Posted on 05/04/2010 4:49:58 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
* This is the first in a series of essays on the military situation by Hanson W. Baldwin. They seem to run daily and are recognizable by the box around the title. I will save them when I see them. Baldwin has come in for some criticism here recently so it will be interesting to see if he knows his stuff or just blows smoke. I regret the line that runs down the middle of the column in this article and many others. I think it is the result of a supposedly transparent band that holds the paper in place to be photographed. It will be gone in a few days. I wish forever.
http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1940/may40/f04may40.htm
Allied forces concentrate near Narvik
Saturday, May 4, 1940 www.onwar.com
In Norway... British forces land at Mo, south of Narvik. Meanwhile, offshore near Narvik, the Polish destroyer Grom is attacked by German aircraft and sunk.
In Brussels... The Papal Nuncio warns King Leopold of Belgium that a German attack is imminent.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.etherington/month/thismonth/04.htm
May 4th, 1940
UNITED KINGDOM: Corvette HMS Amaranthus laid down. (Dave Shirlaw)
GERMANY: U-355 laid down. (Dave Shirlaw)
NORWEGIAN CAMPAIGN: As preparations continue in the north for the attack on Narvik, Polish destroyer ‘Grom’ is bombed and sunk with the loss of 56 lives.
Von Falkenhorst orders the German 2nd Mountain Division, currently assembling at Trondheim, to move overland through Grong, Mosjoen and Bodo to reinforce Narvik. The straight-line distance from Grong was about 300 miles through a thinly settled, snow-covered region of high mountains. Roads are poor and broken by fjords that require ferry hauls up to 10 miles long. For the last 85 miles there are no roads whatever.
Mark Horan adds: HMS Ark Royal departs Scapa Flow at 1620, escorted by the AA cruiser HMS Curlew, and six destroyers, HMS Inglefield, HMS Sikh, HMS Mashona, HMS Tartar, HMS Jaguar, and HMS Encounter. Enroute she flies aboard the replacement aircraft (six Swordfish, seven Skuas) and the regrouped 803 Squadron, giving her the following airgroup:
810 Squadron: 11 x Swordfish
820 Squadron: 8 x Swordfish
800 Squadron: 9 x Skua
801 Squadron: 9 x Skua
803 Squadron: 9 x Skua
Her mission will be to provide air support for the besieged Allied Group Forces in the area of Narvik and Trondheim.
Meanwhile HMS Glorious arrives at Greenock at 1630, for reprovisioning, rearming, and to prepare for her new mission - ferrying 18 Hurricane Is of 46 Squadron, RAF, to Norway. At the same time, HMS Furious, completing the repairs on her battered turbines, is preparing to re-embark the reconstituted 263 Squadron, RAF with 18 Gladiator IIs for the same task.
NETHERLANDS: Twenty-one suspected saboteurs and Nazi fifth-columnists are arrested in a crackdown on anti-government elements.
GERMANY: Hitler once more puts off the attack in the west until May 7.
AUSTRALIA: Boom defense vessel HMAS Kangaroo launched. (Dave Shirlaw)
CANADA: Corvette HMCS Camellia launched. (Dave Shirlaw)
ATLANTIC OCEAN: San Tiburcio struck a mine laid on 9 February by U-9. She broke in two after 40 minutes and sank 4 miles SE of Tarbett Ness, Moray Firth. The master and 39 crewmembers were picked up by HMS Leicester City and landed at Invergordon. The master Walter Frederick Fynn died when his next ship, the San Arcadio was sunk by U-107 (Gelhaus) on 31 Jan 1942. (Dave Shirlaw)
http://worldwar2daybyday.blogspot.com/
Day 247 May 4, 1940
British mine-laying submarine HMS Seal, running on the surface for speed in the Kattegat, is bombed by a Heinkel He115 at 2:30 AM. Seal dives to 30m & lays 50 mines from 9 to 9:45 AM but German anti-submarine trawlers begin searching the area. Seal zigzags to avoid detection until 6.30 PM when she hits a mine & settles on the bottom, stuck in mud overnight & running out of air.
Allies mass 30,000 troops (French Foreign Legion & Chasseurs Alpins [mountain infantry], Polish troops, British 24th Brigade & Norwegians) around Narvik, still hoping to retake the town & disrupt iron ore traffic from Sweden.. French move overland to secure Bjerkvik, on the shore opposite Narvik, but are held at Labergdal Pass.
General Feuerstein’s 2nd Gebirgsjäger (mountain) Division starts marching 350 miles North from Trondheim to relieve Dietl’s 139th Gebirgsjäger Regiment isolated in Narvik. Allies deploy 300-500 troops each at Mosjöen, Mo & Bodö to stop them.
Polish destroyer Grom and British destroyer HMS Faulknor are patrolling off Narvik bombarding German positions when Grom is struck on her torpedo tubes by a German bomb at 8.28 AM and sinks (58 lives lost). British cruisers HMS Enterprise & Aurora and destroyers HMS Faulknor & Bedouin rescue survivors, starting at 8.35. The Polish survivors are embarked on a hospital ship for the passage back to England, departing Harstad on April 10 for the Clyde.
I wonder how many average people know just how large the scope of fighting was for Norway. When I try and reflect back on how World War II was presented to me back in high school (a long time ago, granted) I cant remember much mention of Norway at all, much less the battles between the British and Germans on land and on the coastal seas. This has been absolutely fascinating, even now.
Agreed. Back in the old days, the war began December 7 1941. What happened before that was ignored - including US involvement prior to that date.
Norway’s problem, from the historical perspective was twofold. First, after less than a month the campaign was winding down, and a clear German win, and second, the campaign, and its memory, will be subsumed very shortly by the German attack in the West.
I think the later has a larger impact that the first. Poland was also wrapped up inside a month but still is more memorable. In the context of things of course that is because it was the first campaign of the war, but if in the case of Norway, there was a year or even six months separating its conquest and the invasion of France, I’d bet it would resonate more prominently.
I hear you. Technically, I could make the argument that the war started on September 18th, 1931. But at the very minimum I think it really is important to teach the events leading up to September 1st, 1939 at the very least from the beginning of 1938....I think I know someone who did just that...
Technically, I argue there was no Second World War, only one war which began in 1914 ending in 1945.
Which would make it the Third World War:
It was a war for imperial dominance fought in Europe, Africa, India, North America, South America and the Philippine Islands. Winners included Great Britain and Prussia. The First World War cost about half a million lives.
It was a war against French imperialism, fought in Europe, Atlantic Ocean, Río de la Plata, French Guiana, Indian Ocean, North America. Winners included Great Britain and Prussia. The Second World War cost roughly 5 million lives.
It was a war against German / Axis imperialism and National Socialist ideology, fought on every continent except Antarctica. The winners included American republican-anticolonialists and Soviet Communists. Deaths totaled over 100 million.
It was a war against Russian imperialism and Soviet style Communism, fought as proxy wars, anti-insurgencies and threats of "Mutual Assured Destruction." Winners included American capitalist-republicans and European style social-democrats. Including Communist genocides in Europe, China & S.E. Asia, deaths totaled at least 100 million.
It is a war against Islamic radicals intent on imposing a new Caliphate and Sharia Law on the Muslim world while destroying as much as possible of the non-Islamic world. Death toll so far in the hundreds of thousands (?).
You could make that argument, but I would not agree with it. While there is truth that the Treaty of Versailles left some unresolved problems that the immediately defunct League of Nations had no way of solving, it was not a sole source of the next World War. If we generalize just those unresolved issues then we would have to also include the Korean War into the lump of that war since it was a conflict that spawned from the power grab by communist and western factions at the end of the Second World War. Or, to take it even further, we could say that Vietnam was part of the war too since it was an effort by France to reassert its colonial power over Indochina that backfired badly and America got tangled up in. I don't think anyone would make that argument, but I have heard before the statement the World War II was a continuation of World War I.
Here's my reasons why they are indeed separate. Mind you this is my opinion and your mileage may vary.
The End of the Treaty of Versailles
By 1936, the Treaty of Versailles no longer existed in practice by Hitler's re-militarization of the Rhineland. All the other restrictions and penalties of that treaty had already been openly ignored, suspended, or fulfilled. The previous year Hitler had openly started conscripting a larger armed forces in all branches including the Luftwaffe which they were not even supposed to have. The financial reparations had already either been forgiven or Hitler flat stated he would no longer pay. The only thing left was some small strips of land on in the west, which were not of overriding importance, and the colonial possession in the Pacific which were now under management of their Japanese allies. Poland which returned to existence after the First World War along with several other Balkan and Baltic countries was the only vestige of ire left by 1938.
The Spirit of Versailles
Despite the fact that Hitler had essentially torn up the Treaty of Versailles, it still became an issue in Nazi propaganda. This was more to fuel their anti-Semitic aspects than any aggressive stance towards France and Britain though. Hitler had convinced himself that internal factors had caused Germany's surrender in WWI. He couldn't see past the fact that it was really based in the German military, in general, revolting against continuing the carnage of the war and so he found another reason. This is what is know as the "stab in the back" opinion that was held by many Germans. It was the Jews and the Bolsheviks (which were synonymous in Hitler's eyes) that had caused this double-cross right as Germany was at a perceived point of victory. This was used as a propaganda tool to promote the Nazi's anti-Semitic sentiments and it was utilized quite well frankly.
So What About Poland?
Sure, Poland was reborn out of the carnage of World War I, but was the attack on Poland just a continuation of World War I? Not really when we look at the progression of Hitler's conquests. His first goal was to absorb his own birthplace into Germany. Austria was not part of Germany before World War I and Hitler's hometown was never part of Germany; it was part of the Austria-Hungary Empire. The same situation existed in the Sudetenland. If Hitler was really concerned solely with recouping the loses from that stab in the back, you would think that former Austria-Hungary land would not be his priority and the lost land that was now part of Poland would be. When he finally did get around to Poland which was meant as just a stepping stone to his vision of Lebensraum in the east that fit in nicely with Himmler's Wehrbauern or peasant-soldiers. The final goal here, as eluded to in Mein Kampf, and in their actions eventually, was the collection of vast lands for their "living space". This did not mean getting the lands back from Poland, this meant expanding into the agricultural lands in the east; which meant the Ukraine. This again is outside the scope of the results of World War I.
But Japan is an Ally!
Then there is the attack by Germany in the Caroline and Marshall Islands to get their colonial islands back from Japan. Except, that didn't happen. The colonial losses by the Germans after World War I were occasionally mentioned by Hitler, but mostly as a bargaining chip along the lines of "if you forgive this transgression we will not ask for this colony back". At no time do I think Hitler and the Nazi's had any intention of demanding their colonial empire returned. They were more interested in a consolidated European Empire that would make a true "Fortress Europe" a reality. Islands in the Pacific did not meet that mold and they were more than happy to let them be Japan's problem.
As for the Allies, Japan was one of them during World War I. So how does their roll in the Axis fit the continuation of the World War I scheme? It wasn't like they were defeated and turned like we will see with Italy, Romania, and others. They were rewarded for their help in the First World War by being given mandate over the very islands I made tongue in check reference to at the beginning of this section. Yet by 1941 they were at full war with not only the United States, but Britain as well, and with their occupation of Indochina would have meant war with France had they still been an Allied combatant at that point. Some say that World War II was really two wars in one with a European war being interrupted by a Pacific one and to a degree they have a point. Neither Japan or German cooperated to the degree that a military alliance typically would. But nonetheless, it was decided by the two that they were to split the world in their specific area of influence and that's what links them into a singular combative unit. Imagine how bad thing may have gone had Germany focused on a "through Egypt and the Middle East" policy and Japan had moved on India in 1941 instead of 1944? They may have linked up and make history very different.
World War II was definitely it's own unique war and a separate creature for World War I. And as far as my statement that I could argue that if begun in September of 1931, if you had asked me two years ago I may have argued that point hard. Now, I don't think I would. It was a piece of a puzzle that was coming together. Just like a piece was presented when a global depression brought an Austrian corporal to power in Germany, and how a slaughter in Nanjing escalated a tense situation in China. All were parts of a whole, but not the event itself. That finally took hold on September 1st when Hitler made his next move that two days later his adversaries replied with the statement of enough is enough. Hitler, was left glaring at Ribbentrop that day saying "What now!?" -BroJoeK. I felt I should take the time on this response since the last time we were debating an issue you caught me in the middle of two major research papers and I didn't have the time to really put together a considered answer. -TS. Just thought you might be interested in this debate, if not just poke fun at me. That's good too.
I’m with you, except for the colonies. Even in the early years there were calls for return of the colonies. Any defeat of Britain would have at least called for the return of the African colonies. (Whether he would have sought more is a fun debate, but there isn’t much to go on there.) He probably could have worked something out with the Japanese for something in the Pacific for propaganda purposes, but the Japs probably wouldn’t have given back anything useful.
Have to run now, will come back to this maybe tomorrow. Just a quick response for now.
Obviously, where we draw lines for any war's beginning & end, or between one war and the next, is often a matter of judgment and debate.
And in some sense, there's no right or wrong to it, just a matter of how we chose to understand things.
I chose the idea of World Wars One thru Five, with the 20th Century wars against German lead axis powers as Number Three, because it shows us very long running patterns of behavior, of which our most recent efforts are (so far!) rather pale reflections. Let us pray things stay that way.
As to whether 20th Century World Wars One & Two can be considered "all one war," my first argument is pretty simple, and a legal technicality:
That's the legalistic argument, but there are a number of others which I'll get into when there's more time, hopefully tomorrow.
Again, thanks for a thoughtful post. ;-)
The attractiveness of one long war is tempting, but as your post shows, inaccurate on many levels. Another item to add to the mix is the widespread pacifism and disarmament sentiment among the western powers, which although increased the daring of the totalitarian states, is hardly the approach one would find in a cold war, much less an active one.
You’re right. And I didn’t even touch on the pacifistic aspect of the build up to the Second World War. Clearly to some degree pacifism, and appeasement in the 30s could be traced to the horrors of the First World War itself. I am of the opinion that this same fear also lead to Churchill as well as Brooke to resist a cross Channel attack to the extent that they did. There was a degree of fear that the war would turn into another prolonged battle of attrition in horrible conditions that they saw in the last war. It was another example of some of the British leadership still fighting the last war even though the Germans had clearly showed them that this was a whole new ball game.
Bro,
My only question as to the legal aspects is legal by who’s standard. I’ve never heard of a legal precedent that states that breaking a treaty constitutes the continuation of the previous war. In today’s perspective, if the Korean cease fire was to be broken, while not a peace treaty per se, would not necessarily constitute a continuation of the Korean War any more that if the British attacked France would constitute a continuation of the 100 Years War. At some point there is a point of demarcation and I would say that the reason’s for the new fighting would have to be a dominate factor. Just my first impression of that anyway.
;-)
Why World Wars One and Two Were Really the Third World War
I merely noted that if the Seven Years War was World War One, then the Napoleonic Wars must necessarily be the Second World War, which makes the Great War of 1914 - 1918 World War Three.
And historians have long practiced lumping together any number of relatively minor but at least somewhat related wars into one large catch-all category, for examples:
So the question is: were the two wars of 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945 any less related than the various relatively minor wars in, say, the Thirty Years War?
Indeed, might we not reasonably consider the wars from 1914 to 1945 as the Second Thirty Years War?
Only now, of course, the scale was global, making it the Third World War...
Reasons:
When Germany eventually broke and officially renounced the Treaty of Versailles, that act alone legally declared the the Great War would continue.
By the way, for anyone curious about where my ideas on German war aims come from, I am a fan of German historian Franz Fischer.
Summary:
If you consider such large-category and long-lasting wars as the Thirty Years War and the Hundred Years Wars, then the causes and antagonists in the Great War of 1914 to 1945 are certainly similar enough to make them also just one war: the Third World War.
I rest my case. ;-)
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.