Low countries question

[Numdydar]

After looking over some AARs, it seems like it is possible to just declare war on the Dutch as Germany? And Belgium says 'No problem. We will still stay neutral and not let the British and French in.'

Would something like that even be remotely possible in the real war? Would not Belgium have run screaming to the Allies, 'Help us! Help us!'?

Most games tie the two countries together so a DoW on one is a DoW on the other.

It just seems pretty unrealistic so I was wondering if anyone has any historical background that would support a DoW on the Dutch and still allow Belgium to stay neutral.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

After looking over some AARs, it seems like it is possible to just declare war on the Dutch as Germany? And Belgium says 'No problem. We will still stay neutral and not let the British and French in.'

Would something like that even be remotely possible in the real war? Would not Belgium have run screaming to the Allies, 'Help us! Help us!'?

Most games tie the two countries together so a DoW on one is a DoW on the other.

It just seems pretty unrealistic so I was wondering if anyone has any historical background that would support a DoW on the Dutch and still allow Belgium to stay neutral.

warspite1

Numdydar this is about as realistic as it gets - and there is plenty of actual evidence to back it up.

The smaller countries of Europe were (and always have been down the centuries) at the mercy of the 'bigger boys'.

Regardless of any stated wish for neutrality, if a country had a reason to be invaded, then said invader would have no qualms about invading. The action taken by a neighbouring country in response would tend to be to get down on their knees and thank god it wasn't them (while perhaps making appropriate mumblings of discontent through the diplomatic channels).

Look at the Scandinavian countries in WWII. Finland is attacked by the Soviet Union. Does Norway or Sweden a) come to their aid? b) run to the UK/France or Germany for protection from the Red Menace? or c) take the action mentioned above?

Norway is invaded by Germany. Does Sweden a) go running to the UK/France for protection? b) come to the Norwegians aid or c) take the action mentioned above?

These 'smaller' countries were in enough danger without inviting trouble upon themselves by making an attack a certainty by engaging with the enemy.

One of the frustrations of Britain and France pre-WWII was that the Belgians would not discuss detailed plans to stop any German invasion of Belgium as they feared that this action alone would give the Germans a pre-text to invade.

Add in to the mix that the Belgians and Dutch were not exactly 'sympatico' at this period of time and no, there is absolutely no way the Belgians would ask to be invaded and make into a certainty what they probably feared was going to happen.

There is plenty in MWIF that stretches the bounds of realism - this rule is NOT one of them.

[gravyhair]

Well, remember that in WW1 your scenario is exactly what happened. Germany DOW'd Belgium and the Netherlands stood by the whole time and did nothing, even functioning as a conduit for illicit trade sometimes. So there is a precedent for it.

[Centuur]

In the 1920's, Belgium and the Netherlands were almost at war with each other. They weren't exactly friends in those days, to put it mildly...

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

After looking over some AARs, it seems like it is possible to just declare war on the Dutch as Germany? And Belgium says 'No problem. We will still stay neutral and not let the British and French in.'

Would something like that even be remotely possible in the real war? Would not Belgium have run screaming to the Allies, 'Help us! Help us!'?

Most games tie the two countries together so a DoW on one is a DoW on the other.

It just seems pretty unrealistic so I was wondering if anyone has any historical background that would support a DoW on the Dutch and still allow Belgium to stay neutral.

warspite1

Numdydar this is about as realistic as it gets - and there is plenty of actual evidence to back it up.

The smaller countries of Europe were (and always have been down the centuries) at the mercy of the 'bigger boys'.

Regardless of any stated wish for neutrality, if a country had a reason to be invaded, then said invader would have no qualms about invading. The action taken by a neighbouring country in response would tend to be to get down on their knees and thank god it wasn't them (while perhaps making appropriate mumblings of discontent through the diplomatic channels).

Look at the Scandinavian countries in WWII. Finland is attacked by the Soviet Union. Does Norway or Sweden a) come to their aid? b) run to the UK/France or Germany for protection from the Red Menace? or c) take the action mentioned above?

Norway is invaded by Germany. Does Sweden a) go running to the UK/France for protection? b) come to the Norwegians aid or c) take the action mentioned above?

These 'smaller' countries were in enough danger without inviting trouble upon themselves by making an attack a certainty by engaging with the enemy.

One of the frustrations of Britain and France pre-WWII was that the Belgians would not discuss detailed plans to stop any German invasion of Belgium as they feared that this action alone would give the Germans a pre-text to invade.

Add in to the mix that the Belgians and Dutch were not exactly 'sympatico' at this period of time and no, there is absolutely no way the Belgians would ask to be invaded and make into a certainty what they probably feared was going to happen.

There is plenty in MWIF that stretches the bounds of realism - this rule is NOT one of them.

The only realistic option for Sweden was c)get down on their knees and thank god it wasn't them.

Sweden had spent the years before WWII to disband their defences so there was no army available when Finland, Denmark, or Norway, where invaded so even if Sweden would have wanted to intervene it was not possible to do so. And since there was no practical way for UK or France to help Sweden there was no point in turning to them for help. So that just leaves the hiding and praying option. And maybe some clandestine operations accompanying the grovelling.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

After looking over some AARs, it seems like it is possible to just declare war on the Dutch as Germany? And Belgium says 'No problem. We will still stay neutral and not let the British and French in.'

Would something like that even be remotely possible in the real war? Would not Belgium have run screaming to the Allies, 'Help us! Help us!'?

Most games tie the two countries together so a DoW on one is a DoW on the other.

It just seems pretty unrealistic so I was wondering if anyone has any historical background that would support a DoW on the Dutch and still allow Belgium to stay neutral.

warspite1

Numdydar this is about as realistic as it gets - and there is plenty of actual evidence to back it up.

The smaller countries of Europe were (and always have been down the centuries) at the mercy of the 'bigger boys'.

Regardless of any stated wish for neutrality, if a country had a reason to be invaded, then said invader would have no qualms about invading. The action taken by a neighbouring country in response would tend to be to get down on their knees and thank god it wasn't them (while perhaps making appropriate mumblings of discontent through the diplomatic channels).

Look at the Scandinavian countries in WWII. Finland is attacked by the Soviet Union. Does Norway or Sweden a) come to their aid? b) run to the UK/France or Germany for protection from the Red Menace? or c) take the action mentioned above?

Norway is invaded by Germany. Does Sweden a) go running to the UK/France for protection? b) come to the Norwegians aid or c) take the action mentioned above?

These 'smaller' countries were in enough danger without inviting trouble upon themselves by making an attack a certainty by engaging with the enemy.

One of the frustrations of Britain and France pre-WWII was that the Belgians would not discuss detailed plans to stop any German invasion of Belgium as they feared that this action alone would give the Germans a pre-text to invade.

Add in to the mix that the Belgians and Dutch were not exactly 'sympatico' at this period of time and no, there is absolutely no way the Belgians would ask to be invaded and make into a certainty what they probably feared was going to happen.

There is plenty in MWIF that stretches the bounds of realism - this rule is NOT one of them.

The only realistic option for Sweden was c)get down on their knees and thank god it wasn't them.

Sweden had spent the years before WWII to disband their defences so there was no army available when Finland, Denmark, or Norway, where invaded so even if Sweden would have wanted to intervene it was not possible to do so. And since there was no practical way for UK or France to help Sweden there was no point in turning to them for help. So that just leaves the hiding and praying option. And maybe some clandestine operations accompanying the grovelling.

warspite1

Exactly.

[Orm]

However, I do think that there could be rules for some minors to "call out their reserves" early.

For example. Belgium could get their reserves available for set up when they go to war if Netherlands had been active during a previous turn.

[Numdydar]

Thanks for the replies.

I knew that Belgium was doing everything/anything possible to avoid what happened in WWI. While not underestimating a politician's ability to amazingly dumb things, it just seems hard to believe that with France, UK, and Germany are at war, the Dutch get overrun, that my country is not next on the hit list?

The Scandinavian nations are not really a good example as they were 'on the road to nowhere' as far as access to a major power goes unlike Belgium. This is why we need Decisions in Flames coded next [:D] So we can 'fix' these pesky inconsistencies. Supposedly Hearts of Iron 4 is going to have a much better political model that starts in '36.

Also picked up WiF Blitz and played it. The Road to War optional rule is pretty awesome and really makes the game shine. I played a three player game and all us loved that rule. I had Germany align Yugoslavia as an ally by giving up the soviet pact. My soviet buddies picked things so I could not attack them until '42 and they could declare war on me anytime [:D]. It actually worked out as I won as the Axis by 2 points. So at least the three of us think it is worth getting. Plus the low countries are just one area too [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Thanks for the replies.

I knew that Belgium was doing everything/anything possible to avoid what happened in WWI. While not underestimating a politician's ability to amazingly dumb things, it just seems hard to believe that with France, UK, and Germany are at war, the Dutch get overrun, that my country is not next on the hit list?

The Scandinavian nations are not really a good example as they were 'on the road to nowhere' as far as access to a major power goes unlike Belgium. This is why we need Decisions in Flames coded next [:D] So we can 'fix' these pesky inconsistencies. Supposedly Hearts of Iron 4 is going to have a much better political model that starts in '36.

Also picked up WiF Blitz and played it. The Road to War optional rule is pretty awesome and really makes the game shine. I played a three player game and all us loved that rule. I had Germany align Yugoslavia as an ally by giving up the soviet pact. My soviet buddies picked things so I could not attack them until '42 and they could declare war on me anytime [:D]. It actually worked out as I won as the Axis by 2 points. So at least the three of us think it is worth getting. Plus the low countries are just one area too [:)]

warspite1

Sorry mate - I just don't see it as an inconsistency at all.

[Courtenay]

A very important aspect of Belgium's action was Belgium's king. In my opinion he was the worst monarch of the 20th century. (He is up against some very stiff competition. [:)]) If it were not for him, it is likely that Belgium would have stayed allied to France. If it were not for him, I would think it very likely that a German invasion of the Netherlands would trigger the Belgians to ask the French for assistance. With him in the mix, this becomes much less likely.

(Take a look at Churchill's Dunkirk speech (4 June '40) for WSC's opinion of the Belgian king.)

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ ... tspeeches1

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Thanks for the replies.

I knew that Belgium was doing everything/anything possible to avoid what happened in WWI. While not underestimating a politician's ability to amazingly dumb things, it just seems hard to believe that with France, UK, and Germany are at war, the Dutch get overrun, that my country is not next on the hit list?

The Scandinavian nations are not really a good example as they were 'on the road to nowhere' as far as access to a major power goes unlike Belgium. This is why we need Decisions in Flames coded next [:D] So we can 'fix' these pesky inconsistencies. Supposedly Hearts of Iron 4 is going to have a much better political model that starts in '36.

Also picked up WiF Blitz and played it. The Road to War optional rule is pretty awesome and really makes the game shine. I played a three player game and all us loved that rule. I had Germany align Yugoslavia as an ally by giving up the soviet pact. My soviet buddies picked things so I could not attack them until '42 and they could declare war on me anytime [:D]. It actually worked out as I won as the Axis by 2 points. So at least the three of us think it is worth getting. Plus the low countries are just one area too [:)]

Let me put it this way. If Germany did want to take out the Dutch first, without taking on the Belgians at the same time, I believe they would have tried to get Belgium as their ally, by promising a big chunk of Dutch land for them in return. That was what all the troubles in 1919 and 1920 were about. The Belgians wanted the coal Mines in the Dutch Southeastern provinces and the south bank of the Westerschelde after WW I. Only because the French diplomats intervened after the Dutch mobilized the army in 1920, the Belgians backed down. But even as far as 1938, the Belgians still laid claims on the Dutch territory in Parliament...

[Numdydar]

I would be more than happy to give the Belgians a bunch of Dutch territory in exchange for an alliance. So how do I make that happen in WiF [:D]?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I would be more than happy to give the Belgians a bunch of Dutch territory in exchange for an alliance. So how do I make that happen in WiF [:D]?

Days of Decision, my friend... [:D]

[Numdydar]

I know. [:)] Just have to wait for that several years further down the road, if ever [:(]

[Jagdtiger14]

I read somewhere that the Swedes had a sizable volunteer corp to help out the Finns in the Winter War...not sure how many actually saw fighting. Sweden also sent a bunch of aid and supplies to Finland. Some of their top commanders voiced/planned a military move into Finland to meet the Soviets there.

With that said, I totally agree with what Warspite wrote.