WI: Rotterdam wasn't bombed in WW2

70 Years today since it happened. What would be the effects of either:
A) Dutch surrender prior to bombing of Rotterdam? or
B) A heavier bombing of Rotterdam?

Just curious what the effects might be, I know that the Dutch Govt at the time inflated the casualty list, and capitulated to the Germans.
So aside from the obvious effects (EG more deaths, destruction) could it have hardened the population more against the occupier? or cowed them further?
And what event would be needed to completely scrap the bombing of Rotterdam? What could cause the Dutch to surrender with enough time to stop the planes?
 
I think it depended on the war situation on the ground. If the German paratropers broke the defenses of the Dutch Marines and captured the Mase Bridges on both sides of the river, there would probably no bombardment. Only a masive destruction after the war, under the escuse of city modernisation :rolleyes:

Or a larger bombardment, by both of the bomber groups ( one group returned), when the Dutch Marines and other Dutch troops drove the German Paratropers out of the city and even back to the island of Ijselmonde.
 
so the situation on the ground with regard to the marines was the reason behind the bombing in essence? because i was always told (maybe getting a slightly biased view being from dutch family) that the germans bombed the city even though it had already/was on verge of, surrendering.
 
Last edited:
In a nut shell;
Since the first hours of the invasion of the Netherlands, Rotterdam was front city. First waterplanes landed next to the bridges crossing the Maas, they had to retreat to the southern shore. Then the airfield of Waalhaven was bombed, damaging and destroying a large portion of the small number of modern airforce plane, shortly followed by paratroppers and transport planes.
The following days heavy fighting around the bridges erupted, a bid like Arnhem, 4 years later. The Dutch troops could stop the Germans advancing North, but failed to re-concuer the South shore, and eventualy, the dutch troops were at breaking point.
During armistice negotiations between the Dutch comander and the German comander, bombers appeared, also to the shock of the German comander and troops. With light flares the could make one group of bomber return, how ever the other group proceed with the bombardment of the city center. It still not clear why one group returned an the other not, could be that one bomber group had order to destroy the city, as an example and to force a complete surrender oth the Dutch. The whole invasion of the Netherlnads had take by now too much time, material and men of the Germans than they anticipated.

By the way apparently the German bomber pilots had some strange, typical Nazi orders, since I saw one time an interview of a BEF soldier, who served in an armored group. He was struck on a road with his armored group, due to masive cilian refugees who cloging up the road, sudenly dive bombers appeared. The man and his comrades thought they were the target, since it was a large group of armored vehicles, and they were sitting ducks, to his supprice and horror, the divebombers started to bomb and straff the civilian refuge collom jus in front of them.
 
Last edited:
Most likely, there would have been no need for a bombardment of the city, as it already was a mistake it actually happened in the OTL. The Luftwaffe was there to threaten the Dutch merely, rather than actually bomb the city, hoping the Dutch resistance in the City would fade away, especially around the Maas Bridges.

The Netherlands would anyway have to surrender, as most of the country already was overrun by Germans and only a few pockets of resistance of the Dutch Army could hold on for a short while, but without any hope to last longer than a day or so. The Bombing of Rotterdam only speeded it up a bit, but the outcome was already decided.
 
thanks that clears it up heaps for me. i knew they were stuffed from the moment the border was crossed. that angry austrian didnt respect neutrality, unlike the kaiser.

was unsure about the event surrounding the bombing, i was aware that there was negotiations at the time. however the fact there were 2 bomber units is something i hadnt know.

so in essence if the marines hadnt held one bank, and the germans had been able to secure the bridges, it may have been avoided?
or would still have been 'terror' bombing?
 
And Rotterdam would be a town more like The Hague, Leiden, Delft and foreign Antwerp(en) and Hamburg (so another Dutch ''skyline'').
 

Cook

Banned
thanks that clears it up heaps for me. i knew they were stuffed from the moment the border was crossed. that angry austrian didnt respect neutrality, unlike the kaiser.

Early plans of the attack on the west avoided crossing into the Netherlands, just as the Germans had avoided doing so in the First World War, but the Luftwaffe pointed out their need for air bases within range of England and the northern attack was added.

P.S. The Kaiser wasn’t too fussed about Belgian neutrality and more than Hitler was.
 
Early plans of the attack on the west avoided crossing into the Netherlands, just as the Germans had avoided doing so in the First World War, but the Luftwaffe pointed out their need for air bases within range of England and the northern attack was added.

P.S. The Kaiser wasn’t too fussed about Belgian neutrality and more than Hitler was.
Do you have a good source for such early plans? I tried sometime ago to produce a thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=105520 suggesting that the Germans might have simply advanced through Belgium but the problem was that they would have needed to capture the forts around Liège quickly. These are new constructions and are comparable with the Maginot line. There is some online information at http://niehorster.orbat.com/021_belgium/forts/_forts-part_03.htm. OTL once Eben Emael was taken it was possible for the Germans to pass through the Netherlands North of Liège near Maastricht. That was fortunate for the Germans as Aubin-Neufchâteau held out till 21st May, Battice till 22nd May and Tancrémont surrendered as part of the Belgian Army's Surrender on 29th May.

My main interest was that if the Germans had only attacked Belgium and everything else had gone as OTL, there would have been no Pacific War.
 
interesting idea cook,
so you reckon if dutch neutrality hadnt been violated, and therefore the DEI wasnt so ripe for the taking, the japanese wouldnt have had so much reason to go south? i know that was for the oil there, but wat about the rubber, tin, food etc for french indo and malaya etc? would that have not been reason enough to pounce? and besides the DEI are a long way away from the netherlands so issues of supply not come in? i know there was a large part of the fleet stationed there, along with quite modern forces, but nothing the size the japanese had.
does make for an interesting idea? or would a neutral NL become more inclinded to help germany (as were swiss n swedes). that could lead to german opposition to more japanese moves in SE asia, maybe having vichy closer to them and somehow french indo china goes differently.

just a couple of random theorys.
 
The Dutch would have worried about a Japanese attack and wanted American support but would not have wanted to provoke a Japanese attack. Thus the Japanese would have simply bought oil, bauxite and perhaps some nickel from the NEI by selling textiles etc. and would have been able to resist an American embargo, at least for some time.

Of course that leaves the question of why the Japanese occupied Southern Indochina OTL i.e. what were Japanese plans before the American trade embargo? One possibility is that they were preparing an advance South to be undertaken if the Germans had defeated the USSR. Alternatively they were planning to attack the USSR and needed to prepare for war with the British Empire. Obviously, Japan was willing to grab anything that could be taken at low risk. They would also have really liked to prevent supplies going to China via Burma and perhaps they wanted to put pressure on the British to close that route.

What is clear is that they did not want to risk war with the USA. If the alternative had not been abandoning their position in China, it is unlikely that Japan would have moved South after an embargo. They could not hope to do better by war than by trade in such a situation.
 
Top