The Flames of Discord

So the allies are afraid of offending Norway and violating their neutrality but do not hesitate to attack the Soviet Union? Sorry, I don't see the logic there.
Hey, wait, Operation Pike hasn't even occurred yet. Don't forget OP would probably have gone through had Fall Gelb not begun while they were building the airstrips. And anyway you're missing a crucial element which will become apparent in instalment 4 or 5.
Wait and ye shall see;)
 
So the allies are afraid of offending Norway and violating their neutrality but do not hesitate to attack the Soviet Union? Sorry, I don't see the logic there.

LOTLOF

Logic. Logic. Who said there was logic involved? After all this was basically what [nearly] happened OTL. The western powers were about to intrude into Norway to 'rescue' Finland from the Soviets and attack Baku!

Steve
 
So the allies are afraid of offending Norway and violating their neutrality but do not hesitate to attack the Soviet Union? Sorry, I don't see the logic there.

The Soviet Union at this point was a de facto Axis power (or at least co-belligerent), feeding oil and grain to the Nazi war machine so the blockade didn't affect them and expanding their control in Eastern Europe.
 
LOTLOF

Logic. Logic. Who said there was logic involved? After all this was basically what [nearly] happened OTL. The western powers were about to intrude into Norway to 'rescue' Finland from the Soviets and attack Baku!

Steve

Why the quotes around "rescue"? The USSR was abusing Finland.
 
LOTLOF

Logic. Logic. Who said there was logic involved? After all this was basically what [nearly] happened OTL. The western powers were about to intrude into Norway to 'rescue' Finland from the Soviets and attack Baku!

Steve

My point wasn't to argue whether or not the allies should have violated Norway's neutrality. (Which by the way I would think a mistake.) It's to point out the inconsistency of apparently being more concerned with a small power than a large one. Stalin did not fear to attack Finland when he believed none of the major powers would interfere. On the other hand he went to unbelievable lengths to try and avoid war with the Germans. Hitler, never the most rational of minds, went out of his way to avoid bringing in the US even after FDR issues his navy a 'shoot on sight' order in the Atlantic.



Deliberately attacking a major power and making them your enemy is not something that should be done lightly. So I find it strange where they show cautious good sense on one hand (Norway) but appear reckless on the other (USSR).



Though I will withhold final judgment until I see the actual circumstances of the attack.
 
The Soviet Union at this point was a de facto Axis power (or at least co-belligerent), feeding oil and grain to the Nazi war machine so the blockade didn't affect them and expanding their control in Eastern Europe.

I'll have to disagree with you there. The Soviets were friendly non-belligerents. They were NOT active participants in a shooting war. They were in essence performing the same role on the Axis side as the US was on the Allied side; providing trade and economic support but not military support.

There is a world of difference.

As I am sure the Germans realized after they declared war on the US.
 
Why the quotes around "rescue"? The USSR was abusing Finland.

MerryPrankster

Yes and that was the official excuse for the planned occupation of Narvik. Public opinion was very much against the Soviet attack on Finland. However the allies were also aware that such a move would cut the iron ore supply from Sweden to Germany - at least once winter came around and the Baltic froze up. Hence it's a bit like the liberation of Kuwait. There was a clear moral reason but also keeping it's oil out of Sadam's hands was a factor. Great powers rarely act for a single reason and there are often multiple motives for what they do, if only to unite enough factors in favour of that action.

Steve
 
LOTLOF

I think part of the matter was that while the SU was a pariah state that had long made clear it's hostility to the western democracies Norway was a democratic and friendly state. Coupled with it's clear and substantial support for the Nazis, far more that the US was to do for Britain until Mar 41. As such an unprovoked intervention into Norway would prompt unpleasant reactions in public opinion, both internally which is important for a democracy, and in other democratic states, most noticeably the US. Furthermore they vastly underestimated the capacities of the SU, based on the Red Armies performance in Poland and Finland.

Steve

My point wasn't to argue whether or not the allies should have violated Norway's neutrality. (Which by the way I would think a mistake.) It's to point out the inconsistency of apparently being more concerned with a small power than a large one. Stalin did not fear to attack Finland when he believed none of the major powers would interfere. On the other hand he went to unbelievable lengths to try and avoid war with the Germans. Hitler, never the most rational of minds, went out of his way to avoid bringing in the US even after FDR issues his navy a 'shoot on sight' order in the Atlantic.



Deliberately attacking a major power and making them your enemy is not something that should be done lightly. So I find it strange where they show cautious good sense on one hand (Norway) but appear reckless on the other (USSR).



Though I will withhold final judgment until I see the actual circumstances of the attack.
 
The Flames of Discord

IV. An Unwelcome Visitor


On February 25, 1940 Reich Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop’s plane touched down at Lufthavn Fornebu-Oslo. The announced reason for the visit was to engage the Norwegian government in talks regarding the release of the impounded oiler Altmark and her crew. The visit had been requested a week earlier by Berlin, Prime Minister Johan Nygaardsvold, feeling some political pressure between factions in Parliament reluctantly gave his assent to the visit. In truth, he heartily wished that the entire issue over the Altmark would swiftly disappear. The British as well had been relentless in their request for release of the English POWs now in Norway’s custody. It was widely speculated in the press and in the cafés of the capital that von Ribbentrop might well have other items on his agenda. Those familiar with statements by Dr. Goebbels in the Völkischer Beobachter knew that the official position of the Hitler government was that The German crew and the Altmark herself were being wrongfully detained by the Norwegian government and that “English lackeys” and “Jewish elements” in Norway were unduly influencing the Norwegian government and endangering the friendly relations that the Reich desired with its “Nordic cousins.” The Oslo newspapers announced that the Foreign Minister planned to have private discussions with the government over several days.

That night a gala reception was held at the German Embassy featuring musicians from the Berlin Philharmonic as entertainment. Many of the diplomatic corps were in attendance, although the English and French diplomats were, of course, nowhere to be seen. Not that they were unaware of the goings on at the reception. Both the English and French governments had observers present that night. The French had Duclos, a Belgian diplomat reporting to them. The English had procured the services of Magnus Palme, a Norwegian naval officer (In Palme’s case an energetic MI 5 agent in Oslo had discovered that Palme had incurred serious debts from his indulgences in gambling and pretty women. It hadn’t been difficult to recruit him.)

Late that same night, Palme had typed up his observations and the following morning passed them to his contact, a nondescript-looking man who sat next to him on the tram he always rode to his office. By the 27th, the typescript was in the hands of the Prime Minister.

The contents were to Chamberlain’s thinking rather suspicious. Besides the usual diplomatic and ministerial people, Palme had noticed that Vidkun Quisling and several of his Nasjonal Samling people had been present. Quisling himself seemed to be constantly at the elbow of von Ribbentrop during the entire evening. Perhaps more ominously, the NS bully-boys were seen drinking together with one Alfred Naujocks, a man known to be an SD officer and suspected to be closely allied with Reinhard Heydrich.

“Now why would a man like Naujocks be in Oslo?” Chamberlain asked.

“He’s a Party man, definitely not Abwehr,” said Cummings, liaison to MI 5. “He’s known to have been involved in a number of bits of nasty business in Germany, including a political murder or two before Hitler rose to power."

“I wonder if he was involved in that killing up in Narvik? Or
perhaps the Germans have got some other scheme afoot there?”

“Public figures simply are not assassinated in Norway, even in these troubled times. Our people in Oslo are investigating very closely whether the Germans were somehow involved. If the Reich has become aware of our planning for the Narvik operation, it would seem likely that they would attempt to destabilize matters there. Given von Ribbentrop’s visit, and with SD people in tow, it may mean some kind of action by them may be in the works, perhaps very soon.”

“I see that Sverdov was there as well. He’s a Bolshy spy, isn’t he?”

“Officially he’s a Russian émigré businessman, but yes, we think he’s likely OGPU.”

“And Sverdov seemed to be very interested in dealing with von Ribbentrop as well...”

“All very curious gentlemen.”

"Next item. May we have a report on the status of plan R4?"

___________


The Third Reich and the USSR remain allies?
It's in The Flames of Discord!
 
Top