Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
48 pages about something that is in essence quite simple and which several members got so unnecessarily worked up about in the distant past.

The intentions of all the governments involved in the war for Norway are logical and hyperrealistic. If Britain was serious about winning the war (or helping Finland in its war against the Soviets) it made sense for them to make Norway a staging ground for future offensives aimed at the German heartland and to deny Germany access to Swedish iron ore by cajoling Norway into accepting British and French forces on Norse territory by simply putting them ashore. And the Germans had every reason to prevent this, so their reaction (Operation Weserübung) was completely predictable too. And Norway couldn't just accept foreign soldiers on its territory without it losing its credibility as a sovereign state, which would have been noted by the world, and that would definitely have had undesirable consequences for Norway at the negotiating table at the end of the war, regardless of who won or lost the war.

It's not a debate about the moral high ground.
Finally some reason in the debate. In essence this was indeed Churchill's reasoning:

Cutting off Germany from Swedish Iron Ore supply might have been the main reason (And Germany had securing iron ore supply as the main motive) for the British to engage in Scandinavia. But even, if that failed, they still could involve all or at least some Scandinavian countries into the war and force Germany to occupy them, which binds forces not available for other campaigns. If one can make Germany look like the aggressor (and oppressor), this would be a propaganda victory. That the British went to Norway (and Sweden) to "assist Finland" was of course a ruse to have an excuse to do exactly that: Getting involved in Norway provoking a German reaction.