| Eighty seven years ago today 10:59 - Sep 3 with 1826 views | Churchman |
Britain declared war on Germany following their invasion of Poland on 1st September 1939. A transcript of his radio speech is here.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ww
You can see the shattering disappointment in his words.
Strange man, Chamberlain. He was not really like the Victorian undertaker image he portrayed. Nor was he weak. He ruled the Tory party with a rod of iron. More so than Thatcher ever did. He had a wide range of interests from nature to Beethoven and the Bard and was devoted to his family.
Chamberlain was also saw it as his duty to avoid the horrors of the Great War at almost any price. He was a great social reformer and found it distasteful to spend money on defence when there was so much poverty to be alleviated. But of course the Dictators forced his hand. Too late in many ways.
But Chamberlain was not alone in appeasement. It was a nearly universal view. Nobody wanted to see what was in front of them. And so 87 years ago almost to the minute it began.
The first thing that happened in Ipswich was the sirens went off. My grandparents after waiting a little while went round to my grandmothers parents house in Weymouth Rd.
They and her two sisters were sitting there shaking wearing gas masks. My grandmother said ‘don’t be so silly!’ and went for the sherry bottle to the muffled angst of her father who was as mean as hell. My dad and his brother thought the whole thing the greatest adventure ever. Well, as young teenagers, you would wouldn’t you.
This is a lesson from the past. I see it happening now. Denial. A pacifist Prime Minister and government for whom defence of this country could not be any lower on the priority list. Talk of upping spending, but in reality defence cuts. Promise a percentage increase, lump in a load of other commitments. Smoke and mirrors, bury the truth.
Other priorities. A Chancellor who as defence minister resigned because Starmer refused to meet defence commitments - and then did precisely the same thing.
Oh well, it is what it is. About 55 million died in WW2. I wonder if it’d have been different had Britain and France had seen what was happening sooner? [Post edited 3 Sep 11:02]
|  | | |  |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 11:35 - Sep 3 | WeWereZombies |
Don't be so quick to criticise the current stance of our Government, there may be no other that is supporting Ukraine to the degree that we are (and living in a less frequented Highland glen I have seen the strange aircraft that is neither drone nor plane flying along the hillside, heard reports from neighbours of drones buzzing around, presumably being tested - this information is for your eyes only...)
I visited Stockholm last month and was slightly disheartened to read a plaque close to their Parliament and Royal Palace that included words to the effect of 'Thank goodness we were able to stay out of the Second World War' (and I think myself a pacifist.) Then onto Narvik so i can tick being inside the Arctic Circle off my bucket list. There is a comprehensive War Museum there, it includes an Enigma machine that the Royal Navy captured in the vicinity. It also details the importance of Kiruna and its iron ore to the Nazis, and the corresponding railway line out to Narvik in occupied Norway. Sweden didn't really stay out of the Second World War, did it ? Although to give them faint praise, they did allow the SOE to position four listening stations close to the Norwegian border.
So my opinion is that if Norway and Sweden had attached themselves to the Allied cause on the Declaration of war then Hitler would have backed off, the downside being that Germany today might still have been under the thumb of Nazi rule.
The lesson for today ? No amount of defence spending can supplant the urgent need to find ways to communicate the realities of war deaths to the people of Russia and let them know we really don't want to strike against them. [Post edited 3 Sep 12:05]
|  |
| |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 11:44 - Sep 3 | Churchman |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 11:35 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
Don't be so quick to criticise the current stance of our Government, there may be no other that is supporting Ukraine to the degree that we are (and living in a less frequented Highland glen I have seen the strange aircraft that is neither drone nor plane flying along the hillside, heard reports from neighbours of drones buzzing around, presumably being tested - this information is for your eyes only...)
I visited Stockholm last month and was slightly disheartened to read a plaque close to their Parliament and Royal Palace that included words to the effect of 'Thank goodness we were able to stay out of the Second World War' (and I think myself a pacifist.) Then onto Narvik so i can tick being inside the Arctic Circle off my bucket list. There is a comprehensive War Museum there, it includes an Enigma machine that the Royal Navy captured in the vicinity. It also details the importance of Kiruna and its iron ore to the Nazis, and the corresponding railway line out to Narvik in occupied Norway. Sweden didn't really stay out of the Second World War, did it ? Although to give them faint praise, they did allow the SOE to position four listening stations close to the Norwegian border.
So my opinion is that if Norway and Sweden had attached themselves to the Allied cause on the Declaration of war then Hitler would have backed off, the downside being that Germany today might still have been under the thumb of Nazi rule.
The lesson for today ? No amount of defence spending can supplant the urgent need to find ways to communicate the realities of war deaths to the people of Russia and let them know we really don't want to strike against them. [Post edited 3 Sep 12:05]
|
The lesson for today is that the only language totalitarian or authoritarian states understand is threat and force. You will never pacify them. No amount of pleading will work. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Trump or Putin. If they know that if they try and do as they please pain will ensue, they will leave you alone. It’s no different to the playground bully.
Russia is in an iron grip. I don’t blame the Russian people. Few of them asked for this. Few German people wanted war in 1939 either.
You are right about Sweden. It was never neutral. And as for attaching themselves to the allies, Germany had to have Swedish iron ore. It’d have invaded the country immediately, possibly even sawing it up with Russia who lay historical claim to it. Norway would have followed.
Never been to Norway. I’d like to though. It looks beautiful and as you point out has an interesting history. | | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:04 - Sep 3 | WeWereZombies |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 11:44 - Sep 3 by Churchman |
The lesson for today is that the only language totalitarian or authoritarian states understand is threat and force. You will never pacify them. No amount of pleading will work. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Trump or Putin. If they know that if they try and do as they please pain will ensue, they will leave you alone. It’s no different to the playground bully.
Russia is in an iron grip. I don’t blame the Russian people. Few of them asked for this. Few German people wanted war in 1939 either.
You are right about Sweden. It was never neutral. And as for attaching themselves to the allies, Germany had to have Swedish iron ore. It’d have invaded the country immediately, possibly even sawing it up with Russia who lay historical claim to it. Norway would have followed.
Never been to Norway. I’d like to though. It looks beautiful and as you point out has an interesting history. |
The difference between Trump and Putin is that Trump is constrained by the democracy that his presidency over, the United States, fitfully it's true, provides. There are plenty of opposition voices in Russia but Putin has used oppressive legislation to silence them for the most part. It is by getting and keeping the states that border Russia onside, and keeping them onside, that we can influence the traffic in and out of that largest nation state on Earth (and a state that gets bound in by winter will always need traffic in and out.) Russia has been infiltrating Europe for decades and repaying that dubious favour is what can make Putin truly squirm.
On Norway and Sweden's neutrality, sure it would have provoked a response from the Soviet Union, then in a pact with the Nazis, but as we saw with Finland later, the Scandinavians can effect a resistance far beyond their lower manpower resources. Just such a shame that the Finns pushed back against the Soviet Union when they had changed sides and themselves were in bed with the Nazis. [Post edited 3 Sep 12:08]
| |
| |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:04 - Sep 3 | Guthrum |
A major element often overlooked is readiness. Not Britain's or Germany's - both were in about the same position in 1938 - but that of France.
Incredibly politically unstable between the wars, France had 30 administrations between Clemenceau's resignation in January 1920 and the formation of Daladier taking over for the 3rd time in April 1938 (he would go on to sign the Munich Agreement later that year). Several lasted less than 100 days. The country was frequently on the very brink of civil war. Many on the right had open sympathy with nazi ideals (Pierre Laval had been head of government twice already before 1940).
French rearmament lagged significantly behind that of the UK and Germany, which is why tanks were missing modern technology like tactical radios and well-designed aircraft (e.g. the Dewoitine D.520) were still in the prototype stage or only just entering production when the 1940 invasion happened.
The British government felt they could not rely on their main ally (the USA was isolationist, the Soviet Union politically hostile, much of central, eastern and southern Europe fascist), thus making it harder to take a strong line with Hitler. |  |
| |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:18 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 11:35 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
Don't be so quick to criticise the current stance of our Government, there may be no other that is supporting Ukraine to the degree that we are (and living in a less frequented Highland glen I have seen the strange aircraft that is neither drone nor plane flying along the hillside, heard reports from neighbours of drones buzzing around, presumably being tested - this information is for your eyes only...)
I visited Stockholm last month and was slightly disheartened to read a plaque close to their Parliament and Royal Palace that included words to the effect of 'Thank goodness we were able to stay out of the Second World War' (and I think myself a pacifist.) Then onto Narvik so i can tick being inside the Arctic Circle off my bucket list. There is a comprehensive War Museum there, it includes an Enigma machine that the Royal Navy captured in the vicinity. It also details the importance of Kiruna and its iron ore to the Nazis, and the corresponding railway line out to Narvik in occupied Norway. Sweden didn't really stay out of the Second World War, did it ? Although to give them faint praise, they did allow the SOE to position four listening stations close to the Norwegian border.
So my opinion is that if Norway and Sweden had attached themselves to the Allied cause on the Declaration of war then Hitler would have backed off, the downside being that Germany today might still have been under the thumb of Nazi rule.
The lesson for today ? No amount of defence spending can supplant the urgent need to find ways to communicate the realities of war deaths to the people of Russia and let them know we really don't want to strike against them. [Post edited 3 Sep 12:05]
|
Nazi Germany was always going to either implode or overreach itself. It's wish for expansion had to be satisfied. The only way to have avoided war was to have given Germany a free hand to the East and let them and the USSR duke it out as they were always going to come to blows. But the assurances given to Poland mean't that war was inevitable. As soon as the powers gave West Prussia to Poland effectively dividing Germany with the Polish corridor, war was always going to happen, understandably from a German viewpoint. It just gave Germany the pretext it needed to invade. Ironic that having pledged to free Poland from the Germans, we surrendered it meekly to the Soviets.
As regards Norway and Sweden, once the blitzkrieg had happened, Sweden and Norway would have fallen if thay had declared war. Even with a phoney war in the west, they would have been very vulnerable. Sweden was wise to stay neutral. Norway was also neutral but firmly pro ally and they chartered a major part of their merchant marine to us as we were going to need ships to supply ourselves from distant countries with the potential loss of european trading partners. We probably precipitated the invasion of Norway as the allies had plans to choke the supple of iron ore from the port of Narvik, the Altmark incident was the first step to doing so. So Germany, strategically, had no choice but to protect their supply line of iron ore. |  | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:25 - Sep 3 | Guthrum |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:04 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The difference between Trump and Putin is that Trump is constrained by the democracy that his presidency over, the United States, fitfully it's true, provides. There are plenty of opposition voices in Russia but Putin has used oppressive legislation to silence them for the most part. It is by getting and keeping the states that border Russia onside, and keeping them onside, that we can influence the traffic in and out of that largest nation state on Earth (and a state that gets bound in by winter will always need traffic in and out.) Russia has been infiltrating Europe for decades and repaying that dubious favour is what can make Putin truly squirm.
On Norway and Sweden's neutrality, sure it would have provoked a response from the Soviet Union, then in a pact with the Nazis, but as we saw with Finland later, the Scandinavians can effect a resistance far beyond their lower manpower resources. Just such a shame that the Finns pushed back against the Soviet Union when they had changed sides and themselves were in bed with the Nazis. [Post edited 3 Sep 12:08]
|
Tho it was the Soviets who had initiated the war with Finland in 1939, imposing significant territorial concessions when they finally prevailed. The Continuation War, as its name suggests, was really just an attempt to reverse the outcome (tho even that was actually triggered by Soviet air raids).
The alliance with nazi Germany was very much a marriage of convenience, with the Finns supplying a lot less cooperation than the former demanded (e.g. distantly blockading the northern and eastern sides of Lenningrad, mostly along their former border, but not actually assaulting).
The background issue being that, up until they broke away in 1917-18, following a bloody civil war in which the pro-Soviet communist factions lost, Finland had been part of the Russian Empire. | |
| |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 13:41 - Sep 3 | Churchman |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:04 - Sep 3 by Guthrum |
A major element often overlooked is readiness. Not Britain's or Germany's - both were in about the same position in 1938 - but that of France.
Incredibly politically unstable between the wars, France had 30 administrations between Clemenceau's resignation in January 1920 and the formation of Daladier taking over for the 3rd time in April 1938 (he would go on to sign the Munich Agreement later that year). Several lasted less than 100 days. The country was frequently on the very brink of civil war. Many on the right had open sympathy with nazi ideals (Pierre Laval had been head of government twice already before 1940).
French rearmament lagged significantly behind that of the UK and Germany, which is why tanks were missing modern technology like tactical radios and well-designed aircraft (e.g. the Dewoitine D.520) were still in the prototype stage or only just entering production when the 1940 invasion happened.
The British government felt they could not rely on their main ally (the USA was isolationist, the Soviet Union politically hostile, much of central, eastern and southern Europe fascist), thus making it harder to take a strong line with Hitler. |
French tanks (Char B etc) and artillery were as good if not better than Germany’s. Its aircraft varied from excellent in the barely in service Dewoitine 520, Bloch MB152, LeO 451, imported Curtis 75 Hawks to the barely adequate but outclassed MS406 and pitiful Amiots.
The kit was ok. The use of it, lack of radios, means of control (radar etc), tactical operation, command and control just wasn’t there. Hamelin even refused to use a telephone ffs. A re-fight of WW1 starting with defence behind the Maginot Line was what the French clung too. Soldiers varied from the best to the worst - as did the German divisions. France started with a bigger army, but it died inside out.
The leadership as you describe was pitiful. I think the British did rely on France’s army. It too was planning on WW1 revisited with a bit of mechanisation bunged in, but its army was for the day tiny, despite being professional.
What Britain’s did do was invest in new technology. Chamberlain was actually interested in this and pushed it, especially in respect of the ageing navy and new developments like radar (RDF). The development of modern aircraft was fraught with political indecision and lack of leadership. This was partly due to nobody really understanding what modern aircraft capabilities were and those running the RAF and RN being either too old or incompetent. Inter service rivalry and hatred’s didn’t help.
The irony is the one many ministers thought was too old, not least because he looked it and was dour, was the one visionary - Dowding. It’s fair to say his extraordinary strength and leadership saved this country in 1940. | | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 13:47 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:04 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The difference between Trump and Putin is that Trump is constrained by the democracy that his presidency over, the United States, fitfully it's true, provides. There are plenty of opposition voices in Russia but Putin has used oppressive legislation to silence them for the most part. It is by getting and keeping the states that border Russia onside, and keeping them onside, that we can influence the traffic in and out of that largest nation state on Earth (and a state that gets bound in by winter will always need traffic in and out.) Russia has been infiltrating Europe for decades and repaying that dubious favour is what can make Putin truly squirm.
On Norway and Sweden's neutrality, sure it would have provoked a response from the Soviet Union, then in a pact with the Nazis, but as we saw with Finland later, the Scandinavians can effect a resistance far beyond their lower manpower resources. Just such a shame that the Finns pushed back against the Soviet Union when they had changed sides and themselves were in bed with the Nazis. [Post edited 3 Sep 12:08]
|
Don't think the Finns had a choice. To disengage would have mean't occupation by the Soviets. Athough having ended up fighting on the wrong side, it could have ended worse, they lost part of Karelia to Russia but remained fairly intact at the end of the war. From a Finnish perspective, Russia has always been the big bear neighbour, the eternal enemy and I doubt it mattered to them what side they were on as long as they could keep Russia at bay. The enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing. They certainly fought bravely. Their alpine hit and run techniques were stuff of legend. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Eighty seven years ago today on 13:56 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:04 - Sep 3 by Guthrum |
A major element often overlooked is readiness. Not Britain's or Germany's - both were in about the same position in 1938 - but that of France.
Incredibly politically unstable between the wars, France had 30 administrations between Clemenceau's resignation in January 1920 and the formation of Daladier taking over for the 3rd time in April 1938 (he would go on to sign the Munich Agreement later that year). Several lasted less than 100 days. The country was frequently on the very brink of civil war. Many on the right had open sympathy with nazi ideals (Pierre Laval had been head of government twice already before 1940).
French rearmament lagged significantly behind that of the UK and Germany, which is why tanks were missing modern technology like tactical radios and well-designed aircraft (e.g. the Dewoitine D.520) were still in the prototype stage or only just entering production when the 1940 invasion happened.
The British government felt they could not rely on their main ally (the USA was isolationist, the Soviet Union politically hostile, much of central, eastern and southern Europe fascist), thus making it harder to take a strong line with Hitler. |
The lack of radio communication in tanks was not so much to do with slow rearmament but was more do do with the foresight of Heinz Guderian who forsaw a combined arms type of warfare and insisted that every tank had comms. We were in a similar position to the French. Just left behind by up to date tactics and strategy. | | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 14:24 - Sep 3 | Churchman |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 13:56 - Sep 3 by mellowblue |
The lack of radio communication in tanks was not so much to do with slow rearmament but was more do do with the foresight of Heinz Guderian who forsaw a combined arms type of warfare and insisted that every tank had comms. We were in a similar position to the French. Just left behind by up to date tactics and strategy. |
Guderian’s influence is I believe over stated. Yes he states what he and others believed to be the way forward in his book Achtung - Panzer in 1936. Shame the French never read the book.
The irony is that the principles of blitzkrieg were developed in WW1 by the British Army (including Canadians, Aussies, Indian troops etc) and used to smash the German army in 1918. It was all about combining infantry, artillery, tanks and aircraft. The Germans updated it in the 1930s, France and Britain forgot it.
The British army though just wasn’t a factor. It was tiny, but was the only fully mechanised army in the field. Panzers were about 10% of the German army and most of it was moved by horse and Mk1 feet. But the reality of the fall of France was entirely down to the ineptitude, obsolescence and incompetence of French political and military leadership.
Britain would pay the price of its own pre and early war failures for too big a chunk of the conflict. It’s the nature of war. | | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 | WeWereZombies |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 12:18 - Sep 3 by mellowblue |
Nazi Germany was always going to either implode or overreach itself. It's wish for expansion had to be satisfied. The only way to have avoided war was to have given Germany a free hand to the East and let them and the USSR duke it out as they were always going to come to blows. But the assurances given to Poland mean't that war was inevitable. As soon as the powers gave West Prussia to Poland effectively dividing Germany with the Polish corridor, war was always going to happen, understandably from a German viewpoint. It just gave Germany the pretext it needed to invade. Ironic that having pledged to free Poland from the Germans, we surrendered it meekly to the Soviets.
As regards Norway and Sweden, once the blitzkrieg had happened, Sweden and Norway would have fallen if thay had declared war. Even with a phoney war in the west, they would have been very vulnerable. Sweden was wise to stay neutral. Norway was also neutral but firmly pro ally and they chartered a major part of their merchant marine to us as we were going to need ships to supply ourselves from distant countries with the potential loss of european trading partners. We probably precipitated the invasion of Norway as the allies had plans to choke the supple of iron ore from the port of Narvik, the Altmark incident was the first step to doing so. So Germany, strategically, had no choice but to protect their supply line of iron ore. |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) | |
| |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 16:36 - Sep 3 by WeWereZombies |
The Nazis already had ships full of prisoners of war in Norwegian waters before they invaded, they were goading the Allies. The Royal Navy responded by mining those waters (despite then belonging to a neutral country at that point in time) and once the Nazis invaded then the Allies struck back. Polish and French troops joined the defending Norwegians whilst the Royal Navy gave support from the surrounding waters. For a while the Nazis suffered their first reversal of the Second World War but by June they had thrown so much at the Norwegian campaign that they regained Narvik. If Sweden had joined the Allies just before that point the Nazis may have been overstretched and would have had to capitulate (the Soviet Union may also have glimpsed an opportunity and ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a year early.) |
It was not really any attempt at goading the allies. The Altmark's natural route was to skirt the Norwegian coastline through neutral waters on the way to Northern Germany to avoid stop and search by the R.N in international waters. This in itself was not illegal. The R.N's taking of the Altmark served the purpose of freeing prisoners, giving the press a good feel story and testing Norway's neutrality [Post edited 3 Sep 17:03]
| | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 17:11 - Sep 3 | mellowblue |
I occasionally wonder if the allies and Germany had avoided warfare, would Japan still have invaded Malaya/ Hong Kong and carried out the Pearl Harbor attack thus bringing us and the U.S into war with Japan. or would they been more cautious and contented themselves with China and Manchuria etc. If that had happened, we could possibly still have a Japanese empire today. | | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 17:37 - Sep 3 | WeWereZombies |
| Eighty seven years ago today (n/t) on 16:54 - Sep 3 by mellowblue |
It was not really any attempt at goading the allies. The Altmark's natural route was to skirt the Norwegian coastline through neutral waters on the way to Northern Germany to avoid stop and search by the R.N in international waters. This in itself was not illegal. The R.N's taking of the Altmark served the purpose of freeing prisoners, giving the press a good feel story and testing Norway's neutrality [Post edited 3 Sep 17:03]
|
But the prisoners were taken in the South Atlantic after their vessels were sunk by the Graf Spee. Whilst it would have been nigh on impossible for the Altmark to negotiate the Channel it was not that much easier to skirt the Norwegian coast given our naval superiority in the North Sea and thus the entry to the Baltic, it would have been easier to proceed further north and land the prisoners at the secret Nazi port in the Soviet Union, albeit that may have required a delay until later in the year. Also, I don't think the primary purpose of liberating prisoners of war is to give the press a feel good story and we were not into the 'rainy day' feeling of the war quite yet anyway. Plus I suspect it was more a case of getting ready to aid Norway than testing their neutrality. | |
| |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 17:55 - Sep 3 | Churchman |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 17:11 - Sep 3 by mellowblue |
I occasionally wonder if the allies and Germany had avoided warfare, would Japan still have invaded Malaya/ Hong Kong and carried out the Pearl Harbor attack thus bringing us and the U.S into war with Japan. or would they been more cautious and contented themselves with China and Manchuria etc. If that had happened, we could possibly still have a Japanese empire today. |
Japan and US were at loggerheads. Japan has no natural resources. It was run by military dictatorship and given the US embargo on oil, rubber, synthetics etc Japan felt it had no choice but to force the US into conceding and to gain access to those raw materials by their own action to release the stranglehold.
The embargo and asset freezing by the US was in response to Japan’s invasion of China. This was before Germany declared war on the US in 1941.
My view is that Japan was always going to do what it did, given its totalitarian leadership, desire for an empire, war on China and competing interests with US and indeed Britain.
Despite America’s writing of history, there was always going to be war with Japan. There usually is with dictatorships (Ms Abbott please note!). | | | |
| Eighty seven years ago today on 18:06 - Sep 3 | Churchman |
Only nine divisions were used to capture Norway. About 140 were deployed in France and the Low Countries by comparison. It was vital they did. From there they could both threaten the British and more importantly keep Sweden in line for that vital iron ore.
Militarily the cost to Germany was negligible from the army viewpoint. However much of its very small navy was wiped out and this would have huge consequences later for the somewhat fanciful plans for Sealion - the invasion of Britain.
The other consequence for Germany was the 100k soldiers it needed to garrison the country. In return? Not much. Even Tirpitz was destroyed there.
The Altmark incident is interesting. Hitler used it as an excuse. Britain saw it as an opportunity to kick Germany, release 299 prisoners and to confirm to Norway that they had no power, no say. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
