At the outset of World War I the Dutch government, with the overwhelming support of the people, declared the country's neutrality. The Dutch upheld their armed neutrality throughout the war in order to signal their impartiality and to warn potential aggressors. In view of the small and badly equipped Dutch armed forces, however, neutrality rested not only on the sovereign decision to abstain from participation in the war. To be successful, neutrality required recognition from the belligerents. This proposition raises a number of questions: Why did the interested great powers - Germany, Great Britain, and later the United States - value Dutch neutrality? What means did the belligerents use to achieve their goals? How did the war affect Dutch political and strategic decision-making? What impact did the war have on the Dutch economy? And finally, can one argue from the perspective of a neutral country that World War I was a “total war”?

The Schlieffen Plan envisaged a two-front war between Germany on the one side and France and Russia on the other. For Alfred Count von Schlieffen, the violation of neutral territory in Belgium and the Netherlands was essential to the rapid defeat of France. However, Schlieffen s successor, Helmuth von Moltke, and his aide, Erich Ludendorff, introduced significant changes into the plan. In 1907—8 they commissioned a study of the Belgian and Dutch defenses. It concluded that the Dutch army was no match for the German army, but that Dutch resistance could delay the German march through Holland for a critical period of time. The change that Moltke then wrote into the operational plan, the decision not to invade Holland, reflected these tactical and strategic considerations. But Moltke's justification for the change was highly revealing. He realized that a future war might be a protracted conflict among armies, economies, and societies. In his view, a quick victory over French troops was not a foregone conclusion.