The Luxembourg Tunnel

[elxaime]

Playing the Fall Weiss II 12.0 version, so my comment is relevant to that but I believe the
mechanics are the same for vanilla 1939 campaign. Anyway, I have noticed that when Axis declares
war on Netherlands but not Belgium, Belgium then joins the Allies. Not sure if it also works the
same in reverse, but I assume so - a declaration on Belgium but not Netherlands will bring
Netherlands into the war against the violating power.

However it seems the Axis can declare war on Luxembourg and not Belgium or Netherlands, but there is no impact (BE and NE remain
neutral). Again, this is FWII 12.0, but I assume this works the same in vanilla.

This allows a rather clever strategy whereby the Axis can "tunnel" forward to attack France in late 1939
through Luxembourg alone, using their air and armor advantage to begin destroying French units one at a time.
At a corps/army a turn, the French will be a mess before spring 1940 rolls around.

Not complaining per se. This seems a valid strategy and perhaps there is a counter I haven't
thought of. And no offense to anyone from Luxemburg, but perhaps a violation of their
neutrality would raise no eyebrows in Brussells or The Hague (or Paris, Moscow, London or Washington DC).

But I wonder, as it seems that if that were the case, Luxembourg would long since have been wiped
from the map by someone. Shouldn't there be some consequence to attacking Luxembourg, to either the Axis or Allies?

Appreciate any thoughts.

[Taxman66]

If it brought in Netherlands and Belgium that would be a whole lot of US & USSR mobilization that would be skipped.
The reason people declare on Netherlands and let Belgium join is to prevent 3-4% mobilization to the US & USSR.

I don't mean to change the subject, but I would prefer if the DoW for each of the low lands was cut down to +1-2% and have a +2% for their conquest.

[elxaime]

Well, I did some further digging...and all I can say it was a wild ride.

Apparently Luxembourg had a pretty controversial diplomatic existence. It was born as a dynastic possession of the Netherlands, but the Belgians felt it has been unjustly taken from them. It had a Prussian garrison and was gradually merged into Germany economically, although Luxembourg stayed neutral during the Franco-Prussian War and was never politically part of the German Empire. However their leanings were such that the Allies during WW1 considered them pro-German. The Treaty of London of 1867 set the terms for Luxembourg neutrality. The German invasion of 1914 occurred at the same time as the invasion of Belgium, so the issue of whether anyone would have stepped up to defend the terms of the treaty never really came up. It was probably just as well, since one resource I found calls the terms of the treaty "...an amazing set of weasel words...[T]here is no mention that if that neutrality was violated, and it could, physically, only be violated by Belgium, Germany or France, that any of the other guarantors had to do anything at all, let alone take any physical action." A British statesman is quoted as saying:

"Such a guarantee has, obviously, rather the character of a moral sanction to the arrangements which it defends than that of a contingent liability to make war. It would no doubt give a right to make war, but it would not necessarily impose the obligation."

See http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archiv ... 70109.html

All this said, Luxembourg remained under German occupation, but at the end of WW1 apparently France or Belgium were lining up to absorb them. However US President Woodrow Wilson had made the protection of small countries a touchstone of US policy so they ended up with Luxembourg neutrality guaranteed under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. This doesn't necessarily clear up the question for us of what would have happened in WW2 if the violation of Luxembourg neutrality was considered in isolation...by 1939 the Treaty had been violated repeatedly by Germany and the UK and France had shrunk from acting, so it is hard to think Belgium or the Netherlands would have joined the war themselves solely over Luxembourg. Luxembourg had by the 1920's come into a customs union with Belgium (replacing the German Zollverein union), but that seems as far as it went.

This question therefore ended up seeming even more foggy after research than before. What would have happened if in 1939 Germany had violated the neutrality of Luxembourg, but not Belgium or the Netherlands? In game terms, it does seem unlikely that Belgium or the Netherlands would have considered this a cassus belli, given the terrible consequences of exposing themselves to German invasion and occupation. They probably would not have done anything if the UK/France had been the violators, although this probably wouldn't have helped the Allies image. How about the USA? I suspect that by now the frog had been boiled enough with violations of the Versailles Treaty, and US isolationist sentiment was still strong enough, that we are not talking any significant consequence. The USSR? Stalin probably would have looked on with admiration and envy as Hitler gobbled up another small country, especially one that was a relic of the age of monarchy.

So - all this is to say, I suppose in game terms the only consequence would be a small diplomatic penalty for the side which violated Luxembourg. I don't believe there is one now, so this could be a small item to put into a future patch.

[elxaime]

*sorry double post*

[Taxman66]

If that is done, then mobilization removals would require balancing elsewhere.

[elxaime]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

If that is done, then mobilization removals would require balancing elsewhere.

True. And possibly the small impact is not worth the effort.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: elxaime

Playing the Fall Weiss II 12.0 version, so my comment is relevant to that but I believe the
mechanics are the same for vanilla 1939 campaign. Anyway, I have noticed that when Axis declares
war on Netherlands but not Belgium, Belgium then joins the Allies. Not sure if it also works the
same in reverse, but I assume so - a declaration on Belgium but not Netherlands will bring
Netherlands into the war against the violating power.

Hi elxaime

Interesting discussion, and I thought I'd just answer this question above, as a declaration of war by the Axis against the Netherlands will lead to Belgium joining the Allies, but not the reverse, as the Dutch managed to remain neutral in 1914 and so would have been hoping to do the same in 1940.

Bill

[elxaime]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: elxaime

Playing the Fall Weiss II 12.0 version, so my comment is relevant to that but I believe the
mechanics are the same for vanilla 1939 campaign. Anyway, I have noticed that when Axis declares
war on Netherlands but not Belgium, Belgium then joins the Allies. Not sure if it also works the
same in reverse, but I assume so - a declaration on Belgium but not Netherlands will bring
Netherlands into the war against the violating power.

Hi elxaime

Interesting discussion, and I thought I'd just answer this question above, as a declaration of war by the Axis against the Netherlands will lead to Belgium joining the Allies, but not the reverse, as the Dutch managed to remain neutral in 1914 and so would have been hoping to do the same in 1940.

Bill

It is interesting how the WW2 experience shaped all the Benelux. All of them became founding members of NATO in 1949.