Germany attacks the Netherlands in 1913 in order to conquer it and secure its human capital

[WolfBear]

What if Germany attacks the Netherlands in 1913 in order to conquer it and secure its human capital, using similar logic to the one that is sometimes used by present-day Russian nationalists to support Russia's conquest of Ukraine? What would the effects of such a German move have been and what would the results of such an intervention have been? Would this have been enough to trigger an earlier World War I or would the Franco-Russians have aggressively sponsored an anti-German Dutch insurgency (or at least tried to do so) but without actually having themselves personally enter this conflict? And would Austria-Hungary seek to distance itself from its German ally and possibly even to isolate Germany in this TL due to the potential fear that Austria-Hungary could eventually be next on the German chopping block/conquest list?

Also, would a German annexation of the Netherlands after World War I had Germany invaded the Netherlands along with Belgium in 1914 and subsequently won World War I been much more feasible? If so, what would the effects of this have been? In such a scenario, Germany could try annexing the Netherlands, northern Belgium, and Luxembourg while offering Wallonia to France as compensation for the loss of iron ore-rich Briey and Longwy and possibly the rest of Lorraine as well.

What do you think, @sillygoose @stevep @Zyobot @Skallagrim @raharris1973 @Husky_Khan?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The Netherlands succeeded in remaining neutral during the actual WWI without their neutrality being formally backed by any of the major powers, because they correctly believed that their strategic position between Germany, Belgium, and Britain meant that neither side would move on them as long as the other did not.

If Germany just flat invades the Netherlands in 1913, Belgium and the UK will go to war with them because they cannot afford to let Germany take that strategic position. So such an invasion simply kicks of WWI a year sooner and with absolutely no question that Germany is the sole aggressor. There's not even any equivalent of the "July Crisis" of diplomatic negotiations; Germany has pulled the trigger on straight up war, and will pretty much immediately eat a two-front dogpile from Britain-France-Belgium on one side and Russia on the other, while Austria-Hungary can use the excuse that Germany started it to stand by and not get directly involved.

This has the opposite result from what you're conjecturing -- Germany is in a much worse strategic position in this alternate WWI, and is likely to lose quickly and decisively.

 

[WolfBear]

The Netherlands succeeded in remaining neutral during the actual WWI without their neutrality being formally backed by any of the major powers, because they correctly believed that their strategic position between Germany, Belgium, and Britain meant that neither side would move on them as long as the other did not.

If Germany just flat invades the Netherlands in 1913, Belgium and the UK will go to war with them because they cannot afford to let Germany take that strategic position. So such an invasion simply kicks of WWI a year sooner and with absolutely no question that Germany is the sole aggressor. There's not even any equivalent of the "July Crisis" of diplomatic negotiations; Germany has pulled the trigger on straight up war, and will pretty much immediately eat a two-front dogpile from Britain-France-Belgium on one side and Russia on the other, while Austria-Hungary can use the excuse that Germany started it to stand by and not get directly involved.

This has the opposite result from what you're conjecturing -- Germany is in a much worse strategic position in this alternate WWI, and is likely to lose quickly and decisively.

Makes sense and sounds perfectly reasonable. That said, though, what about the last part of my OP above?

Also, would a German annexation of the Netherlands after World War I had Germany invaded the Netherlands along with Belgium in 1914 and subsequently won World War I been much more feasible? If so, what would the effects of this have been? In such a scenario, Germany could try annexing the Netherlands, northern Belgium, and Luxembourg while offering Wallonia to France as compensation for the loss of iron ore-rich Briey and Longwy and possibly the rest of Lorraine as well.

What do you think, @sillygoose @stevep @Zyobot @Skallagrim @raharris1973 @Husky_Khan?

 

[stevep]

It might be that A-H would support Germany since it knows that Germany is its only reliable ally and that with tensions with Italy, Serbia and most of all Russia its going to be vulnerable if Germany is crushed.

Would agree with the rest that ShadowArxxy says. Germany has shot itself in the foot if not in the knee or higher. It will be very much a pariah state and Italy will definitely keep its distance. You could even see a significant unrest in Germany itself. A Dutch foothold could last a while if they can flood enough dykes to protect the central cities in the province of Holland. Although this would probably be difficult to supply. This will also being the wealthy DEI into the allied camp while as OTL Japan and Australia will be grabbing up German possessions in the far east.

Significant other butterflies.
a) Since presumably there's no simultaneous invasion of France via Belgium that means that the French have a decision to make. Do they seek to 'liberate' A-L which could be even bloodier than OTL or aid the Netherlands via a probably willing Belgium? The latter could see some big clashes inside Belgium and possibly southern Netherlands which would be a significant boost to the allies as the fighting would be further east and the French wouldn't be making attacks on fortified defences.

b) The Netherlands won't be a route to bypass the allied blockade as it was OTL and it could be that at least some of the Scandinavian would be more distant to Germany than OTL as they would fear they might be next on German target lists.

c) The Balkans could be a lot different. Is this attack before or after the 2nd Balkan War? If before its possible although unlikely that could butterfly it. Does Serbia, assuming AH joins Germany, put its hat into the ring against the Hapsburg's?

e) The Ottomans are less likely to join the war, at least initially. Their markedly less recovered from their defeat in the 1st Balkan conflict and won't be getting German aid and training for their army so easily here. If Germany [and AH] look like their going down then Turkey could stay neutral throughout which would greatly boost the allied position.

f) Of course if AH does stay neutral, even one mildly favourable to Germany then the latter will go down, although it may take 12-18 months. As I've mentioned before Germany would face a problem with nitrate production before they get the Haber process in large scale industrial production unless they capture a sizeable amount of nitrates from the Netherlands as they did from Antwerp OTL and they would need more as its a year or so earlier so longer needed to develop it.

This would lead to a markedly different post-war situation with AH still about along with the Russian and Ottoman empires and a weakened Germany.

Probably a number of other issues I haven't thought of but either with or without AH sticking their head into the grinder as well your going to see overall less devastation and a markedly stronger Europe when peace comes.

 

[WolfBear]

It might be that A-H would support Germany since it knows that Germany is its only reliable ally and that with tensions with Italy, Serbia and most of all Russia its going to be vulnerable if Germany is crushed.

Possible, but still risky since Germany engaged in unprovoked aggression.

Would agree with the rest that ShadowArxxy says. Germany has shot itself in the foot if not in the knee or higher. It will be very much a pariah state and Italy will definitely keep its distance. You could even see a significant unrest in Germany itself. A Dutch foothold could last a while if they can flood enough dykes to protect the central cities in the province of Holland. Although this would probably be difficult to supply. This will also being the wealthy DEI into the allied camp while as OTL Japan and Australia will be grabbing up German possessions in the far east.

Could Britain supply the Dutch with its navy in this TL?

Significant other butterflies.
a) Since presumably there's no simultaneous invasion of France via Belgium that means that the French have a decision to make. Do they seek to 'liberate' A-L which could be even bloodier than OTL or aid the Netherlands via a probably willing Belgium? The latter could see some big clashes inside Belgium and possibly southern Netherlands which would be a significant boost to the allies as the fighting would be further east and the French wouldn't be making attacks on fortified defences.

Worth noting that if the French enter the war, the Germans might try preempting them by occupying as much of Belgium as they could beforehand. Would also make sense since the Germans might dream about annexing northern Belgium into the German Reich as well.

b) The Netherlands won't be a route to bypass the allied blockade as it was OTL and it could be that at least some of the Scandinavian would be more distant to Germany than OTL as they would fear they might be next on German target lists.

Yep. Does this mean more starvation in Germany?

c) The Balkans could be a lot different. Is this attack before or after the 2nd Balkan War? If before its possible although unlikely that could butterfly it. Does Serbia, assuming AH joins Germany, put its hat into the ring against the Hapsburg's?

Let's say that this is after the Second Balkan War. And Yes, Serbia might very well decide to attack A-H in this TL if it has French, Russian, and British support.

e) The Ottomans are less likely to join the war, at least initially. Their markedly less recovered from their defeat in the 1st Balkan conflict and won't be getting German aid and training for their army so easily here. If Germany [and AH] look like their going down then Turkey could stay neutral throughout which would greatly boost the allied position.

Agreed.

f) Of course if AH does stay neutral, even one mildly favourable to Germany then the latter will go down, although it may take 12-18 months. As I've mentioned before Germany would face a problem with nitrate production before they get the Haber process in large scale industrial production unless they capture a sizeable amount of nitrates from the Netherlands as they did from Antwerp OTL and they would need more as its a year or so earlier so longer needed to develop it.

Agreed.

This would lead to a markedly different post-war situation with AH still about along with the Russian and Ottoman empires and a weakened Germany.

Agreed.

Probably a number of other issues I haven't thought of but either with or without AH sticking their head into the grinder as well your going to see overall less devastation and a markedly stronger Europe when peace comes.

Agreed. And it's "you're" rather than "your".

 

[stevep]

Possible, but still risky since Germany engaged in unprovoked aggression.

Agreed but Austria may consider it has no choice.

Could Britain supply the Dutch with its navy in this TL?

That could get very messy as RN forces would be exposed to attacks by raids by German forces, possibly most deadly by their BC force as the supply lines. I suspect, given the gungho attitude of much of the RN - not hindered at all by the current 1st Lord of the Admiralty and public opinion - they would seek to support the Dutch. Germany might inflict some heavy losses although it could prompt earlier discovery of some of the RN weaknesses - poor shells, bad anti-flash procedures, lack of night fighting training/equipment etc. A lot would also depend on how much Dutch and Belgium territory is in EP or CP hands.

It's likely that after some bitter fighting - or fairly quickly if the Dutch are taken by surprise - they will be overrun. However that still means that Dutch forces and external resources - such as their merchant marine, the DEI etc will be on the allied side and the allies won't have to allow commercial trade to a neutral Netherlands as OTL. The Germans will also here have to feed the occupied population which could be bad for their as their likely to come a distant 2nd to Germans.

Worth noting that if the French enter the war, the Germans might try preempting them by occupying as much of Belgium as they could beforehand. Would also make sense since the Germans might dream about annexing northern Belgium into the German Reich as well.

Very true. The OP only mentioned the Netherlands but given the size of the German army and the importance of their plans for a quick attack on France its likely that they would also seek to secure at least part of Belgium. Possibly with some diversion of forces from the planned defensive units in A-L they could do a full Schlieffen Plan attack in which case does the BEF go to Belgium via France or possibly to the Netherlands? I suspect the former as there were draft plans drawn up for that and presuming that both nations [Belgium and Netherlands] are being invaded at the same time Belgium is more critical to British interests - both keeping its ports out of hostile hands and keeping France in the war. Also while we know there was the treaty guarenteeing the neutrality and independence of Belgium I'm not sure whether the same applies to the Netherlands while might be a factor in moving public opinion in support of fighting,

Yep. Does this mean more starvation in Germany?

Would depend on two primary factors:
a) Do they make the same mistakes of over-concentration on the army with men and horses especially moved away from agriculture and later L& H's massive military programmes which worsened the problem? - Almost certainly the 1st.

b) How long does the war last? - Probably significantly shorter so Germany doesn't suffer as much overall.

However definitely going to be worse in the duration of the war because the Netherlands won't be a supplier either of any surpluses they have or a back door for bypassing the allied blockade.

Overall however I don't think things would last long enough for as many deaths as generally reported OTL.

Let's say that this is after the Second Balkan War. And Yes, Serbia might very well decide to attack A-H in this TL if it has French, Russian, and British support.

I think they would consider it but they might also need some urging. While their won both wars and made substantial gains there have been costs and attacking into Bosnia and possibly Croatia - which is unlikely to welcome them - is a lot more difficult than defending their homeland. Also with Greece under a neutral/pro-German monarch [depending on which source you use], Romanian having a pro-German king, at least for a while their exposed and as OTL might suffer an attack from Bulgaria as well. Although for Bulgaria it would be a gamble as the CPs would look markedly more vulnerable here. Possibly Serbia joins after Italy or a bit later when its seen that the CPs are really struggling. [Well that would probably be my choice if I was in command of Serbia in this scenario but then I have the small edge of 100+ years of hindsight. ]

Agreed. And it's "you're" rather than "your".

True. But what' a little grammar between friends.

 

[raharris1973]

Would depend on two primary factors:
a) Do they make the same mistakes of over-concentration on the army with men and horses especially moved away from agriculture and later L& H's massive military programmes which worsened the problem? - Almost certainly the 1st.

b) How long does the war last? - Probably significantly shorter so Germany doesn't suffer as much overall.

However definitely going to be worse in the duration of the war because the Netherlands won't be a supplier either of any surpluses they have or a back door for bypassing the allied blockade.

Overall however I don't think things would last long enough for as many deaths as generally reported OTL.

A thing working *against* starvation in Germany would be Austrian and Italian neutrality, as those two, at peace and unmobilized or only on partial alert, would probably be surplus food producers and export much of that surplus to Germany.

This will also being the wealthy DEI into the allied camp while as OTL Japan and Australia will be grabbing up German possessions in the far east.

Actually, in this ATL, the Dutch might be better, or at least as well, positioned to seize German parts of northeast Papua New Guinea as the Australians are. The 'fairest' division among allies probably would be a southwest to northeast diagonal line running from the junction point of the prewar Dutch, German, and Australian segments of the island.

 

[stevep]

A thing working *against* starvation in Germany would be Austrian and Italian neutrality, as those two, at peace and unmobilized or only on partial alert, would probably be surplus food producers and export much of that surplus to Germany.



Actually, in this ATL, the Dutch might be better, or at least as well, positioned to seize German parts of northeast Papua New Guinea as the Australians are. The 'fairest' division among allies probably would be a southwest to northeast diagonal line running from the junction point of the prewar Dutch, German, and Australian segments of the island.

True if Austria stays neutral. As well as that its going to make keeping a blockade tight in the Med more difficult as goods to Italy, Austria or just about anywhere in the Balkans could end up in Germany.

Also a possibility. Not sure how quickly Australia moved to seize the German colonies and to a degree it was to get there before the Japanese because they didn't want such a power - both in terms of military might and race - so close even if they were formal allies of the empire.