Nineteen Kilo
Senior Member
With all the talk about NATO in the news of late, and what little country is or isn't pulling their weight, that got me to thinking: What if Belgium, Netherlands (and for argument's sake let's throw in Luxembourg) had not waited to be invaded prior to joining France & Britain but rather had thrown in with the Allies in the Winter of 1939?
For this "what if" let's assume that Britain and France were invited into the Low Lands in the Winter of 39. British and French troops have moved to and dug in on the positions they wanted to occupy, Belgian and Dutch troops are fully integrated into the front lines, and a unified command has been established. Would this have had any impact on the Blitzkrieg in the West?
While I won't argue that everything would have changed, and French troops would have been in Berlin by the Winter of 41, I believe that this "forward disposition" would have made the campaign in the West a much different affair. First and foremost the Allies would not have been in a state of movement with unknowns as to what was in front of them, who is on their flanks, and generally would have been less confused. Forward deployment of the RAF in Holland might have also been a thorn for Luftwaffe operations. And the Germans would have had to cross prepared defenses along the river lines.
It's not inconceivable to me that the Allies may have been able to drag the campaign out for the entire summer and fall of 1940 and casualties on both sides would have been more reminiscent of WW1 with over a million total casualties for both sides. Then in the Winter of 1940 arms purchased from the US are flowing into France. Who knows where the campaign might have gone from there. Allies with a year of experience under their belts, troops and supplies flowing in from both their empires, Italy sitting on the sidelines, it could have been a very protracted affair.
How do you think things would have changed, if at all?
For this "what if" let's assume that Britain and France were invited into the Low Lands in the Winter of 39. British and French troops have moved to and dug in on the positions they wanted to occupy, Belgian and Dutch troops are fully integrated into the front lines, and a unified command has been established. Would this have had any impact on the Blitzkrieg in the West?
While I won't argue that everything would have changed, and French troops would have been in Berlin by the Winter of 41, I believe that this "forward disposition" would have made the campaign in the West a much different affair. First and foremost the Allies would not have been in a state of movement with unknowns as to what was in front of them, who is on their flanks, and generally would have been less confused. Forward deployment of the RAF in Holland might have also been a thorn for Luftwaffe operations. And the Germans would have had to cross prepared defenses along the river lines.
It's not inconceivable to me that the Allies may have been able to drag the campaign out for the entire summer and fall of 1940 and casualties on both sides would have been more reminiscent of WW1 with over a million total casualties for both sides. Then in the Winter of 1940 arms purchased from the US are flowing into France. Who knows where the campaign might have gone from there. Allies with a year of experience under their belts, troops and supplies flowing in from both their empires, Italy sitting on the sidelines, it could have been a very protracted affair.
How do you think things would have changed, if at all?
Last edited: