Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Wednesday, 17th August 2005

  The British and French were anxious the stop the flow of Swedish iron ore to Hitler during the Second World War, and planned to occupy northern Norway, under the pretext of aiding the Finns against the Soviets. Any thoughts anyone on a plan that could have alienated US public support for the Allies and possibly drawn Russia into the war on Germanys side?

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 17th August 2005

  Okay, yes the British planned to and did ocuppy Norway to interfere with the Iron Ore supply. This happened prior to any invasion of Finland by the Soviets (during what we now call the 2nd World War or are you referring to the Winter War?).
  
  It wasn't under a pretext as you say of aiding the Finns against the Soviets as Finland was allied to Germany. (It's a bit tricky to aid your enemys friend against your potential friend without upsetting your potential friend).
  
  Now I'm confused!
  
  Do you mean the British occupy Northern Norway as part of the Winter War, or as part of what is commonly called the 2nd World War?
  
  Dazed and Confused, as always take care AA.
  
  

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Wednesday, 17th August 2005

  It was this UK plan, which the Nazis used as apretext to invade Norway - claiming "preemptive self-defence" but it was struck down by the Nuremburg Tribunal as a cover for aggression.
  
  The next person to put this claim up: George W Bush, but then grandpa Bush helped to finance the Nazis.

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Thursday, 18th August 2005

  Cheers!
  
  I am referring to the plan, put forward by Churchill, to send troops in conjuntion with the French to help the Finns during the Winter War. They were to be classed as volunteers and be under League of Nations control. What I am wondering is: was it all a plan to seize the Swedish ore fields, and stop the flow to Germany?
  
  Because it was pretty dangerous-it could have resulted in Russia's entry into the war. Not Good.

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Thursday, 18th August 2005

  GrandPa Bush helped finance the Nazis? Please explain. Sounds interesting.

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 18th August 2005

  Prescott Bush was an industrialist, who loaned money to and dealt with various Nazi organisations in the 1930s. There is a case on in the US at the moment by a group of Jews against the Bush family.

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 18th August 2005

  The plan did exist,the Swedish HQ was asked to let aprox 3000 french Legoineres,and some brittish battallions.Via Malmbanan(Orerailway)from Narvik,passing the Swedish main iron mines for further transport to Finland.
  
  The Swedish HQ did deny the transport,if this was an allied pipedream or not I dont know.When the Norwegian primeminister was told that they was invaded,his first question was The English or the Germans,so the threat from the allies war real.
  
  Hasse

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 18th August 2005

  Amalric
  
  Sorry to dissapoint you,1939 wasnt Finland aliied with Germany,that come in the later war when Finland wanted to get back the land they lost in the peace in the spring 1940.
  
  If any was allied in 1939 was it Germany and Soviet by the Ribbentrop-Molotovpact.
  
  After splitting up Poland between Germany and Sovietunion,did the Nazis give Stalin carte Blanch with Finland and the Baltic States.
  It was only the heroic fight by the Finns,in the winter 39-40 that saved them from being occupied.
  
  Hasse

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 18th August 2005

  reply to message 8.
  
  have a look to Mein Kampf.
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Friday, 19th August 2005

  "Wilfred" was certainly a real operation and was under way when preempted by the German invasion of Norway. It had taken the place of the suggested Allied intervention at the end of the Winter War. There was then no longer any way that the British and French could claim they were aiding Finland against Russian aggression because Finland and the USSR were no longer at war (although the Continuation War was always overwhelmingly probable).
  Whether the "intervention" was a practical or sensible operation of war is problematical at best.
  "Wilfred" was the operation to mine the Leads, as the Germans were making illegal use of Norwegian territorial waters to pass raiders out to the Atlantic and back (Altmark, anyone?)and the Norweigian authorities were either unable or unwilling to stop them doing so. The Germans were dependant on Narvik as an ore terminal in the winter months, when Luluea etc. were closed by ice, and the traffic would therefore be forced into waters outside the Leads, where it would be subject to attack by British, French and Polish submarines (the record of Polish submariners in the ill-fated Norwegian campaign is worth studying.)
  
  

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  Paul
  
  Sorry, can you expand on this please? Not sure what part of message 8 you are replying to? The Nazis and Soviets were allies at the time. Also Mien Kampf, having been written about 15 years before wouldn't have been binding in any way in terms of the pact and agreements in it about Finland and the Baltic states. [It showed Hitler's intentions true but if he had been rational it would not have tied him to a later attack. Altrhough if he had been rational he would either have been Hitler or have written it!].
  
  Steve

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  Re: message 11.
  
  Steve,
  
  excuse me very much. It was indeed very confusing.
  
  I had already a reply from Hasse on another board. In an answer to him I forgot to ask about his eyes. And added it in an apart reply. But he didn't see it, while these boards are not so easy to read, although for me the former "See latest" tab is replaced by looking to all the messages within the last 18 hours. And to be honest it is not more work than on the old boards.
  
  To come back on Hasse. I saw him replying on the Mein Kampf thread and tried to warn him of my reply in my message 8 that I asked there too about his eyes, but sorry I didn't mention it that it was about that subject and not on his reply about Mein Kampf.
  
  But he caught the message and aswered on two different threads about his eyes. In the Belgian Congo thread of Tim W. he goes deeper in on the accident which happened on an UN mission in the East of Congo.
  
  BTW. I finished my "essays" (bit boasting) about the Congo Free State. I did the research for Tim and Dirk Marinus, but also for you. If you are interested?
  
  Steve, how happy I am that you at least came over from the old boards. I was always interested when I saw again a well written and in depth thought report from you on the old boards. As I was happy from Mitch's messages too.
  
  As I see it you are here too with the same well written and well edited reports last times. I hope that Mitch let convince him too to come over. Mitch? Or are you here with another penname?
  
  And thank you also for the bit about Mein Kampf.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  Paul.
  
  PS. If you add what number of message you are answering to and the name of the adressed one you have IMO the same facilities as before and not the uneasy denting going with long messages to a small stripe.

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  Was the aid to the Finns a real prospect, or was it simply just a ruse to block the Swedish ore? And what would public opinion in the US, described by Churchill as "the greatest of all neutrals", think about the Allies violating neutral Norway, no matter how realistic their motives?

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  SmegheadRed
  
  I think there was genuine concern about the plight of Finland and anger at Stalin's aggression. Also fear of the Soviets in the predominately conservative western states and anger at Stalin's pact with Hitler. How much of the force would have reached the Finns if it had landed and how much would have stayed to secure the supply lines - and hence cut the German ore supply I don't know. Fortunately I don't think it was ever a realistic proposal simply because the Swedes and Norwegians were deeply concerned at anything which would have dragged them into the war, whether they believed the allies or not.
  
  Steve
  

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  Cheers Steve,
  
  One more question. Was there a feeling that perhaps the Allies were fighting the 'wrong war'? That the Soviet Union was the real enemy? Because it seems to me that any aid to Finland almost certainly means war with the Soviets.

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  Paul - replying to message 12
  
  Thanks for the clarification. Saw the conversation with Hasse and sorry to hear about his eyes. Your right about tagging the messages. Was meaning to do it but forgot.
  
  Have been reading the thread on the Congo and finding it interesting. Looking forward to the forthcoming bit about relations after the King Lepold period. Interesting that I think you said things didn't improve that much after the Belgium government took over. Had thought it improved a lot but interested to see what you say.
  
  Steve
  

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  re: message 16.
  
  Steve,
  
  thank you very much for your kind reply.
  
  I read again my thread about the Belgian Congo and in my opinion and it was confirmed in the books, after the inquiry commission of 1904-1905 it rapidly improved and it became a normal colony organized along the same lines as other colonies. And I remember that you somewhere on these threads said the same.
  
  Perhaps you misinterpreted my message, when I said that although the same actors, from the Leopold II era remained in the field, the atrocities quickly stopped, and one author said that that was the prove that it was all the fault of the "dominial system", which nearly obliged people to be atrociaous. And once that system was abolished under the Belgian colonial rule the atrocities in a short time faded away.
  
  That of the Flemish priests and the local languages I have to put more in context and have to explain more.
  
  BTW. I met this afternoon a teacher who was there with his wife for the UNO after the Independence in 1960.
  
  See you after Newcastle and the Hadrian wall.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2005

  Paul - replying to 17
  
  Yes. Sounds like I did misunderstand, as I got the impression you said it didn't get better. Apologies about that.
  
  Steve

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2005

  SmegheadRed
  
  Think our last mails crossed on this thread as seem to be at the same time but didn't see yours. Rather hectic last night so possibly just a slip up on my part.
  
  There probably was some feeling that the Soviets were the real enemy. Their threat to the established order, in terms of social organisation, attitude to property and atheism probably made them seem a much greater threat than fascism to many. Whether that would have been true if Hitler had won I rather doubt, both totalitarian systems were destructive of any other identity or loyalty, let alone anyone who stood outside their system. by choice or circumstances.
  
  I think military support for Finland would have meant war with the Soviets. That would almost certainly have meant total disaster. The poor performance of the Red Army in Finland meant it was grossly underestimated but the vulnerability of the western powers, especially the British position in the Middle East is clear. Would have made for a very complex situation as sooner or later Hitler or Stalin would have turned on each other. [Possibly quiet soon - with the Red Army engages in the ME or possibly struggling through Afghanistan and presuming an historical fall of France I could see Adolf being very tempted, either in late 40 or early 42. Also he might well have got his separate peace with Britain under those circumstances.]
  
  Otherwise however Britain would have found itself alone against two virtual superpowers, despite their differences.
  
  Steve
  

  Link to this forum: the UK & Scandinavia in the Second World War

  Report message19

Back to top