treaty ... as well as due to "participating" of Poland in the ripp off of Czechoslovakia).

1939-1940-battle_of_france-plan-evolution.jpg
 
...

A significant advantage, however, is that the British/French armies don't need to rush north and then back south if the Germans try the Ardennes - they're already north, so are perfectly placed for a rested flank assault south into the German spearheads (if the Germans try the historical plan), ....

Further, the Ardennes are not lightly defended as OTL by a couple divisions of light motorized Belgians. The logical course is a full blown army manning the two sucessive zones of light fortifications the Belgians had built.

...and if it is not clear already this shortens the overall Allied front by some 20%, allowing a larger stratigic reserve.

...
or for an attack north to connect to Holland (not ideal, but Rotterdam and Antwerp can supply the BEF as well if the Germans cut the rails down south).

A 'Dutch Rescue Force' is going to be positioned nearly on the border, They can seize the critical bridges & roads north from Antwerp in hours. Fortress Holland should see Allied reinforcements in less than 24 hours.
 
Top