"Norway a turning point?" Topic

This is a new one to me. I was watching the Military Channel's "Clash of Wings" show which is a series taking a look at the various air forces of WW2 in the context of the overall political and military situation at the time.

One episode focussed on the RAF in the early war. Mention was made of Churchill's desire to directly aid Finland during the Winter War with troops and equipment while also blocking German access to the Swedish iron ore by keeping Norway out of German hands. The voice over commented that the German invasion of Norway prevented any chance that Britain, France and Germany could find common cause against the Soviets.

I would have thought that six months into the War, any chance of cooperation would be pretty remote even without Hitler going into Denmark and Norway.

Wyatt

Well, there was that little bit about the invasion of Poland – I agree, Wyatt, the die was cast when the Panzers rolled over the Polish border

So, is "The Military Channel" turning into "The History(sic) Channel"?

I'm disgusted to be american…

that being said, aside from the previous six months though, if all 3 could agree that aiding the Finns was a bigger priority than fighting eachother, it could have (at the very least) lead to peace talks

Another mistake Hitler made. If he had let the Brits aid the Finns and engage the Soviets, he'd have really divided the potential alliance before it formed.

Do you think it was really that obvious that Churchill was going to aid the Finns?

I'm disgusted to be american…

Capitalization failure aside, I wouldn't fall on your sword just yet. It turns out that "Clash of Wings" was produced in 1999 by Magna Pacific, an Australian production company.

Wyatt

Wyatt, it was a sarcastic comment, and there is no capitalization on the InTeRwEbZ

Oh, hai, chaOs.

Srry Firefox haz no sarcasm plug-in. I missed it

Okthxbye

Wyatt
(He started it)

"there is no capitalization on the InTeRwEbZ"

Intarwebz has only one 'e'.

"The voice over commented that the German invasion of Norway prevented any chance that Britain, France and Germany could find common cause against the Soviets."

That is so unlikely an event in 1939 as to only exist in the mind of a cold war fantasist. Britain and France did try and do their best to simultaneously be at war with both the USSR and Germany at the same time though, not only by aiding the Finns but by planning to bomb Baku etc Attacking Russia was seen as way of getting at Germany via its weaker ally (!).

Fortunately sanity prevailed.

Do you think it was really that obvious that Churchill was going to aid the Finns?

There had been tremendous public discussion of doing so, although the General Staff's planning for the logistics was secret. The public discussion pretty much relied on Norway and Sweden allowing passage.

And this discussion has precluded the option of the UK and France invading Norway.
Sorry, read planned action for option.

Of course that early on, if Hitler wanted to attack the Soviets he could have done a lot worse than ask the Poles for help…. I'm sure he could have swapped the Danzig corridor for bits of the Ukraine.

Before the Phoney War ended in the invasion of the Low Countries and France it's possible that the Germans could have gotten away with a negotiated settlement.

Remember Churchill wans't PM until after Norway. Until then I'm not entirely sure our hearts were entirely in it.

Actually, popular myth aside, the British public were very divided on the whole war thing until the events in Norway and France – in that uniquely British way, the public all came on side when the Empire was in it all on their lonesome

God Bless the British Empire too.

I don't think we Yanks say it often enough, but I'm convinced there would have been NO allied victory in 1945 if not for the Empire holding their own (and dishing it out too) for several years against overwhelming odds.

Launching an amphibious assault from several thousand miles away, against an isolated Japanese command on an island in the Pacific is one thing. Trying to pull that off against Fortress Europe and the German War Machine, assuming England had fallen, is quite another.

Well, there was that little bit about the invasion of Poland – I agree, Wyatt, the die was cast when the Panzers rolled over the Polish border

Nah. I expect that after France fell, if Hitler had gone to the negotiating table and offered to give everything except some border concessions back, there would have been a lot of pressure to take the deal.

Of course, Hitler would never have done that.

I'm convinced there would have been NO allied victory in 1945 if not for the Empire holding their own (and dishing it out too) for several years against overwhelming odds.

You've heard of the atomic bomb, right?
-Kle.

You've heard of the atomic bomb, right?

Perhaps you should read a little more about who was involved with its development. Oh, and where the material came from.

Oh saviour of the free world.
--
Tim

I think Hitler was after a peace following the fall of France.

Churchill told him to get stuffed.

And yes, the a bomb was designed by the British, all the Americans supplied was the room and money to make the design practicable.

First work done (I think) at a place called Rhydymwyn which is now a nature reserve.

So, had we lost the USA would be facing a nuclear armed Germany without the benefit of being able to read German codes. Oh, and I think no radar or jet technology.

Best of luck…

Thats probably not quite fair Stu, it took a massive industrial programme to develop the theory behind atomic weaopns into something practical & to be honest I don't see anyone but the USA having the ability to do that and fight a major war in the 1940's. British & European scientific imput was critical though. The Germans were several years behind & probably had their theory wrong anyway.

I think we'd got to the stage of knowing what to do, we just needed enough industrial muscle to do it.

Probably we could have cobbled together something in Canada, but yes it would have taken years longer.

And the British (Empire, Rutherford was a kiwi, Oliphant Australian) started sharing that information prior to the US entry into the war (& also with the USSR although that was due to espionage!) link (wiki – but it corresponds with what I've read elsewhere). Note that the knowledge was pooled but the resources initially weren't link

Similar information sharing also occurred with radar, the jet engine etc prior to the US entry into the war. link
Wartime assistance across the Atlantic wasn't all one way, even if it did come at a cost!

The main success of the mission had been radar, but the mission also opened up channels of communication for jet engine and atomic-bomb development and is seen as one of the key events in forging the Anglo-American alliance. However the UK was in a desperate situation and had to give away technology that had immense commercial value after the war.

Perhaps you should read a little more about who was involved with its development. Oh, and where the material came from.

Right, and if the British Isles were about to fall, where do you suppose those Brits who were involved would have fled to? Einstein was kind of helpful, too – he was a German refugee, of course.

Oh saviour of the free world.

I know the history as well as you do, and I find it hilarious that you are offended by my supposed arrogance, but not your own.

The standard "Americans are a bunch of bleeps because they think that they were more instrumental in the Allied victory than they perhaps were – because everyone knows that we Brits were more instrumental than we perhaps were." conversation that comes up here all the time is a laugh riot.
-Kle.

I think the program seems to have forgotten that Germany and the USSR were allies at the time of the Norway invasion, so I am not sure that Germany was keen to find a common cause against the Soviets? Of course, later in the war everyone had to pretend that the Soviets had been 'neutral' until attacked – a myth the British Left have been keen to peddle ever since.
Churchill's history of WW2 is a real eye-opener in terms of what the Soviets were doing to support Germany's war against the Western allies – right up to the point they were attacked themselves, at which point Stalin immediately demanded the British open up a 2nd front.
It really is a shame Germany and the USSR couldn't both have lost.

I'm sure he could have swapped the Danzig corridor for bits of the Ukraine.

I doubt the Poles would have given up the territory. It wasn't that long before that they'd tried to take bits of Eastern Germany.

Frontovik

Not forgetting that Poland had also grabbed a piece of Czechoslovakia when it was dismembered.

I think the program seems to have forgotten that Germany and the USSR were allies at the time of the Norway invasion …

I think "allies" is too strong a term. They had agreed on spheres of influence and had, IIRC, a mutual non-aggression pact. They were co-belligerents vs. Poland. But that's not the same as an alliance.

donlowry

As you say, they had a non-aggression pact, agreed spheres on influence and combined to invade Poland. Also, the USSR greatly assisted Germany's re-armanent programs pre-war, the USSR supplied the Germans with enormous amounts of raw material right up until they were attacked by Germany, Soviet agents provoked acts of sabotage against at British industry and arms manufacture, Soviet ice-breakers cleared paths for German commerce raiders to travel all the way to the Pacific to attack British shipping… I realise that it is all shades of grey, but I don't think that allies is too strong a term.

Frontovik – Poland also had considerable ambitions in the Ukraine, so a deal might have been done.

Of course back then what was Poland is now Ukraine anyhow…

As for the bit of Czechoslovakia that was nabbed, IIRC Techen was ethnically Polish. Which is an explanation if not an excuse.

Bangorstu

You are probably correct, though I think that explanation / excuse was also used by a certain Mr Hitler to justify most of his early schemes.

I realise that it is all shades of grey, but I don't think that allies is too strong a term.

My point was that they had no treaty that said an attack on one of them would be an attack on both. That's what I would call an alliance. May not be the technical definition.

donlowry

Yes – fair point. I am not sure of the technical definition either, or even if there is a single definition. The big thing for me is that the USSR and the Nazis actively assisted one another in a war… which as you rightly say might not technically qualify them as allies, but it certainly sounds rather like it to me, and, from his writing, it seemed to feel like it to Churchill.
As I am sure you'll agree, the problem with technical definitions is that the real world is not always easy to put into pigeon holes… I mean, who declares war these days? Does that mean that (eg) the UK didn't fight a war against Argentina in 1982? Speaking of which, if the definition of an alliance is that an attack on one, is an attack on all, does that mean that the UK had no allies during the Falklands conflict? No one else sent troops, but there was plenty of other, more discreet help from British allies.
But I think we can agree to disagree – it's a bit of a pointless discussion on semantics. I think we both know where the other is coming from and you are most probably technically correct in any case!

The Poles didn't take Cesky Ciesyn, that part of Czechoslovakia – well until 1938/9 anyway after the grubby little deal at Munich and they lost it after WW2.

Basically, Poland's territrial ambitions were thwarted in the West and, in part, realised in the East during that rather confused period after WW1.

My wife comes from the Karvina region and there are still a lot of ethnic Poles and Polish language schools around there.

What I know of Poland in that period asking them to give up territory would have been a complete waste of time.

And before that it had been Ukraine/Belarus and before that conquered territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and before that….need I go on? :o)