Churchill and Norway
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
abc123
Banned
True, but on the other hand, while having about 9x stronger force RN didn't prevent Germans to make broad invasion of Norway, from Oslo and kristiansand ( OK, that could be excusable, they are too far south ) to Trondheim and Narwik up north.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
No
Reasons why he should stay on... Norway seems brushed under the table due to the whole "France is falling" at almost the same time. Diplomatic constraints also slowed British response I believe, and Norway was slow to mobilize. Also, the Cabinet seems to me to need a "Teddy" to show How Seriously they are taking the war (Churchill was a loud anti-Nazi).
No the very serious cons. The UK should have known that the Altmark incident, viewed from Hitler, meant that to ensure Aryan supremacy Norway and Denmark had to be crushed. Someone in Britain should have realized that while Nazis do not mind breaking the law, they hate others doing so... I want to do a timeline where some bright chap realizes this and plans accordingly.
The initial invasion were too mild, and that chap with ALL the medals (Zebrugge raid?) had the right idea about attacking an unpronounceable port. The leadership in Norway seemed to be a Gamelin clone. When France was falling, the Allies pulled out; not sure if good or bad.
Weighed in the balance, I say he stays on. Sometimes you need a pit-bull, and he was good at that. Except for Operation Catherine. Or the Dardanelles. And the Italian islands in 1943. And the Bengal Famine.
Reasons why he should stay on... Norway seems brushed under the table due to the whole "France is falling" at almost the same time. Diplomatic constraints also slowed British response I believe, and Norway was slow to mobilize. Also, the Cabinet seems to me to need a "Teddy" to show How Seriously they are taking the war (Churchill was a loud anti-Nazi).
No the very serious cons. The UK should have known that the Altmark incident, viewed from Hitler, meant that to ensure Aryan supremacy Norway and Denmark had to be crushed. Someone in Britain should have realized that while Nazis do not mind breaking the law, they hate others doing so... I want to do a timeline where some bright chap realizes this and plans accordingly.
The initial invasion were too mild, and that chap with ALL the medals (Zebrugge raid?) had the right idea about attacking an unpronounceable port. The leadership in Norway seemed to be a Gamelin clone. When France was falling, the Allies pulled out; not sure if good or bad.
Weighed in the balance, I say he stays on. Sometimes you need a pit-bull, and he was good at that. Except for Operation Catherine. Or the Dardanelles. And the Italian islands in 1943. And the Bengal Famine.
abc123
Banned
True, but Norway showed that he isn't such dangerous pit-bull at all, or "his" Navy, at least...
Hoist40
Banned
It was Churchill who advocated various plans to violate Norway's neutrality. Either to take over Norway and block iron ore shipments to Germany or to entice Germany to invade so the British and French could counter invade. Here are two of the plans, there were others.
Operation Wilfred was being carried out just before the Germans invaded, this was the plan to mine Norway's coastal waters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wilfred
If the Germans responded by invading Norway to clear the mines then operation R 4 was to be carried out which was to invade northern Norway and seize the railroad from Sweden which carried the iron ore and possibly move into Sweden and seize the mines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
There were many leaks about these plans which reached the Germans so they started their own plan and just after the British laid their first mine field the Germans invaded all of Norway
So it was not just Churchill failing to have the Royal Navy stop the invasion, his operation and plans to violate Norway’s neutrality helped sparked the German invasion.
Operation Wilfred was being carried out just before the Germans invaded, this was the plan to mine Norway's coastal waters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wilfred
If the Germans responded by invading Norway to clear the mines then operation R 4 was to be carried out which was to invade northern Norway and seize the railroad from Sweden which carried the iron ore and possibly move into Sweden and seize the mines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
There were many leaks about these plans which reached the Germans so they started their own plan and just after the British laid their first mine field the Germans invaded all of Norway
So it was not just Churchill failing to have the Royal Navy stop the invasion, his operation and plans to violate Norway’s neutrality helped sparked the German invasion.
The Norway Debate was never about Norway per se. It was about the dissatisfaction of much of the Commons on the general conduct of the war. People felt that the war wasn't being pressed with the seriousness it needed. Nobody wanted to go after Winston or Pound. It was all about Chamberlain, and the specifics of Norway was simply a chance to articulate criticism towards him.
In defense of Churchill, you can't expect him to be entirely responsible for the fall of Norway. His brief was to initially mine the waters, not prevent a German invasion. The general lack of preparedness to do so did not lie in his arena, but with Chamberlain. Besides, you don't sack one of your best commanders or ministers because of one failure.
Since the Norway Debate didn't even push out Chamberlain (he won the vote of no confidence, but the defection of various backbenchers and signs of unpopularity convinced him to resign on his own), it can hardly pull down Churchill as well.
I am very bothered by Hoist40's suggestion that the German invasion was entirely in response to Britain. Both the Germans and Britains could read a map and knew how important Norway was. As early as October 1939 (way before the Altmark incident) Admiral Raeder drew up plans for invading Norway to use it for naval bases. While this was partially because of concern of British action against the iron ore, it was mainly for offensive reasons against Britain. In December 1939, Hitler met with Vidkun Quisling where they discussed theoretical British threats to Norway, and afterwards asked for invasion plans to be drawn up which were later revised throughout January and early February 1940, all before the Altmark incident. It is incorrect to state that it was only because of British plans to mine or invade that "provoked" Nazi Germany to invade themselves as a reponse. Both countries knew of the strategic importance of Norway, and knew how advantageous it would be if the Germans controlled it. To say that simply because the iron ore passage was blocked by mines excuses German actions is to give them a pass they did not deserve. You can justify any invasion by saying if they didn't, it would hurt the German war effort. Instead, the British plans was based on their correct assumption that Hitler would invade Norway at some point. The idea that the Germans were somehow pushed into it against their will is laughable.
In defense of Churchill, you can't expect him to be entirely responsible for the fall of Norway. His brief was to initially mine the waters, not prevent a German invasion. The general lack of preparedness to do so did not lie in his arena, but with Chamberlain. Besides, you don't sack one of your best commanders or ministers because of one failure.
Since the Norway Debate didn't even push out Chamberlain (he won the vote of no confidence, but the defection of various backbenchers and signs of unpopularity convinced him to resign on his own), it can hardly pull down Churchill as well.
I am very bothered by Hoist40's suggestion that the German invasion was entirely in response to Britain. Both the Germans and Britains could read a map and knew how important Norway was. As early as October 1939 (way before the Altmark incident) Admiral Raeder drew up plans for invading Norway to use it for naval bases. While this was partially because of concern of British action against the iron ore, it was mainly for offensive reasons against Britain. In December 1939, Hitler met with Vidkun Quisling where they discussed theoretical British threats to Norway, and afterwards asked for invasion plans to be drawn up which were later revised throughout January and early February 1940, all before the Altmark incident. It is incorrect to state that it was only because of British plans to mine or invade that "provoked" Nazi Germany to invade themselves as a reponse. Both countries knew of the strategic importance of Norway, and knew how advantageous it would be if the Germans controlled it. To say that simply because the iron ore passage was blocked by mines excuses German actions is to give them a pass they did not deserve. You can justify any invasion by saying if they didn't, it would hurt the German war effort. Instead, the British plans was based on their correct assumption that Hitler would invade Norway at some point. The idea that the Germans were somehow pushed into it against their will is laughable.
BlondieBC
Banned
His record up to that point did not qualify the word "best" or even "good" to describe him. He failed at Gallipoli. His going back to the gold standard was a miserable failure that is largely responsible for the interwar suffering of the English economy. His policy towards India just alienated the Indians. What are the 4 or more major success before May 1940 that you use to counterbalance him into the merely good category? Or the 8 or more you would need to call him "best" with a straight face. His conduct as PM in WW2 is a notable success, but it is a turn around story of a depressed alcoholic who was a serial failure as a leader.
A BTW, some of the defense cuts he complained about so much he voted for in the interwar years. And I did not even count his failure to protect merchant men or have serious anti-submarine capability for WW1.
Hoist40
Banned
I did not say it was entirely in response to Britain. What I said was
Helped spark is not the same as “entirely in response to Britain. However you seem to want to ignore the fact that Operation Wilfred was part of a plan by both Britain and France to violate Norway’s territorial waters and hope that Germany would respond then justify Plan R 4 which was an invasion by Britain and France. The actual mining was just before the Germans invaded. That same day both the British and French government delivered diplomatic notes to the Norway government saying that they were going to interrupt the passage of what they called “war contraband” through Norway’s waters
The mining operation was suppose to have occurred a couple of days earlier but it had been postponed a couple of days because of arguments with the French about another operation ‘Royal Marine” the mining by air of the German Rhine.
In fact there were British warships loaded with troops at this time and when the Royal Navy under Churchill detected the German ship movements they thought that Germany could not be responding to the mining so quickly so they thought that German warships were going to head north into the North Sea and break out into the Atlantic. So the British troops were dumped onto the piers and the British warships headed north and so missed the German ships who turned east and landed their troops in Norway.
So the idea that Britain and France were innocently standing around when the Germans attacked Norway is false, they had deliberately set up plans and were in the process of carrying them out to violate Norway’s neutrality and then use a resulting German response to justify what they really wanted, cutting off the supply of Swedish iron ore to Germany.
This does not mean that Germany did not have their own plans to violate Norway’s neutrality to protect that same iron ore supply. But the various plans by Britain and France were part of why the Germans feared the loss of that supply. And it was not just Operation Wilfred and Plan R-4. There were earlier plans to cut off the supply using the excuse to set up a supply route to Finland when it was attacked by the Soviet Union. The British and French planned on putting that supply route (along with over 100,000 British/French troops) right on top of the Swedish iron ore mines and the railroad to Norway which would have also cut off the supply of ore to Germany.
And then there was Churchill’s really crazy plan “Operation Catherine” to send battleships to the Baltic to cut off shipping iron ore that way.
So with all these plans and operations going around Britain and France is it surprising that Germany would find out about them and respond?
Last edited:
abc123
Banned
What I wanted to say is that RN made so many mistakes and strategic/tactical confusion in Norway campaign that Germans were able to send large forces BY SEA ( do you remember famous quote "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea" anyone? ) while having longer sea lines to Norway ( it's closer to Norway from Scapa Flow than from Wilhelmshaven ) and many times weaker Navy. And in the same time the glorious RN didn't even made a serious counter-attack on them ( except at Narwik ).
Sorry, IMO- FAIL. Maybe not EPIC FAIL, but BIG FAIL yes.
Sorry, IMO- FAIL. Maybe not EPIC FAIL, but BIG FAIL yes.
Given that there were no German agents in Britain at the time, then yes it is slightly surprising.
Hoist40
Banned
This was a joint British and French plan plus there were troops being trained for these operations in both Britain and France so there was a lot of people involved. And these plans were argued back and forth between Britain and France for months with various delays and alternate plans proposed so its not surprising that Germany got a hint about it.
And the earlier plans to put a 100,000 troops in Norway and Sweden on top of the iron ore mines and railroad/ports to supply Finland was also discussed with the Norwegian, Swedish and Finland government so there was even more possibilities of a leak.
Did they know the target? If not then how do they know it wasn't a preparation for an assault on the Siegfried Line?
Hoist40
Banned
The large number of people in both the British and French governments knew the target along with the senor military leaders and they had argued back and forth for months. While the troops being trained were French alpine ski troops and British and Polish troops trained for winter fighting so they probably knew it was not for an attack on the Siegfried Line in spring.