Who started both World Wars?

[Uzzy]

There is a very simple reason why any 'peace' efforts by the Germans post 1939 were ignored by the British. The policy of appeasement had failed quite spectacularly, Hitler had shown his unwillingness to co-operate with Britain and France on diplomatic ways to resolve his objections to the Versailles treaty.

When Hitler had, both Britain and France were willing to accommodate his demands. He was, after all, the legitimate leader of a nation with legitimate grievances over the treaty. Chamberlain had even been willing to accept German economic domination of Southeastern Europe in exchange for peace, hence his acceptance of German occupation of the Sudetenland, with it's rich resources and industrial works. However, Chamberlain was rewarded for his diplomatic stance by seeing Hitler invade Czechoslovakia fully. So when Hitler started to make similar demands over Poland and Danzig, he was not so readily believed, and war broke out.

In conclusion, Britain had since 1935 (Anglo-German Naval Agreement) been willing to negotiate treaty revisions with Germany, and the end result had been German tanks rolling over Eastern Europe. There was no reason to believe in German willingness to negotiate after 1939.

 

[Tolls]

There is a very simple reason why any 'peace' efforts by the Germans post 1939 were ignored by the British. The policy of appeasement had failed quite spectacularly, Hitler had shown his unwillingness to co-operate with Britain and France on diplomatic ways to resolve his objections to the Versailles treaty.

When Hitler had, both Britain and France were willing to accommodate his demands. He was, after all, the legitimate leader of a nation with legitimate grievances over the treaty. Chamberlain had even been willing to accept German economic domination of Southeastern Europe in exchange for peace, hence his acceptance of German occupation of the Sudetenland, with it's rich resources and industrial works. However, Chamberlain was rewarded for his diplomatic stance by seeing Hitler invade Czechoslovakia fully. So when Hitler started to make similar demands over Poland and Danzig, he was not so readily believed, and war broke out.

In conclusion, Britain had since 1935 (Anglo-German Naval Agreement) been willing to negotiate treaty revisions with Germany, and the end result had been German tanks rolling over Eastern Europe. There was no reason to believe in German willingness to negotiate after 1939.

To some extent.
Chamberlain knew war was coming, pretty much from becoming PM. Hence the ongoing rearmament program. The idea that he was deluding himself is rather outdated.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I know, I've been following this thread since the beginning. Isn't it time for him to show his ignorance on the Pacific War again? Or maybe his complete lack of knowledge on how the USA joined World War I? I still think he has no clue what the Zimmerman Telegram was.

Before you start lecturing somebody about his perceived 'ignorance' make sure that you don't show your own.

Zimmerman telegram is WW1.

Touching.

 

[9/11-investigator]

To some extent.
Chamberlain knew war was coming, pretty much from becoming PM. Hence the ongoing rearmament program. The idea that he was deluding himself is rather outdated.

No kidding! He started it.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Plans drawn up for an invasion are the not the same thing as an invasion. A difference you are not able to understand, obviously.

Thousands of British were taken prisoner in Norway. What do you think they were doing there, sight-seeing?

Priceless!

 

[Wroclaw]

Before you start lecturing somebody about his perceived 'ignorance' make sure that you don't show your own.

Zimmerman telegram is WW1.

Yeah, he said that. Learn to read.

 

[Rich_C]

Thousands of British were taken prisoner in Norway. What do you think they were doing there, sight-seeing?

Priceless!

Yes, the British and French landed troops after the Germans started invading. Somehow you think this is the original invasion.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yes, the British and French landed troops after the Germans started invading. Somehow you think this is the original invasion.

So what is your story?
British and French following the Germans and defending poor little Norway by trying to drag the Germans out of Norway?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Here a summary from a high-ranking American military man from an amazon review:

http://www.amazon.com/CHURCHILL-NORWAY-CAMPAIGN-Graham-Rhys-Jones/dp/1844157539

When German military units invaded Norway in the early hours of 9 April 1940, Norway's long-term strategic policy of rigorous neutrality was shattered, The assault also meant that the uneasy quiet in Europe, the so-called Phony War following the invasion of Poland the previous fall, was coming to an end with the German armed forces seizing the initiative and the momentum in the conflict. As a military operation, the German occupation of Norway was a complete success and provided important strategic gains. Well planned and skillfully executed in the face of superior British sea power, the operation demonstrated the capabilities of the German military. After the war broke out in September, 1939, Norway's strategic position gained additional importance for the British. First Lord of the Admiralty Winston S. Churchill had already proposeed on 19 September 1939 that action be taken to prevent the transport of Swedish ore from Narvik in northern Norway to Germany. He called for a blockade of the Norwegian coast, proposing that a minefield be laid across Norwegian territorial waters to force German transport ships into the open sea, past waiting British warships. At that time, however, the issue wasn't of great urgency and the proposal was shelved until late November. The mining issue was again delayed until 12 January 1940, when the British Cabinet decided no action would be taken against Narvik. In February, 1940, the War Cabinet revived plans for an occupation of Norway to be carried out by the middle of March, before the ice in the North Sea thawed and Germany could resume the transport of iron ore. Code named OPERATION AVONMOUTH, it called for a joint British and French occupation of Narvik and then all of Norway. A British combat force was assembled, but the end of the Finnish Winter War in mid-March forced the abandonment of these plans. This was only a temporary delay, however. On 29 March 1940, the British War Cabinet decided to strike as soon as "the Germans set foot on Norwegian soil, or there is clear evidence that they intend to do so." On April 9, 1940, the German military attacked Norway in an operation remarkable for its precision and boldness. The Chamberlain War Cabinet, which had agonized over its Scandinavian policy since, the turn of the year, was caught on the hop and responded with a series of moves that became a byword for Ineptitude. The parliamentary outcry that followed forced Chamberlain's resignation; but Churchill, as deeply implicated as any of his Cabinet colleagues, survived to lead the nation through great trials still to come. This new study of the Norway Campaign tells the story of the first great test for British leaders and fighting men in the Second World War. It examines the making of grand strategy in a Cabinet of reluctant warriors, and contrasts their painfully deliberate methods with the ruthless efficiency of the German High Command. It shows an irrepressible Churchill trying to grasp the levers of British strategy and, at the same time, to micro-manage the succession of military crises that followed the German initiative. His judgement and his methods both come under the microscope. In parallel, it enters the minds of naval and military commanders as they grappled with daily shifts in British Government policy and attempted to grasp the methods of a new kind of enemy-one which seemed willing to take extraordinary risks and which had regained a level of tactical mobility not seen since Napoleonic times. CHURCHILL AND THE NORWAY CAMPAIGN draws primarily on British sources, German and Norwegian perspectives are covered in all necessary detail. An even balance is preserved between land, sea, and air operations. This is an impressive study of combined arms and grand strategy that will appeal to both scholars and general readers.

Lt. Colonel Robert A. Lynn, Florida Guard
Orlando, Florida

This Colonel confirms that alllied occupation of Norway was planned well in advance in an effort to terminally harm Germany by going after iron ore supplies.

What this Colonel does not mention is the attempt by the British and French to 'come to the aid of Finland' in it's war with Russia and march through Norway. Unfortunately for them the war ended before they got the chance to occupy Norway under this pretext, as described by von Ribbentrop in his justification of the invasion before the press. Letting the alllies occupy Norway would have had the same desastrous consequences for Germany as the Russians occupying Rumania.

 

[Uzzy]

To some extent.
Chamberlain knew war was coming, pretty much from becoming PM. Hence the ongoing rearmament program. The idea that he was deluding himself is rather outdated.

I don't consider it 'deluded'. He was indeed rearming, but almost entirely in the field of air defences. Money for the RAF went up year by year, passing the money spent on the British Army in 1937, and the Navy in 1938, with a focus on fighter planes and improved AA guns, along with radar, as the fear from aerial bombing at this time was insanely high. I think one of the Chief's of Staff at the time suggested to Chamberlain that in a war with Germany, 100,000 British civilians would die in the first week due to bombing (100,000 turned out to be around the total dead from bombing in the entire war).

But he certainly believed that a proper settlement on European matters could be achieved, right up until the Invasion of Czechoslovakia. In Robert Self's Biography of Chamberlain, he quotes the Colonial Secretary at the time of the Czech Invasion, Malcolm Macdonald, as saying

whereas the Prime Minister was once a strong advocate of peace, he has now definitely swung around to the war point of view

So, I don't think he was in anyway deluded. I do think that he felt a negotiated settlement could be achieved, and hoped for that to happen, but at the same time kept his options open by rearming to a limited extent, especially in building up the defence of the home islands.

 

[9/11-investigator]

May I ask my opponents a simple question:

Why did Germany invade Norway?

The presence of so many tall blond women? (Lebensborn?)

Lebensraum?

Or was it the iron after all?

 

[Wroclaw]

May I ask my opponents a simple question:

Why did Germany invade Norway?

To provide better bases for the eventual bombing of the U.K.

 

[9/11-investigator]

To provide better bases for the eventual bombing of the U.K.

Wow, a historical novum indeed! Never heard anybody saying that!

Here is the map of the 'war theatre'.
Please note that Wilhelmshaven/Germany is closer to Britain than any location in Norway.

Any documents or plans to prove that idiotic assertion?

Oh wait, one month after the invasion of Norway Hitler bothered to have a look at the map and noticed that Belgium and France were far closer to Albion than Norway and promptly decided to invade those countries as well. So he could bomb Britain better (In reality Hitler was forced to retaliate to the bombing campaign started by Churchill from the first day he entered office as PM months earlier).

The invasion of Norway was a mistake, really. Forgot to look at the map.

Sorry bout that.

Is there anybody who wants to support Wroclaw in this nonsense?

It is fascinating to what lengths my yiddish speaking opponent Wroclaw is prepared to go, nay needs to go, in order to keep alive the lie that Germany wanted to conquer ze wurld.

Cornered. This is going to be fun!

The truth is course is said plainly by Ribbentrop: "In the report of this conference it is stated that (1) Mr. Churchill raged against Norway and Sweden because the Swedish ore was still permitted to reach Germany, (2) he openly acknowledged that his principal objective was to involve the Scandinavian States in the war, (3) that the best way of achieving this aim was to embroil the Scandinavian States on the side of Finland.".

But he must be lying, right. After all he is a Naaaaaaaazi.

P.S.: Scheil about the bombing:

Charles de Gaulle wrote in his memoirs how he remembered how one day Churchill in Chequers with clenched fist towards the sky and said "they don’t come!". When de Gaulle asked whether he was in a hurry to see his cities destroyed, Churchill replied: "don’t you understand that bombing Oxford, Coventry and Canterbury will cause such an outcry in the US that they will join us in the war!". Churchill was relieved of these worries on the day that a German plane accidently dropped a single bomb on Britain, giving a pretext to launch a retaliation bombing flights against Berlin. This happened end of August 1940 and although the Germans did not immediately react, Britain later succeeded in enriching the world with the legend that it had been the German Luftwaffe who started bombing civilians. Churchill consequently described the RAF attacks as retaliation, regardless that the British government had ordered attacks to German civilian targets from the first day Churchill came into office as PM.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

To provide better bases for the eventual bombing of the U.K.

That's right. Scapa Flow, base of the Grand Fleet is only 501kms from Bergen in Norway. Ju 88 Bombers had already bombed Scapa Flow from Sylt which was 875km from Scapa flow, reducing support time over the target.

 

[Rich_C]

http://www.amazon.com/CHURCHILL-NORWAY-CAMPAIGN-Graham-Rhys-Jones/dp/1844157539

Everything you quoted supports what I said. Britain didn't send troops into Norway until after Germany invaded. Germany violated the neutrality of Norway. Germany was already violating the Norwegian neutrality by sending ships into Norwegian waters to get into the open Atlantic and avoid the British blockade.

You are either trolling (likely) or can't comprehend most of what you read. Or both. Both is most likely actually.

 

[9/11-investigator]

That's right. Scapa Flow, base of the Grand Fleet is only 501kms from Bergen in Norway. Ju 88 Bombers had already bombed Scapa Flow from Sylt which was 875km from Scapa flow, reducing support time over the target.

And that was the reason for the invasion of Norway, right? To save fuel.

We all know how environmental conscious these Germans are, even back then. The distance itself was not a problem. After all the alllies had no problem reaching remote places like Dresden from Britain.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Just for the record: Wroclaw and Ellard believe that Germany invaded Norway for environmental reasons!!!

Priceless! You can´t make this stuff up!

 

[Rich_C]

Just for the record: Wroclaw and Ellard believe that Germany invaded Norway for environmental reasons!!!

Priceless! You can´t make this stuff up!

Germany wasn't trying to save fuel because of environmental reasons. They were trying to save fuel because they had a very limited supply.

 

[Wroclaw]

Just for the record: Wroclaw and Ellard believe that Germany invaded Norway for environmental reasons!!!

Priceless! You can´t make this stuff up!

No, I never said that.

With bases in Norway, Germany had easier access to the northern U.K. Scotland in particular, which got the crap bombed of it.

And, yes, it would save fuel, which was a bit of a consideration, now, wasn't it, if not for environmental reasons?

Plus, as pointed out elsewhere, the U.K. had bases quite close to Norway.

Hitler invaded Benelux to be able to get to France and to have more bases from which to do same.

Only a troglodytic monkey of an a-hole -- who stinks like human feces, because that's what exists where his soul should be, and who would probably beat his wife if he had one, but doesn't because he's impotent, and who spends his spare time with pedophiles because he considers it "social climbing" -- wouldn't be able to see that.

Know anyone like that?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

And that was the reason for the invasion of Norway, right? To save fuel.

No. To allow fighters to accompany bombers. The BF109 could not operate beyond London due to its short range. It could not reach Scapa Flow at all unless a closer field was found. The American bombers had exactly the same problem bombing Germany until Mustangs could accompany bombers from closer fields.

You simply don't understand basic military logic or history.