Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STRIKE IS PUT OFF BY TRANSIT UNION, WAITING FOR LEWIS (4/2/40)
Microfiche-New York Times archives, Cabrillo College Library | 4/2/40 | Raymond Daniell

Posted on 04/02/2010 5:15:03 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson

1

Photobucket

2

Photobucket

3

Photobucket

4

Photobucket

5

Photobucket



TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: milhist; realtime; worldwarii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
Free Republic University, Department of History presents World War II Plus 70 Years: Seminar and Discussion Forum
First session: September 1, 2009. Last date to add: September 2, 2015.
Reading assignment: New York Times articles delivered daily to students on the 70th anniversary of original publication date. (Previously posted articles can be found by searching on keyword “realtime” Or view Homer’s posting history .)
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by freepmail. Those on the Realtime +/- 70 Years ping list are automatically enrolled. Course description, prerequisites and tuition information is available at the bottom of Homer’s profile.
1 posted on 04/02/2010 5:15:03 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
Selections from West Point Atlas for the Second World War
Evolution of Plan Yellow, October 1939-January 1940
The Far East and the Pacific, 1941 – The Imperial Powers, 1 September 1939
2 posted on 04/02/2010 5:15:44 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; PzLdr; dfwgator; Paisan; From many - one.; rockinqsranch; GRRRRR; 2banana; henkster; ...
He Arrives Today – 2-3
10 City Departments Put Under Valentine for Day – 3
Allies to Tell Oslo to Halt Ore Ships or Navies Will Act – 4-5
The International Situation – 5
Pari-Mutuel Bill Is Signed by Governor; Paves Way for Opening of Racing April 15 - 5
3 posted on 04/02/2010 5:16:43 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1940/apr40/f02apr40.htm

Germans attack British naval base

Tuesday, April 2, 1940 www.onwar.com

In Britain... Luftwaffe aircraft raid the British naval base at Scapa Flow. On the return flight, the planes attack lighthouses at Duncansby Head and Stroma Island.

From Berlin... Hitler fixes the date for the invasions of Denmark and Norway as April 9th. The operation is called Weserubung.


4 posted on 04/02/2010 7:11:28 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

It looks to me like the Allies are going to impinge on Norwegian neutrality, and are daring the Germans to occupy Norway in response.

And just how does Churchill believe he can get the USSR to follow what he believes is the proper course of a “neutral?” Sure, the Red Army didn’t do well in Finland, but it looks to me that Stalin could well say “What are you going to do about it?” The response would be “nothing.”

Hmmmm...sounds like trying to get Iran to not build nuclear weapons. You can’t get a tyranny to do what you want without some credible threat of having a bigger stick, and the will to use it.


5 posted on 04/02/2010 7:43:08 AM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: henkster

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.etherington/month/thismonth/02.htm

April 2nd, 1940

UNITED KINGDOM: Mr. John McCabe, a Royal Ordnance Factory assistant foreman, tackled a fire at the factory; he told others to escape before a blast killed him. For this he was awarded the Empire Gallantry Medal.

RAF Coastal Command: Sunderland flying boat drove off six Ju 88s,shot one down into the sea and another was forced to land in Norway.

RAF Bomber Command: 4 Group. 166 Sqn. K8993 damaged taxiing at Jurby. Flg Off Hannigan and crew safe. 102 Sqn. N1368 overshot Driffield. Plt Off K.N. Gray and crew safe.

These two aircraft were Armstrong Whitworth A.W. 38 Whitleys; K8993 was a Mk. III assigned to No. 166 Squadron based at Abingdon, Berkshire, England, and N1368 was a Mk. V. assigned to No. 102 Squadron based at Driffield, Yorkshire, England. (Jack McKillop)

RAF Fighter Command: 2 Luftwaffe aircraft attacked the British naval base at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands, over the North Sea, 1 destroyed. No damage done. Over Scapa Flow, 1 German aircraft believed brought down by gunfire. 2 civilians and 1 soldier killed by shell-splinters. On the return flight Duncansby Head and Stroma lighthouses are struck by machine-gun bullets.

FRANCE: The 13e Demi-Brigade of French Legionaires, with those from Algeria forming the 1st Battalion and Moroccans the 2nd, embark at Brest bound for Liverpool. They are commanded by Lt. Col. Magrin-Verneret (subsequently known as Monclar) (Gordon Angus MacKinlay)

NETHERLANDS: Border garrisons are put on full alert.

GERMANY: Chancellor Adolf Hitler orders that Operation WESERUBUNG, the invasion of Norway and Denmark, be carried out. The planned date is 9 April. (Jack McKillop)

SWEDEN: The Swedish government receives vague reports of troops and ships being concentrated in north German ports.

CHINA: Wuyuan:

Chinese Nationalist troops have recaptured the north-western city of Wuyuan for the second time after ambushing a column of 3,000 Japanese troops. The city which first fell under Japanese control in February, was recaptured by the Nationalists two weeks ago. However, the Japanese sent in reinforcements a week ago as a result of which they once more took the city. Its successful retaking by the Nationalists will give heart to beleaguered Chinese forces in the south of the country.

U.S.A.: The U.S. Fleet departs the West Coast for manoeuvres in Hawaiian waters. Fleet Problem XXI is the last of the large prewar fleet exercises that mark the culmination of the training year. Conducted in two phases, Parts II and VI of the annual fleet exercises, it takes place in the waters of the Pacific in the vicinity of Hawaii to the westward. Part II exercises two fleets (the augmented Battle Force vs. the augmented Scouting Force) of approximately equal strength, one side concentrated and the other widely dispersed, in scouting, screening, and conducting major fleet engagements.

Part VI exercises two fleets of approximately equal strength (the same opponents as in Part II), each dispersed, in scouting, screening, protecting convoys, seizing and defending advanced bases, and conducting major fleet engagements. The worsening world situation will prompt the cancellation of Fleet Problem XXII. (Jack McKillop)


6 posted on 04/02/2010 8:58:50 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

http://worldwar2daybyday.blogspot.com/

Day 215 April 2, 1940

At 00.21 hours, U-38 sinks Finnish steamer SS Signe, a straggler from convoy HN-23A (all 19 hands lost). Destroyer HMS Sikh, escorting convoy HN-23A, hears the explosion and searches for survivors. http://www.hmscavalier.org.uk/G82/

British submarines start taking up positions to execute Vice-Admiral Horton’s plan intercept German warships leaving naval bases at Heligoland Bight, Kiel, Wilhelmshaven, Cuxhaven & Swinemünde. He correctly guesses that they will be bound for Norway. HMS Unity departs Blyth submarine base, Northumberland, to patrol Heligoland Bight. HMS Sunfish departs Harwich naval base for the Kattegat, between Denmark and Sweden.


7 posted on 04/02/2010 10:23:05 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: henkster; Homer_J_Simpson
"It looks to me like the Allies are going to impinge on Norwegian neutrality, and are daring the Germans to occupy Norway in response."

Question: did Hitler wait until he had definite news of British designs on Norway?
Or did he just assume (correctly), they would develop such plans and so launched his own preemptive invasion?

Or, to put it another way: suppose for sake of argument the Brits had never planned to invade Norway. Would Hitler have invaded Denmark & Norway anyway?
Considering the many potential uses Norwegian territories represented, I suspect he would have.

8 posted on 04/02/2010 12:36:52 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; Homer_J_Simpson

This is only my take on the situation:

I think Hitler would have left Norway alone if Britain had left Norway alone. As long as Hitler can get Germany’s iron ore through neutral Norwegian waters, he will probably leave Norway well enough alone. But once the British showed they would enter Norwegian waters to go get the Altmark, and when they made noises about “helping” Finland by way of Narvik, they definitely touched a nerve. As the war progressed, Hitler’s military decisions were more and more guided by natural resource considerations. He knew full well the German armaments industry depended on a continuous supply of Swedish ore.

Once the British started messing around with those supplies, it was really a foregone conclusion that Hitler would authorize any means necessary to secure them.

He didn’t have to “know” the British were going to mine Norwegian waters. He “knew” anyway. If that answers the question.


9 posted on 04/02/2010 1:34:35 PM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; henkster; Homer_J_Simpson
I have to agree with henkster on this one. In the grand scheme of things it was more beneficial to Hitler to maintain a neutral Norway. The neutral country with its neutral coastline in which to ship Swedish iron from the port of Narvik during the winter months.

The British, however, were showing signs that they were not going to always respect a neutral waterway when it would benefit the Germans. This can be seen with the Altmark as well as the seizure of German coal being shipped to Italy which forced the Germans to continue those shipments only through land routes.

With the prospect of the neutral waters of Norway no longer meaning anything coupled with the talk of supporting Finland by sending units through Norway and Sweden it is easy to see how Hitler may at the very least have speculated that an Allied move on Norway was at the very least in the works (and he would have been correct). In this case, the British were a day late and a dollar short, but it will provide the location of the first armed clash between British and German soldiers. This will take place at Lillehammer.

10 posted on 04/02/2010 5:32:10 PM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7; henkster; Homer_J_Simpson
CougarGA7: "I have to agree with henkster on this one. In the grand scheme of things it was more beneficial to Hitler to maintain a neutral Norway. "

But German Admiral Raeder's first recommendation to Hitler about invading Norway came in the fall of 1939 -- iirc, even before Stalin invaded Finland on November 30.
This lead to the first meetings of Hitler, Raeder and Norwegian Vidkun Quisling starting December 11.

"During a second meeting with Quisling on 18 December, Hitler reiterated his desire to keep Norway neutral but indicated that should Allied forces extend the war to Scandinavia, he would counter appropriately. "

And just who would decide if the allies had extended the war?
Why Hitler, of course.

For months Sweden and Norway declined the allies' offers of military aid for them and Finland, so Hitler had no pretext. But he didn't need much -- didn't need an actual allied plan, or preparations for invasion. All he needed was a pretext, and that came on February 16, with the Altmark Incident.

On that date the British destroyer Cossack entered a Norwegian fjord and freed about 300 British POW's held captive on the German tanker Altmark.

"Hitler ordered that the development of invasion plans be sped up. He did so to obtain assurance against Churchill's already existing plans to draw the Norwegians into the war and take control over the important harbour of Narvik.

"By 21 February, General Nikolaus von Falkenhorst was placed in charge of planning the invasion and command of the land-based forces."

Churchill's plans?
All militaries have "plans" for every contingency. So the issue is not, "did Churchill have plans?"
Rather the question is: was there any evidence outside Hitler's fertile imagination that the Chamberlain government intended to invade Norway and Sweden against those countries' objections?
Answer: None that I know of.

And yet Hitler ordered Operation Weserübung by February 21.

"Already in low-priority planning for considerable time, Operation Weserübung[6] found a new sense of urgency after the Altmark Incident."

The Soviet Finnish Winter War ended on March 13, 1940.

"With the end of the Winter War, the Allies determined that any occupation of Norway or Sweden would likely do more harm than good, possibly driving the neutral countries into alliance with Germany. "

So, as of March 13, the Germans have been working on Norway invasion plans at low level for two months and at a high level of one month.
By contrast the Chamberlain government is still just twiddling its thumbs.

Then at last, the agitations from France and from Churchill moved the Chamberlain government to hastily draw up plans to land forces in Norway, starting April 8.

But the Germans with three months head start in preparations, began their invasion on April 3, landing forces in Norway by April 8.

My point here is: the Germans were always well ahead of the bumbling British Chamberlain government, and that's why their invasion was successful.
So the claim that Hitler was driven to invade Norway by British preparations is not supported by evidence I've seen.

Finally, consider the vital importance of Norway, not only for Germany's war materials, but also as a base for submarines and bombers to attack allied supply ships in the Atlantic. This fact was not lost on Admirals Doenitz and Raeder.

Bottom line: Hitler did not need Britain to supply him a "reason" for invading Norway. He already had all the reasons in the world. What he only needed was any old pretext, which the Altmark Incident on February 16 gave him.

A blood thirsty murderer does not need a "reason" to kill, only a likely victim, which Norway was, imho.

11 posted on 04/03/2010 7:36:35 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I disagree in that I do think Britain did need to supply Hitler with a reason. The war planning is nothing unusual. Remember the United States had War Plan Red at this time too which was designed around a war with Britain. I think that if Hitler had every reason to believe that Britain was going to honor Norwegian territorial waters that he would not have made the decision to go ahead with the invasion. It would have been more beneficial for them to leave them neutral and have unmolested ore shipments coming from the port at Narvik. Once the perception that this neutrality meant something was gone, then Hitler was moved to go ahead and occupy the country if for at the very least to keep the important port from falling into British hands which would have been worse than just having to risk running a gauntlet down the Norwegian coast with ore ships.


12 posted on 04/04/2010 10:21:54 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
"I think that if Hitler had every reason to believe that Britain was going to honor Norwegian territorial waters that he would not have made the decision to go ahead with the invasion.
"It would have been more beneficial for them to leave them neutral and have unmolested ore shipments coming from the port at Narvik.
"Once the perception that this neutrality meant something was gone, then Hitler was moved to go ahead and occupy the country "

I'll remind you again that the first recommendation to invade Norway came from Admiral Raeder (Doenitz's boss) at the time of, or even before the Soviets invaded Finland.
What were Raeder's reasons?
No doubt, to protect Germany's supply of war materials, and also to provide strategic bases for subs and bombers to attack allied shipping.

Yes, Hitler was slow to understand the vital necessity of destroying Britain's supply ships.
So, instead of the hundreds of U-boats Doenitz requested, Hitler provided him just a few dozen at the war's beginning.
Those alone were enough to cause major damage, but Hitler still didn't quite understand either the harm his subs could do, or the various inherent threats TO those U-boats.

But Doenitz well understood, and that's why the very early recommendation to invade Norway -- at a time when there is even today no evidence the bumbling Chamberlain government intended to violate Norway's neutrality.

Remember, in 1939, the Brits were not even dropping bombs on Germany -- they were dropping paper leaflets!
So how serious a threat could Britain be to German interests?

Therefore Hitler says, in effect: "OK, we won't touch Norway as long as the Brits don't."
Don't what?
The Altmark incident is the one and only event which changed Hitler's plans for Norway from low level to urgent.

And what did the Brits actually do?
They merely rescued 300 British POWs from a German tanker in Norwegian waters.
Was Germany itself not violating Norwegian neutrality by hiding British POWs under the protection of Norwegian neutrality?

So the whole thing was bogus from the beginning.
Altmark was not the reason, it was just the pretext Hitler needed to do what his admirals had been urging on him for months.

Finally, there are only a few possible ways that Hitler could have won WWII. One was by focusing more efforts on submarines and bombers to destroy British supply lines. In the end (fortunately for our side), Hitler didn't do enough there, but that's what Norway was all about, imho.

13 posted on 04/05/2010 7:46:49 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; CougarGA7

I hate to beat a dead horse about “old news” but I was out of Town over Easter.

My final thought is that yes, Raeder wanted to attack Norway. He did create contingency plans for the operation early on. He saw strategic possibilities for naval bases in Norway. However, as BroJoeK stated in an earlier post, every country has contingency plans regarding operations against other, even neutral, countries. The British had their own designs on Norway. Just because the Germans beat the Brits to the punch doesn’t mean they were going to occupy Norway and the Brits were not. I still think it’s an example of the Germans “hit back first” policy while the Brits, as always during this time, were just dicking around.

That Hitler would naturally follow Raeder’s suggestion is not a foregone conclusion. Hitler never did “get” naval strategy. And there were a number of “contingency plans” the Germans created, such as occupation of Switzerland, and passing through “neutral” Spain to get to Gibraltar, that Hitler DIDN’T execute when he could have.

And the timeline still supports the theory that the Kriegsmarine created its contingency plan early in the war, and that Hitler didn’t take an active interest in executing it until after the Altmark and the Winter War.


14 posted on 04/05/2010 9:31:36 AM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I understand why Raeder would want those bases. In his position I would too. It gives my navy better jump off points to Britain as well as direct access to the Atlantic for my submarine force.

I still contend though that if Hitler felt that Britain would honor Norwegian neutrality that he would not have been in favor of invading Norway, despite Raeder’s desires. At least not until Britain was out of the war. If they could have known for certain that those iron shipments would go unmolested they would have elected to live with that for as long as possible. By 1940 there was enough evidence that Britain would not respect the Norwegian neutrality making the move on Norway almost a necessity.


15 posted on 04/05/2010 2:55:42 PM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: henkster
I'm in agreement with you. Like I said before, the United States had an operational plan for war with Britain at this time. War planners plan. They still do today and I'd bet that we have an operational plan for the invasion of Albania sitting at the ready at the Pentagon.

My point is that if Hitler was convinced that Norwegian waters would remain neutral waters he would not have opted to disrupt that safe haven for his ore ships. The Altmark was not the defining moment, but was a component of many bits of information that made it certain that Britain was not going to allow Germany access to materials in the oceans regardless of territorial water rights.

16 posted on 04/05/2010 3:01:35 PM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: henkster; CougarGA7
"I still think it’s an example of the Germans “hit back first” policy while the Brits, as always during this time, were just dicking around."

I like that description: "hit back first." ;-)

"And there were a number of “contingency plans” the Germans created, such as occupation of Switzerland, and passing through “neutral” Spain to get to Gibraltar, that Hitler DIDN’T execute when he could have."

Possibly these can make my point for me -- consider: what assurances did Hitler receive that France or Britain would never violate the supposed neutrality of Switzerland or Spain?

Answer: none, any more than he received assurances on Norway.
But Hitler never invaded Spain or Switzerland because, for his own strategic reasons, he felt no need to.
Indeed, consider Denmark -- when did the allies ever plan to violate Denmark's neutrality?
So it was not some perceived threat against Denmark's neutrality which caused the Nazi invasion -- rather, it was Hitler's strategic interest.

What I'm suggesting is that in the case of Norway, those interests were so overwhelming that Hitler would have invaded regardless of how many times he was promised Chamberlain would not to touch Norway.

We've already mentioned some of those strategic interests, and could easily add others:

Of course, there were occupation costs --

In the end, Norway could have been a much more effective resource for the German cause than it turned out to be.
Indeed those 16 German divisions in Norway could have made a huge difference at Normandy, in June 1944. Does that make Norway a net drain to Hitler? I don't think so.

Again, my point here is that Hitler invaded Norway because he had many good reasons to do so -- not because, hard as he tried to, Chamberlain didn't grovel low enough, or long enough, to convince Hitler the Brits intended him no harm!

17 posted on 04/07/2010 10:26:28 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I’m not saying that he didn’t have reasons to do so. What I’m saying is that if he felt that neutrality would be honored, he likely would have not invaded Norway in April of 1940. After England was conquered then all bets would be off since there is no longer a vested reason for those waters to remain neutral. But like I said, it was demonstrated that neutral territorial waters were not going to be respected and the significance of the ore shipments were such that invasion became a necessity. This was never the case with Switzerland, and the Swiss maintained enough friendliness to protect their own country from being invaded. Had Hitler finished off the British and made short work of Russia as he had intended, I’d bet that Switzerland would have become another one of the Nazi’s puppet states.


18 posted on 04/07/2010 2:27:51 PM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
"What I’m saying is that if he felt that neutrality would be honored, he likely would have not invaded Norway in April of 1940. "

How could Hitler's subjective "feelings" be a matter of British responsibility?
Yes, no doubt that Hitler perceived a "threat," as pointed out to him by Admiral Raeder in October 1939.
But in fact, this "threat" was imaginary then and even much later.

What WAS always real was the opportunity and necessity Norway represented as a base for submarines and bombers.
The Norway invasion also provided a diversion, taking attention off preparations for his main thrust into France. That's why he HAD to invade in April 1940.

Notice how instantly Hitler's invasion plans went from "back burner" to "front burner" after the Altmark Incident on February 16.
So, was Altmark the "reason," or was it just Hitler's pretext?

I say it was his pretext.
His reasons were strategic, and would have prevailed even without Altmark.

19 posted on 04/08/2010 6:09:21 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I didn’t say Britain was responsible. I said that if Hitler felt that Norwegian neutrality would not be violated in the sea lanes he would not have chosen to invade at this time.


20 posted on 04/08/2010 8:58:25 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson