Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
Regarding WW2 and the SU on the Eastern Front...
"1) had more humanity to throw away and more willingness to waste human life" = same, ditto, Ho thought the same...
"2) they were winning battles" = the north didn't care, because they fought a different type of war, with a different focus (final outcome)
"3) they were taking ground" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war, with a different objective
"4) they took all of the ground en route to the Berlin" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war with a different focus
"5) that is still about 1/2 of the whomping that US put on the NVA" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war, with a different objective and focus
"6) compelled the German government to submit (that treaty thing that you don't understand)" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting type of war, with a different objective and focus
You didn't think that post through very well, did you?
You seemed to miss a lot.
You either did not see it or you were trying to be deceptive, so which was it?
Were you ignorant or deceptive?
1
-
1
-
King Baldwin IV Buddy, have YOU got your history screwed up. I don't even know where to begin....
1) Whoever said that the communists were not terrible people?
I said (all along) that the north ACHIEVED their initial OBJECTIVE.
The USA didn't.
That is the point.
As a general rule, the point of politics is to achieve an objective, and politicians USE the military to achieve that if diplomacy fails.
The military is there as an extended arm of politicians. NOT the other way around...
If politicians fail to achieve their objective, and the military can't enforce/dictate/achieve a stated objective (keep communist out of South Vietnam), then you've lost.
2, 3, 4) No they didn't. In 1975, their flag was flying over Saigon.
OWN objective achieved.
One side wins if they can stop another side from achieving its objectives.
You see, Ho didn't give a shit about your objective (and the excuses you make for not achieving it), because he had his own and he actually achieved it....
Some of your other points....
"They did get the term that they stated. Kissinger wanted to initiate the peace sooner but Nixon thought that the Communists needed some additional instruction."
Nope, he wanted a 'face saving' way out, so these sorry-ass US leaders murdered a few hundred thousand more Vietnamese military and civilians, and own soldiers, and wasted a few billion dollars more...
That objective (face saving way out) was achieved.
"The Communists left for 3 years because they HAD to. They knew that they could not confront Nixon, he ate their lunch."
They regrouped, and kept on planning to achieve their stated objective....one nation...
"They saw their opportunity with a defeatist, sympathizer Democrat party in charge of the House...blah, blah..."
Who the fuck cares.
It is still the USA. It's one nation, not "military", "Democrats", "us", "them", blah, blah....excuses, excuses, obfuscating, finger-pointing....
"The enforcement of the peace was the job of the Legislative Branch, who failed."
See above....
"Similar to the transition from WWI to WWII, Britain, France, etc. failed to enforce Versailles, so they fought ANOTHER WAR."
Nope.
The allies clearly won that war, and dictated a stupid one-sided peace treaty.
The stated goals of the sides fighting during WW1 and WW2 were COMPLETELY different.
Different war. Different objectives.
"Just like after WWI, Poland fought the Soviet invasion of Europe in 1920. It waas not the same war, even though it occurred even sooner after the peace treaty."
See above. Different war DIFFERENT objectives.
LOL, buddy....starting your timeline when it's convenient for your argument again?
Did you forget that after WW1 that the military dictatorship in Poland was the aggressive expansionist regime attacking neighbors?
Did you conveniently forget Polish aggressive expansion into a neighboring state (the Ukraine) in 1918, triggering a Soviet response?
Who invaded who?
Yup.
Not for the first time in history...trampling over the right of self-determination of nations had long term effects...
Look up causality, or as 'Joe the plumber' would say...."Karma is a bitch", "get what you deserve", or...my personal favorite for all those...ahem...'good Christians' out there: "reap what you sow..."
1
-
gameaddict836 Your grandfather didn't adhere to the spirit of the Constitution.
The end effect of your nations leaders not honoring the wisdom of the Constitution, and the values proclaimed here, and granting the same basic human rights to others, simply came back to haunt your own nation.
See the above apologia of...note the 'nobility'-, upper class 'establishment'- attitude of apply named King Baldwin, who obviously thinks Poles had the right to rule over Lithuanians, Ukrainians, White Russians, and others....just like the kings ruled in the good ol' days of the Middle Ages....
Of course, those Poles dreaming of the...ahem...'Lebensraum' of the Greater Polish Empire of the 17th century, and who invade other nations, are heroes.
Go figure....
Constitution states clearly.
Power, liberty, equality, justice and property...
Liberty and self-determination as the highest ideals.
Do you honor the Constitution?
1
-
"My grandfather held the Constitution in the same light as he held the Bible."
He couldn't have.
He valued the Constitution, and the justice and values proclaimed here FOR HIMSELF.
As for moral values, he should have read the Bible more carefully, so that when his immoral leaders called him up to fight against the wishes of another nation for INDEPENDENCE after 400 years of colonialism...he should have recognized the injustice (BOTH 'constitutional' AND 'Christian'), and joined the resistance.
"Have you served?"
Yes I have. As an officer, and I would have refused an immoral order, and I would have refused to fight in a war in which my own country was on the wrong side of history.
The ONLY just war, is if one is attacked, or an ally with EQUAL ethical standards, is attacked...without undue provocation.
NOTHING else.
I'm not a puppet, I am a patriot.
" It's disgusting. When he got off his flight back in the states, people were spitting on him, calling him a monster. It's really easy to take moral high ground when you have no fucking clue what these men went through. So go on; keep telling people how horrible we are."
I agree.
Those demonstrators were pathetic and should have directed their anger at the source.
The pathetic US leaders, who did not value the wisdom of the Constitution, when Vietnamese leaders approached them at the end of WW2, with a plea for support for independence after 400 years of French rule.
Your leaders said...'tough shit, back to Colonial rule for you, and exploitation, greedy French bureaucrats, injustice, theft of raw materials....deal with it...'
Sometimes shit thrown at a fan comes right back at ya...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7+King Baldwin IV
That isn't a 'correlation'. Using a story to explain history, is called an 'analogy'.
I made some alterations, to make your analogy more in line with the facts...
"It was as if a drug-dealing lady was being harassed and attacked by a bunch of guys when the security arrived.
A corrupt security, running a private extortion racket on the side, killed most of the guys that tried to attack the lady, by spraying the entire street with bullets....killing hundreds of women and kids. The remaining thieves, in order to not be killed, sign a restraining order and leave. As security goes back to the office and the lady tries to live her life.
2 years later, the guys break the restraining order and start harassing her. The drug-dealing lady, who now also runs a prostitution ring, contacts security and reports the breach of the restraining order, fending them off with her carry pistol. Security, now under different management, refuses to help her or enforce the order. The...cough, cough...'lady' defends herself until she runs out of ammo...."
Not a bad analogy.
Your analogy clearly explains why the 'security company' failed.
I actually agree.
The 'bad guys' won :-)
(BTW, that is called 'two wrongs don't make a right')
"After that, she is taken, raped, enslaved, and told that she deserved it by Ralph Bernhard."
Incorrect.
Nobody on this thread except you (Agent Orange, killing 2.5 million Vietnamese civilians), is making excuses for any wrongful action.
There happens to be a difference between 'explaining something' (in other words HOW and WHY events unfold the way they do), and 'apologia' (aka 'bad excuses').
Your method of debating is quite clear.
Throw an allegation out there, forcing the opposite to deny it. If not, you can call your opposite a 'commie sympathizer'. LOL. People are not stupid King...ahem 'Baldwin'.
"Yes, I would have resumed hostilities. The RVN would have performed ground operations provided with ammunition by the US. The US would have bombed Hanoi, military targets, and removed North Vietnam's ability to conduct war."
That is why you are a fool.
"It is called keeping your honor."
You don't have a clue about honor.
Fighting for a corrupt regime is not honorable.
"The Republic of Vietnam was an independent nation, just ask all of the State Department officials that were irritated with the independence of No Dinh Diem. . . wait, you never read that, you don't read much on the topic, you wouldn't know."
Acknowledging puppets guarding western interests was never a problem for the western dominated UN.
The entire nation was declared independent in Sep 1945.
The west, mostly colonial powers themselves, resisted this initiative.
Obviously, they were afraid of a domino effect.
A 'domino effect' of colonies calling out independence, using Vietnam as an example.
Yup, and nations also willing to fight for their own freedom.
Same as the USA had to fight for their freedom against the Brits.
Don't you agree that one should be on the side of, and support those nations striving for freedom?
1
-
+King Baldwin IV
That isn't a 'correlation'. Using a story to explain history, is called an 'analogy'.
I made some alterations, to make your analogy more in line with the facts...
"It was as if a drug-dealing lady was being harassed and attacked by a bunch of guys when the security arrived.
A corrupt security, running a private extortion racket on the side, killed most of the guys that tried to attack the lady, by spraying the entire street with bullets....killing hundreds of women and kids. The remaining thieves, in order to not be killed, sign a restraining order and leave. As security goes back to the office and the lady tries to live her life.
2 years later, the guys break the restraining order and start harassing her. The drug-dealing lady, who now also runs a prostitution ring, contacts security and reports the breach of the restraining order, fending them off with her carry pistol. Security, now under different management, refuses to help her or enforce the order. The...cough, cough...'lady' defends herself until she runs out of ammo...."
Not a bad analogy.
Your analogy clearly explains why the 'security company' failed.
I actually agree.
The 'bad guys' won :-)
(BTW, that is called 'two wrongs don't make a right')
"After that, she is taken, raped, enslaved, and told that she deserved it by Ralph Bernhard."
Incorrect.
Nobody on this thread except you (Agent Orange, killing 2.5 million Vietnamese civilians), is making excuses for any wrongful action.
There happens to be a difference between 'explaining something' (in other words HOW and WHY events unfold the way they do), and 'apologia' (aka 'bad excuses').
Your method of debating is quite clear.
Throw an allegation out there, forcing the opposite to deny it. If not, you can call your opposite a 'commie sympathizer'. LOL. People are not stupid King...ahem 'Baldwin'.
"Yes, I would have resumed hostilities. The RVN would have performed ground operations provided with ammunition by the US. The US would have bombed Hanoi, military targets, and removed North Vietnam's ability to conduct war."
That is why you are a fool.
"It is called keeping your honor."
You don't have a clue about honor.
Fighting for a corrupt regime is not honorable.
"The Republic of Vietnam was an independent nation, just ask all of the State Department officials that were irritated with the independence of No Dinh Diem. . . wait, you never read that, you don't read much on the topic, you wouldn't know."
Acknowledging puppets guarding western interests was never a problem for the western dominated UN.
The entire nation was declared independent in Sep 1945.
The west, mostly colonial powers themselves, resisted this initiative.
Obviously, they were afraid of a domino effect.
A 'domino effect' of colonies calling out independence, using Vietnam as an example.
Yup, and nations also willing to fight for their own freedom.
Same as the USA had to fight for their freedom against the Brits.
Don't you agree that one should be on the side of, and support those nations striving for freedom?
1
-
King Baldwin IV First off, I actually admire the USA. What I see though is a small percentage of Americans who constantly undermine everything the USA supposedly represents (freedom, democracy, liberty, property, justice).
I have already CLEARLY stated that I have no sympathy for the causes of non of the two sides.
My entire sympathy goes to the inhabitants of Vietnam, who were trampled between the interests of crooked regimes in a war of proxy.
Your heartfelt empathy for 'poor locals' is fake.
If you had any sympathy at all, you would have agreed that the alternative history of granting the Vietnamese nation an own state (pro-western style democracy) in 1945 was FAR more desirable than the chaos which followed, due to dominating colonial attitudes at a time that it should have been foreseeable that colonialism as a form of rule was outdated.
Your leaders supporting "a friend" (France) which did not represent the values proclaimed in the Constitution was hypocritical.
So far, you have not addressed this, which is telling...
Your misplaced romantic view of colonialism as a form of kindness and benevolence to the local inhabitants is a joke.
In almost every case, if left alone to develop without meddling, the locals would have developed better than under the yoke of colonialism.
South America is a good example.
Instead of the "alternative history" of independence with own leaders in 1945, you would have wished for an "alternative history" of more of this for the locals...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23427726
....or this....
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-vietnam6aug06-story.html
What does that tell the observer about you?
Furthermore, if I were you, I'd google a few of the claims you make.
Idi Amin was NOT a communist.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/revealed-how-israel-helped-amin-to-take-power-100683.html
He was supported by the west to overthrow the government of Uganda. Another typical example of the meddling attitude that caused so many problems in Africa.
Apparently, crooks make good business partners....
Your statements are entirely confusing and contradictory.
For example:
"The British Empire was a very successful colonial power that improved the lives of nearly every peoples that were fortunate enough to be incorporated into it..."
Why did the...ahem....'fortunate peoples' of the USA opt out then?
Can you explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michał Kilijanek I completely agree with your first paragraph. I have absolutely no sympathy for a rich German aristocrat crying over spillt milk (lost land). What is gone, is gone.
However, we have laws, and it is his right to clarify whether a claim is valid.
IMO, it should not be valid, since (as you have pointed out) it would be unfair to the people who live there now, often also displaced from eastern areas of pre-WW2 Poland after the war.
It would simply be a revolving system of injustice.
With your paragraph 2, you have pointed out exactly what happens when opportunistic politicians involve themselves in what are basically personal disputes. Oil is thrown on fires, and moleheaps turn into mountains — the press gets involved, and soon people get carried away with senseless violence.
IMO, politicians should only be allowed to involve themselves if there is a justified grievance, stated by an objective way, for example a signature gathering action (petition signatures), or official polls.
Politicians on a personal crusade in order to gather support for his/her personal career is a big put off for me.
They often don't really care about the situation, but simply use it as a tool to gain public support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evan Wimberly WW2 practically started in 1919.
It was unresolved issues. Versailles and Trianon was enforced onto millions of Hungarians, Austrians, Germans, Croats, Poles, Slovens, and others.
These ill fated decisions taken in 1919 came back to Europe to haunt us when Adolf came to power.
He saw there was a chance to divide and rule....
If you understand the principle of "claiming something by force", then you also understand that the term ' Sudetengerman' is actually artificial. These were Austrians living in a state called Austria-Hungary for 200 years.
After WW1, they were " taken by force", literally at gunpoint...
Yes, sometimes bad things come back to haunt us....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists).
Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it."
The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place...
In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies.
Recipe for success?
Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright.
Do you know who enebled WW2, because he wanted your parents to die?
Stalin.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars...
1
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
Usually in debates like in these in the comments sections, it doesn't take long for the emotional argumentation and logical fallacies to set in.
For example, the "...but if we hadn't bombed city centers, how much stronger would Germany have been?"
Easy answer? Not much.
Historians who have studied air warfare in WW2 have already concluded this long ago.
For example Munsen, Kenneth/German Aircraft of WW2 ISBN 623.74'6'0943 p. 13
"It has been estimated that Allied raids between mid-1943 and early-1945 cost the Luftwaffe some 18,000 aircraft in lost production. On the other hand, if these aircraft had been received, shortages of aircrew, fuel, and munitions would have severely limited their effective use."
[End of quote]
It was not as much the bombing which limited German industry, but the lack of resources, especially oil.
Every raid, and every sortie flown in excess of what was really necessary against a few key industries (again, esp. oil targets), was a waste of Allied airmen and a waste of own resources.
Every bomber downed with the intent to kill "Oma Schickelgruber" who was ostensibly "in the way of valid targets", an exposed lie, was a needless waste of own lives.
Every Allied soldier sent to "save Stalin", was equally wasted.
The price for such folly would be paid after the war.
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized My comment is is not aimed against strategic bombing as such, but purely "the folly of trying to terror bomb cities" (as implemented with the Area Bombing policy/directives in 1942).
Your point:
Even if only legit targets (oil refineries, large area industrial plants, etc.) had been targeted, everything you wrote concerning German resources would still have been implemented by the Nazis.
In fact, had most raids concentrated on key industries right from the start, like (again) oil and chemical plants, even more German AA guns, fighters, etc. would have been concentrated here, relieving the front lines.
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized My initial comment is based on Douhet's initial doctrine proposals for future wars.
Basically: the bombardment of industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "break the will of the people".
The "morale bombing" bombing part of that is morally flawed. The same people who would state that "soldiers lining up civilians and mowing them them down" (like their enemies do) is despicable, then turn around 180˙ and say "burning people alive in their cities is 100% OK as long as we win".
Note here.
This is the "kill Oma Schickelgruber" jokingly referred to in books as a widespread attitude during the war.
Morally, most of the Allies (leaders and citizens alike) had no problem in making a civilian the prime target, as long as own moral deficiency can be hidden behind a suitable excuse ("we were actually aiming for factories, but missed").
This is a lie.
Civilians were not "collateral damage" (the euphemism used today) as the propaganda claimed during the war.
They were already the prime target of Area Bombing (the will of the people).
IMO (debatable) the issue was not "a learning curve", but a fundamental misunderstanding of geography/resources/balance of power.
Even an advocate of Douhet's proposals should have been able to foresee in any prewar appraisal that bombing Germany "to reduce production" was a fallacy in reasoning.
My key point: German (or any continental European country) production was not limited by a lack of factory space or production facilities, but entirely dictated by a lack of resources (or in other words, the lack of raw materials already placed a natural cap on production).
Why?
I'll point out in a separate comment which I'll copy and paste in below.
In their analysis of the main weakness of the Axis, the USA was spot on, and therefore proposed attacking a few key industries again and again. If they proposed this in 1942, it means that they had already deduced the above before even flying a single raid.
The US proposal was the correct one (no hindsight/learning curve).
At tbe same time, the RAF one of "dehousing/morale bombing" was wrong (again no hindsight/learning curve). Analysis of London, Coventry, Liverpool had already revealed that if bombed, civilians become closer knit, and rally around those who protect them (government/leaders).
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Re. the question (rhetoric) of "What else could have been done?/How should anybody have known that strategic bombing would turn out to be not nearly as successful as hoped? (or as post-1945 studies reveal)"
Re. "efficacy", a stated policy (thinly veiled by euphamisms) of flattening entire cities, it was indeed very little "bang for the buck" when compared what GB put into it on their production side, seeing how a strategic air force is (and was back then) the most expensive form of warfare.
Why was Area Bombing entirely flawed from the outset? (1942 perspective). Also the related, and often repeated (but fallacious) rhetoric like "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
A truism re. "production" is that it depends on 3 main factors: raw materials, labour, finance (incl. the construction of production sites).
Let's KISS it: If even one one these is missing/lacking then obviously production will suffer.
In a nutshell.
Europe in 1940 (Nazi sphere of influence) lack the resources for a protracted war in which production figures would be a determining factor for the Axis to win.
Re. Europe.
No Bauxite (or very little, compared to the entire sphere of influence in Allied hands or secured connections) = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
Right from the start of the war, it bugged London and Paris that Germany could basically import all the iron ore from Sweden they needed. There was nothing they could do to avoid it, since Norway and Sweden were neutral, and for good reasons intended to remain so.
From ibiblio(dot)org
"Norway and Sweden were to be warned that their conduct as neutrals worked out in practice to the advantage of Germany; that this was the more intolerable because Germany in principle was the enemy of the independence and rights of small Powers, of which the Allies were the champions; and that in consequence the Allies reserved the right to take the appropriate action."
[End of quote]
Apparently, GB and France put pressure on Norway/Sweden, by trying to shame them into giving up their neutrality (or at least "neutral" according to International Law).
Those "poor defenseless neutrals" so "deemed to be saved by the heroes of freedom" (lol) were not impressed, and did not trust British/French sincerity in actually protecting them
From ibiblio(dot)org
"...it was still hoped [by GB/France] that the Scandinavian Powers would so interpret their obligations as members of the League of Nations as to allow Allied forces to cross their territories to help the Finns against acknowledged aggression. The result was a prolonged diplomatic wrangle. Both Norway and Sweden were genuinely desirous of helping the Finnish cause by all means short of their own implication in the war. But they consistently refused to court the fate of Poland, for whose defence the Western Powers seemed to have done absolutely nothing, by allowing Allied forces, even in the guise of 'volunteers' to cross their territory into Finland, either to preserve Finnish independence, or for their own protection against a hypothetical Russian (or German) advance..."
I wonder why neutrals came to the conclusion that the "heroes" who wanted to "protect them" had absolutely zero intention to fight to the last bullet to "protect poor neutrals"?
Weird...
1
-
1