Kingfish wrote:More likely the other way around, that of to prevent the British from establishing bases on Norwegian soil and thus completely close off access to the North Sea. Germany's preference would have been for Norway to remain neutral, but the Altmark incident raised concerns that she was not able to defend her own neutrality, and the British didn't care to respect it anyway.
merdiolu wrote:Admiral Reader and Kriegsmarine was pressuring for invasion of Norway after 1939 autumn actually. Aim was getting naval and air bases to initiate a much easier naval campaign and U-boat warfare against British Isles. British / French intention to pass troops through Narvik to help Finns in Winter War and Altmark Incident were just catalysts for Hitler to take action on his behalf. German Armed Forces were preparing for Weserübung for quite some time.
Would you agree then that the reason for the invasion of Norway (and Denmark) was the Kriegsmarine desire for bases in Norway?
phylo_roadking wrote:Now...things went ahead as we know...but interestingly Kersaudy gives some details on the NEXT milepost along the way - the 5th February meeting between the the service representatives that were to form/head the new Sonderstab planning Staff for WESERUBUNG and keitel - because during THAT meeting, Keitel mentions that "we are in possession of information from several sources indicating that the British themselves intend to occupy the Western coast of Norway, in co-operation with the French"
Kersaudy doesn't say who or what these sources...plural!...were But from THIS point at least - the race was on!
phylo_roadking wrote:....hand in hand with not wanting the BRITISH to get bases there. The two motivations are both sides of the same coin.
Wolf wrote:What is the latest regarding the German motivation for launching Operation Weserübung...
I have run into a Danish historian who claims that the reason for attack on Norway and Denmark almost entirely rested with the wish of the Kriegsmarine to be able to establish bases in Norway - while all other contributing factors were of minimal importance and sort of used to "sell the idea to Hitler".
True or false?
Maybe not quite. Norway was neutral during WWI.
But is that true, or is it maybe false?
"No infringement of Norwegian neutrality by Germany, on the contrary, Germany has an interest in the strict enforcement of neutrality. A sharp look-out to be held in Norway for any indication of an intended conspiracy with England, and close surveillance to be maintained of all activities in suspected gathering points and points of embarkation in England..."
...as well as inception in Germany of preventative measures to cope with any British attack."
I would be especially interesting to know if those sources state why the Germans were afraid of losing access to the North Sea...
phylo_roadking wrote:It's "half" true, in that it's half the story; I don't know if any direct record of the October Hitler-Raeder meeting survives....but there's both Halder's diary record of the content of the discussions in December AND Quisling's own record of the December meeting where this prospect of British incursions was mentioned...
...in fact, the prospect of bases for the KM was specifically NOT mentioned! - as Quisling recorded -
fredleander wrote:I say false. Depends on when this was supoposedly stated. As posted by PR it was a story that developed over time. The obvious vacillations of the Allieds did not improve upon the situation.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], sample