Germany also invades the Netherlands in 1914

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,423
SoCal
What if, in addition to invading Belgium in 1914, Germany would have also invaded the Netherlands that year (like it ultimately did in 1940) in order to make the Schlieffen Plan work better?

Would such a German move have increased the odds of success for the Schlieffen Plan?

Would the US have occupied and/or tried to convince the Dutch government to sell its Caribbean possessions (to the US, of course) in this scenario?

Also, where would Kaiser Bill have went to exile if Germany would have still lost WWI in this scenario? I'm presuming that the Netherlands would have been completely off-limits for Kaiser Bill due to Germany occupying it for four years in this scenario.

Anyway, any thoughts on all of this?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,572
Las Vegas, NV USA
What if, in addition to invading Belgium in 1914, Germany would have also invaded the Netherlands that year (like it ultimately did in 1940) in order to make the Schlieffen Plan work better?

Would such a German move have increased the odds of success for the Schlieffen Plan?
IMO, no. The Germans devoted 7 field armies to the western offensive with just one left to cover its long serpentine border with Russia. This was risky enough. Why lengthen the front of the western offensive? Britain was unlikely to challenge Dutch neutrality. The Netherlands wasn't going to war with Germany if it could stay neutral. Starting the "wheel" from the Netherlands made no sense because of the rivers.

WWII was different. Germany was not fighting Russia when it unleashed it's May, 1940 western offensive. It made more sense to deny Britain the entire coastline up to the German border . The first thrust was due west to the sea, not the WWI "wheel" into France.
 
Last edited: