Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: How Britain Forced The Invasion of Norway & Denmark By Germany Then Blamed Hitler, Again

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,277
    Thanked in
    759 Posts

    How Britain Forced The Invasion of Norway & Denmark By Germany Then Blamed Hitler, Again

    Hitler soon had convincing evidence that Britain would not respect Norwegian neutrality. German naval intelligence in February 1940 broke the British naval codes and obtained important information about Allied activities and plans. The intercepts indicated that the Allies were preparing for operations against Norway using the pretext of helping Finland.

    The question is often asked: If Hitler wanted peace, why did he invade so many countries? Countries including Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Soviet Union and several others. In the case of the Soviet Union, Germany’s invasion was clearly a preemptive strike that prevented the Soviet Union from conquering all of Europe.

    The book Germany’s War analyzes why Germany invaded or took control of all these nations. This article will briefly discuss why Germany invaded the peaceful nations of Norway and Denmark.

    Why Germany Invaded Norway and Denmark

    Germany had no plans to invade Norway or Denmark when World War II began. Hitler considered it advantageous to have a neutral Scandinavia. On August 12, 1939, in a conversation with Italian Foreign Minister Ciano, Hitler stated that he was convinced none of the belligerents would attack the Scandinavian countries, and that these countries would not join in an attack on Germany. Hitler’s statement was apparently sincere, and it is confirmed in a directive on October 9, 1939.[1]

    Hitler eventually became convinced of the need for a preemptive strike to forestall a British move against Norway. Adm. Erich Raeder in a routine meeting with Hitler on October 10, 1939, pointed out that the establishment of British naval and air bases in Norway would be a very dangerous development for Germany. Raeder stated that Britain would be able to control the entrance to the Baltic, and would be in a position to hinder German naval operations in the Atlantic and the North Sea. The flow of iron ore from Sweden would end, and the Allies would be able to use Norway as a base for aerial warfare against Germany.[2]

    In a meeting on December 18, 1939, Hitler let it be known that his preference was for a neutral Norway, but that if the enemy tried to extend the war into this area, he would be forced to react accordingly. Hitler soon had convincing evidence that Britain would not respect Norwegian neutrality. German naval intelligence in February 1940 broke the British naval codes and obtained important information about Allied activities and plans. The intercepts indicated that the Allies were preparing for operations against Norway using the pretext of helping Finland. The intercepts confirmed Adm. Raeder’s fears about British intentions.[3]

    Both Britain and France believed that the threat of Germany losing badly needed iron ore would provoke Germany into opening up military operations in Scandinavia. However, Britain and France had somewhat different objectives. Britain believed that German operations could be challenged effectively and successfully by the Allies, resulting in quick military victories for the Allies in a war that had stagnated. France wanted to open a new front in order to divert German attention and resources from her border. Both Britain and France felt the maritime blockade of Germany would become more effective once Norway was conquered, especially if they succeeded in severing the flow of iron ore to Germany. They were willing to accept great military and political risks to this end.[4]

    German intelligence reports continued to indicate that the Allies would invade Norway even after the conclusion of peace between Finland and the Soviet Union. On March 28, 1940, the Germans learned about the decision taken by the Allied Supreme War Council to mine Norwegian waters. A diplomat’s report on March 30, 1940, indicated that the Allies would launch operations in northern Europe within a few days. British mining operations in Norwegian territorial waters began on April 8, 1940. Although no armed clashes with Norwegian forces took place, the British mining operations were a clear violation of Norway’s neutrality and constituted an act of war.[5]

    Germany’s decision to invade Denmark was based on the plan of Gen. Nikolaus von Falkenhorst, who concluded that it would be desirable to occupy Denmark as a “land bridge” to Norway. Denmark quickly surrendered to German forces on April 9, 1940.[6] The campaign in Norway lasted 62 days and unfortunately resulted in a substantial number of casualties. Most sources list about 860 Norwegians killed. Another source estimates the number of Norwegians killed or wounded at about 1,700, with another 400 civilians estimated to have died during the campaign. Norway also effectively lost her entire navy, and her people experienced increased hardships during Germany’s five-year occupation.[7]

    The German invasion of Norway on April 9, 1940, was made to preempt Britain’s invasion of Norway. The Germans achieved most of their objectives in what must be viewed as a stunning military success. The occupation of Norway complicated British blockade measures and cracked open the door to the Atlantic for possible interference with British supplies coming from overseas. The air threat to Germany by a British presence in Norway was also avoided, as was the possibility of Sweden falling under the control of the Allies. Most importantly, Germany’s source of iron ore was secure, and the German navy was able to remove some of the limitations imposed on it by geography.[8]

    British hopes that quick victories could be achieved by enticing the Germans into an area where they would confront enormous British naval superiority were not realized. The hoped for British victories in Norway turned into a humiliating defeat. The French objective of reducing the threat to her homeland by opening a new theater of war was also not achieved. A protracted war in Norway and the consequent drain on German resources did not materialize. The only major advantage to the Allies was a hardening of public opinion against Germany in neutral countries, especially in the United States.[9] Most people did not know that Germany’s invasion of Norway and Denmark had preempted an invasion of Norway by Allied forces.

    The preemptive nature of Germany’s invasion of Denmark and Norway has been acknowledged by many establishment historians. For example, David Cesarani, who did not believe in freedom of speech regarding the so-called Holocaust,[10]wrote:

    The campaign in the west was triggered by a British naval incursion into Norwegian waters in February 1940. In an attempt to limit iron ore imports to Germany, the British next mined Norwegian sea lanes and landed troops at Trondheim. On 9 April [1940], Hitler responded by launching an invasion of Norway and ordered the occupation of Denmark. The Danes capitulated within a day, but land battles in Norway and naval engagements continued for eight weeks until Allied troops were evacuated.
    http://www.renegadetribune.com/brita...blamed-hitler/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 03:47 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    410
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    701
    Thanked in
    439 Posts
    The German invasion of Norway on April 9, 1940, was made to preempt Britain’s invasion of Norway. The Germans achieved most of their objectives in what must be viewed as a stunning military success. The occupation of Norway complicated British blockade measures and cracked open the door to the Atlantic for possible interference with British supplies coming from overseas. The air threat to Germany by a British presence in Norway was also avoided, as was the possibility of Sweden falling under the control of the Allies. Most importantly, Germany’s source of iron ore was secure, and the German navy was able to remove some of the limitations imposed on it by geography.[8]
    Churchill had a plan with this, didn't achieve everything, but the basics:

    3. But is there any prospect of Sweden and Norway actively co-operating with us of their own free will to bring about a series of operations Which, as is well set out in the paper, will —

    (a) Ruin the trade of their ironheld and the shipping which carries it.
    (b) Involve them in war with Germany.
    (c) Expose the whole southern part of both countries to German invasion
    and occupation.


    Left to themselves they will certainly refuse, and, if pressed diplomatically, they will protest loudly to the world. Thus the minor operation is knocked out for the sake of the bigger, and the bigger is only declared practicable upon renditions which will not occur.

    https://archive.org/details/WinstonC...31December1939
    Second price is just getting Germany involved with war in more countries, binding forces of the Wehrmacht for good and create attrition for them.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Ravenrune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2020 @ 04:47 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon-Celt
    Ancestry
    Irish, English, Scottish, German, French, Mi'kmaq
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    maker of things
    Politics
    non-corruption for the people
    Religion
    Pantheism / Norse pagan / Taoism
    Posts
    607
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    78
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    664
    Thanked in
    338 Posts
    Most people did not know that Germany’s invasion of Norway and Denmark had preempted an invasion of Norway by Allied forces.

    ---------------------------------

    Most people still don't know this ;-)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Astragoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 06:33 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Posts
    1,108
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,135
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,154
    Thanked in
    635 Posts
    Its not called "perfidious England" for nothing. The problem is theres a price to be paid for behavior like
    this and were seeing it take place now.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 10:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    411
    Thanked in
    251 Posts
    http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...n_wilfred.html

    "It is sometimes suggested that the German invasion of Norway was launched in response to Operation Wilfred. Although the two operations were indeed first mentioned at about the same time, the German invasion plans were in place well before the British made their move. Detailing planning work had begun in January 1940, the directive authorising the attack had been signed on 7 March, and the invasion date had been set on 2 April. The first German ships left port on 3 April, two days before the Teviot Bank put to sea."


    There's a full reply beneath the article by someone called Mike Hall:

    "Nonsense and slanted and absent is the moral difference between the Allied and German side which is needed for a proper evaluation.

    The Cabinet denied Churchill’s agitation for landings in Norway. However preparations were made for occupation of Norwegian coastal cities IF the Germans responded to the British mining of Norwegian waters WITHOUT a request from the Norwegian government (and the Norwegian Government in its last cabinet meeting on 08 April made clear they would protest but wanted no escalation). The Allied plan was that if the Germans moved WITHOUT such a request the British/French raiding parties, being loaded in Scottish docks, could sail across faster than the Germans and quickly take command of the main ports & Sola airfield near Stavanger to rebuff any German military action, and that would be deemed acceptable under the rules of war as such German literal military moves (I.e. troop ships steaming north) would be considered “solid and clear evidence” – which intelligence gossip is not . But it must also be underscored anyway that the planned limited Allied presence in Norway would not be an occupation in the German sense. In the article there is a premise that “occupation” German style is the same as “occupation” Allied style.

    A guide is to see what Allied occupation means is to look at what happened when Britain took over the Faeroe Islands after Denmark’s invasion (the locals were left to themselves and supplied with resources by British ships) and in Iceland. In Iceland the British went in un-invited, parked ships in fjords and formed a base at the airfield at Keflavik about 50 km south of Reykavik. The Icelanders were not happy but after a symbolic protest did not take any internal measures or ask for international sanctions against the British. The Brits and later Americans confined themselves to Keflavik region, except for “night off” excursions into Rekyavik where their currency was most welcome and they stayed confined to that area for the duration and certainly made no demands on the country government or people. It forestalled any potential German landings on a strategically useful position during the Atlantic convoy runs.

    This is a far cry from the occupation of Norway which was not “limited” but a total command of the entire state, media and economy, with regular repressive measures against the people not to mention an attempt to pervert the education children received and deporting an odd 700 jews to certain death.

    That said, the article is mostly about cause and effect. So did British actions precipitate the German invasion? Yes and no. Allied interest in Norway caused jitters in Berlin but no solid evidence that an invasion or even breach of neutral waters was planned. It was Hitler’s brutal response to covering his flanks that was the deciding factor for Germany occupying Denmark and Norway where proper plans were made in Feb 1940 when Hitler gave the go-ahead. He could have paced himself and waited for more solid evidence of an Allied invasion force before giving the go-ahead for any counter measures or even just having a reaction force ready at Keil to sail if the temperature hots up. But his disregard for independent peoples and his innate brutality meant that he almost on a whim ordered the invasion to neutralise any potential threat to his northern flanks whatever the cost to Danish and Norwegian independence which merely was a continuation of his run of ruthless repression of free peoples for his strategic aims.

    The silver cloud in his invasion is that the Gestapo staff with all their files of arrest lists, shoot-on-sight list of Norwegian communists and other nefarious papers for their coercion plans for the capital went down with the Bulcher ship after being fired on by an ancient shore battery on the night of the invasion going down with it included most of the Gestapo’s best staff who all sank into the icy depths of the Oslo fjord. That aspect still raises a smile."

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 10:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    411
    Thanked in
    251 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Astragoth View Post
    Its not called "perfidious England" for nothing. The problem is theres a price to be paid for behavior like this and were seeing it take place now.
    The phrase 'perfidious Albion' was coined by the French after England turned against the French revolution when it became totally republican. What's taking place now is the result of a combination of factors and back-projecting it onto WWII makes little sense. Actually, much of the white guilt / 'anti-racism' in the West now is a consequence of the behaviour of Hitler's regime.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Aelfgar For This Useful Post:


  8. #7
    Retarded in mysterious ways
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, December 17th, 2021 @ 05:30 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,806
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,915
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,966
    Thanked in
    995 Posts
    A guide is to see what Allied occupation means is to look at what happened when Britain took over the Faeroe Islands after Denmark’s invasion (the locals were left to themselves and supplied with resources by British ships) and in Iceland. In Iceland the British went in un-invited, parked ships in fjords and formed a base at the airfield at Keflavik about 50 km south of Reykavik. The Icelanders were not happy but after a symbolic protest did not take any internal measures or ask for international sanctions against the British. The Brits and later Americans confined themselves to Keflavik region, except for “night off” excursions into Rekyavik where their currency was most welcome and they stayed confined to that area for the duration and certainly made no demands on the country government or people. It forestalled any potential German landings on a strategically useful position during the Atlantic convoy runs.
    I don't think it's fair to compare the Allied occupation of Iceland and Faroe Islands with the German occupation of Denmark and Norway. Firstly, Iceland and Faroe Islands didn't have a standing army, not even conscripts, as far as I know. Making the threat of armed revolts virtually non-existent. And as such, there was no need for any tight control of the population or their government. The lack of sabotage actions is another important factor.

    And secondly, Germany was in no way going to attempt an invasion of Allied occupied Iceland and Faroe Islands. Perhaps if the war turned out differently, and these islands remained the very last outposts of a crumbling Allied force. But in any other case, it would only be a complete waste of time, lives and resources.

    This is a far cry from the occupation of Norway which was not “limited” but a total command of the entire state, media and economy, with regular repressive measures against the people not to mention an attempt to pervert the education children received and deporting an odd 700 jews to certain death.
    I've never heard about the Germans "perverting" the education in Norway during the occupation. I am sure they had some influence on it, especially in regards of weeding out "unwanted" people in the education system and the academics (chiefly Communists), but I am unsure of what general measures this guy is referring to. Maybe telling the truth about Jews? Just 89 years prior to the invasion, Norway's constitution forbid any Jews to set foot on Norwegian soil. So I don't think such ideas would have had much resistance anyway.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  10. #8
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, February 4th, 2022 @ 09:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    .
    Gender
    Posts
    4,225
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10,912
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    513
    Thanked in
    450 Posts
    This is the same kind of gaslighting apologetic behind admirers of the Napoleonic occupations of Europe.

  11. #9
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 03:47 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    410
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    701
    Thanked in
    439 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aelfgar View Post
    The phrase 'perfidious Albion' was coined by the French after England turned against the French revolution when it became totally republican. What's taking place now is the result of a combination of factors and back-projecting it onto WWII makes little sense. Actually, much of the white guilt / 'anti-racism' in the West now is a consequence of the behaviour of Hitler's regime.
    I always thought the French Revolution came BEFORE World War TWO.

    The term perfidious Albion does indeed have a long history. While it's associated with literature relating to the French Revolution. It's actually a bit older to associate England/Britain with perfidy. We here in South Africa do have our own experience with perfidious behaviour with people of British descent. It's marked by concealing real intention, creating conflicts and then it's discovered play the innocent damsel, making someone else the villain in the narrative. Anyone that did business in Johannesburg can tell you that this is common behaviour among a lot of English "Business People" on the Rand. I mean, even the English War (Between the Boer Republics did have marks of this). That's not to say that there aren't decent English people here, but they will tell you the same story about the phenomenon. They may also also add to this the hypocrisy on matters practised by the English Churches, especially the Anglicans and Methodists as well as a myriad of 'philanthropic' organisations. I see Masonry as an important factor in this - With the lodges being actually based on principles of duplicity, hypocrisy and skulduggery. I think this may have contaminated British-English culture to a large extent.

    Blaming Hitler for present day White guilt / anti-racism / or politically correctness is quite rich (Aren't you mistaking propaganda myth with the real people and events). When it was exactly that what his opponents did fight for. I know the grunts have been told another story in which Hitler is portrayed as some sort of mythical beast or incarnation of Satan. But look at Western Allied leadership and also the fact that the USSR was an Allied power. Anyone with some literacy and common sense would have been able to look through that ruse. That's if he really wanted to. And I think that's the problem here, people weren't to eager to get harassed, when trying to set the record straight.... And by extension get accused to "defend an evil tyrant that wanted to conquer the world and exterminate the innocent Jews".

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Theunissen For This Useful Post:


  13. #10
    6th army lives matter
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,854
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,317
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,399
    Thanked in
    1,573 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by History Of War
    "It is sometimes suggested that the German invasion of Norway was launched in response to Operation Wilfred.
    It wasn't, and that wouldn't even make sense - but that doesn't mean there wasn't an ever present and very real allied invasion threat of Norway since the start of the Winter War in November 1939 - if carried out allied troops would stay behind in Narvik and also Sweden, to occupy the iron ore mines there, as a handful of allied troops would've made their way to Finland to support it in the Winter War. The planning came to nothing and plans were eventually shelved because the Winter War came to an abrupt end. By that time Operation Wilfred already existed and had been around for a long time, too. The Brits came close to carrying out Wilfred on the sixth of January 1940 while the Germans had not even started working on their invasion plan for Norway yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    Although the two operations were indeed first mentioned at about the same time, the German invasion plans were in place well before the British made their move. Detailing planning work had begun in January 1940, the directive authorising the attack had been signed on 7 March, and the invasion date had been set on 2 April. The first German ships left port on 3 April, two days before the Teviot Bank put to sea."
    This is misleading sophistry. Certainly the Germans left their ports first, unbeknownst to the Brits, and yet the latter still carried out their own old plan, Operation Wilfred (the mining of Norwegian territorial waters to spoil the transport of Swedish iron ore from Narvik to Germany), a day before the Germans could carry out theirs - which the Brits would have done anyway even without an ongoing German invasion of Norway. Proving the necessity of the invasion from a pro-German point of view, because the Wilfred minefields can only be dealt with by the Germans when they're in control of Norway, which is absolutely crucial to them.

    Wilfred was also a means of provoking the Germans into threatening Norway with invasion or actually invading Norway, which the Brits fully expected to happen - in which case the Brits would have a pretext to "protect" Norway of their own, followed by landings of allied troops in major Norwegian towns and, crucially, Narvik - while at the same time hoping Scandinavian countries would side with the Brits because of the German invasion threat they hoped to create with Operation Wilfred. Allied ground forces were on standby as they boarded troop transports. So it was a setup that never came to full fruition because of bold German action.

    What made the Germans commit to the attack was the Altmark incident, which happened in February 1940 - and which the article doesn't mention. Nor the numerous other incursions of Norwegian territorial water and airspace both sides were responsible for. What happened to the Altmark convinced the Germans the allies weren't going to respect Norwegian territorial integrity - and they weren't wrong about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    The Cabinet denied Churchill’s agitation for landings in Norway.
    ...denied so much that Lord Halifax, then the British Foreign Secretary, warned the Norwegian Minister in London that the minefield was about to be laid back in January 1940. The plan was cancelled back then because of Norwegian and Swedish protest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    However preparations were made for occupation of Norwegian coastal cities IF the Germans responded to the British mining of Norwegian waters WITHOUT a request from the Norwegian government (and the Norwegian Government in its last cabinet meeting on 08 April made clear they would protest but wanted no escalation).
    I've no idea who Mike Hall is, but it's farcical to think that the Brits would've allowed the Germans to "respond" to the British mining of Norwegian waters and/or set up camp in Norway, as long as the Norwegian government was fine with it ... as opposed to destroying any German war ships they could find making their way to Norway and back to Germany.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    The Allied plan was that if the Germans moved WITHOUT such a request the British/French raiding parties, being loaded in Scottish docks, could sail across faster than the Germans and quickly take command of the main ports & Sola airfield near Stavanger to rebuff any German military action, and that would be deemed acceptable under the rules of war as such German literal military moves (I.e. troop ships steaming north) would be considered “solid and clear evidence”
    Mike Hall seems to think the requirement of a "request" makes all the moral difference, but that's hogwash. The chance that Norway would've caved into German demands arising as a result of the Brits mining Norwegian waters (let's not forget that) and let German troops come ashore unopposed is slim and the Brits knew that all too well. If we're talking about morality & good guys and bad guys like Mike is, the fact that the Brits would've made war in Scandinavia inevitable with French support with this plan, definitely needs to be mentioned. The French too had been looking for a way to wage war against the Germans in some other country than their own and Scandinavia was a good spot for that, so they were fully onboard with Churchill's ideas. We shouldn't just focus on the Brits and the Germans here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    But it must also be underscored anyway that the planned limited Allied presence in Norway would not be an occupation in the German sense. In the article there is a premise that “occupation” German style is the same as “occupation” Allied style.
    The main reason for that would not be muh evil nadzees but the fact that both the UK and Norway had similar forms of government and dominant political parties & the UK didn't expect Norway to actually oppose the occupation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    A guide is to see what Allied occupation means is to look at what happened when Britain took over the Faeroe Islands after Denmark’s invasion (the locals were left to themselves and supplied with resources by British ships) and in Iceland.
    The German occupation of Western-Europe was soft too, the allied occupation of Germany wasn't. It all sorts of depend on who you occupy, you see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    This is a far cry from the occupation of Norway which was not “limited” but a total command of the entire state, media and economy, with regular repressive measures against the people not to mention an attempt to pervert the education children received and deporting an odd 700 jews to certain death.
    Not so different from modern Norway then, minus the dead Jews, but with more dead Norwegians. At least the maternal hygiene offices pioneered by pro-abortion activist Katti Anker Mųller were shut down and all their materials put to the fire, perhaps saving far more Norwegian lives in the long run.

    The Brits probably didn't actually have to violently occupy all of Norway, or at least that's what they expected - the Germans didn't have that luxury. The Franco-British alliance banked on the Norwegians being sympathetic to their cause and letting them in, if the Norwegians had fought (as Hevneren contends), they would've had to have take far more control themselves as well, eventually shooting resistance fighters themselves.

    When the German conquest was over, a revolution took place in the political landscape of Norway. That always means the former elite will be somehow harassed by the new one, it's inevitable. An allied occupation of Norway would likely not have resulted in something that dramatic, yet repressive measures against the former elite were part of the allied agendas in the axis countries they conquered from 1943 onward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    That said, the article is mostly about cause and effect. So did British actions precipitate the German invasion? Yes and no.
    No, simply yes. The Germans were vaguely aware of British plans regarding Scandinavia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    It was Hitler’s brutal response to covering his flanks that was the deciding factor for Germany occupying Denmark and Norway where proper plans were made in Feb 1940 when Hitler gave the go-ahead.
    Who threatened Germany's northern flank in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    He could have paced himself and waited for more solid evidence of an Allied invasion force before giving the go-ahead for any counter measures or even just having a reaction force ready at Keil to sail if the temperature hots up.
    ...and blunder straight into a British trap by handing the Brits the initiative. It's true that Hitler acted intuitively, but Operation Wilfred, which took place before a single German soldier landed in Norway, proved his intuition right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    But his disregard for independent peoples and his innate brutality meant that he almost on a whim ordered the invasion to neutralise any potential threat to his northern flanks whatever the cost to Danish and Norwegian independence which merely was a continuation of his run of ruthless repression of free peoples for his strategic aims.
    A whim, lol. That's what a crybully would say, yes. We got an empire, deciding the fates of 100s of millions of foreigners, yet you're still the oppressor with a disregard for independent peoples. And what would Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians have had to say about that as the Brits invaded and occupied their countries in 1941 for strategic reasons? Why talk of Iceland and the Faroer, but not of the free peoples of Iraq and Iran?

    I dare say strategic reasons are probably the most legitimate reason to invade other countries most of the time anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Hall
    The silver cloud in his invasion is that the Gestapo staff with all their files of arrest lists, shoot-on-sight list of Norwegian communists and other nefarious papers for their coercion plans for the capital went down with the Bulcher ship after being fired on by an ancient shore battery on the night of the invasion going down with it
    No more stalinist agitators in Norway, what a loss that would have been for decades to come. Mike Hall really knows his priorities.
    "All passion is lost now. The world is mediocre, limp, without force. And madness and despair are a force. And force is a crime in the eyes of the fools, the weak and the silly who rule the roost." - Joseph Conrad

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chamberlain Said Jews Forced Britain into WW2
    By celticviking in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Saturday, April 24th, 2021, 09:22 PM
  2. German Invasion of Denmark, Holland, etc.?
    By Strķbog in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Friday, April 9th, 2021, 07:20 AM
  3. Uniting Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Norway Together?
    By Fourie in forum Germanic Europe & Outlying Islands
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Sunday, August 30th, 2020, 09:44 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 10th, 2017, 12:47 PM
  5. Denmark: Immigrant children still suffer forced trips
    By Sonja in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, 08:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •