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

Skip to comments.

NORSE HOLD ROEROS AND TYNSET (5/2/40)
Microfiche-New York Times archives, Cabrillo College Library | 5/2/40 | Otto D. Tolischus, Harold Denny

Posted on 05/02/2010 6:14:12 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson

1

Photobucket

2

Photobucket

3

Photobucket

4

Photobucket

5

Photobucket



TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: milhist; realtime; worldwarii
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 05/02/2010 6:14:12 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
Norway, 1940 – Operations in Southern and Central Norway, April-May 1940
Evolution of Plan Yellow, October 1939-January 1940
The Far East and the Pacific, 1941 – The Imperial Powers, 1 September 1939
2 posted on 05/02/2010 6:14:48 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; ...
Nazis Quit Towns – 2-4
Day’s Communiques on Norway – 4
The International Situation - 5
3 posted on 05/02/2010 6:15:40 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/may40/f02may40.htm

Allies attempt to isolate Narvik

Thursday, May 2, 1940 www.onwar.com

In Norway... The Germans reach Andalsnes. The Allies begin to leave Namsos. Before dawn 5400 British and French troops have been evacuated. Small British and French forces are landed at Mosjoen to try to help block the road north to Narvik.


4 posted on 05/02/2010 6:26:50 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

May 2nd, 1940

UNITED KINGDOM:

RAF Bomber Command: 4 Group. Bombing - Stavanger and Fornebu airfields.

51 Sqn. Six aircraft. All bombed Fornebu. Severe opposition. One crew abandoned aircraft on return.

58 Sqn. Six aircraft to Stavanger. One returned U/S, four bombed. Light opposition.

Blenheims of 107 Sqn. raid Stavanger and Rye aerodromes in daylight. Wellingtons raid Rye at night.

RAF Coastal Command: Escorting ships evacuating British forces from Norway.

Destroyer ORP (ex-HMS) Garland commissioned. (Dave Shirlaw)

NORWEGIAN CAMPAIGN: Namsos, Norway. Lt. Richard Been Stannard (1902-77), RNR, of HMS Arab (trawler of 15th A/S Striking Force), showed great courage during 31 attacks on his ship from 28 April to 2 May, in one case saving a jetty ablaze from burning ammunition, and is awarded the VC.

Under heavy Luftwaffe bombardment, Allied forces start to evacuate Namsos; 5,400 soldiers embark today. The evacuation of Mauriceforce is scheduled for the nights of May 1 and 2. A dense offshore fog settled in yesterday and most of the French and British relief ships lay to, waiting for it to lift. General Carton de Wiart, unaware of the offshore weather, had all his men out of hiding and waiting down by the battered docks. Morning found them still waiting. There was barely time to get them back under cover before the first German reconnaissance planes arrived at daylight. Not until late today does the fog lift and the rescue begin.

Åndalsnes: After midnight the last available cruiser edged in, expecting to retrieve a 240 man read guard - and instead found almost 1,000 soldiers waiting on the dock. All of them crammed aboard, and by 2 a.m. on May 2 the last of Sickleforce’s survivors were away. Behind them they left 1,402 men of the 148th and 15th Brigades, either killed, wounded or POW. This afternoon when advance elements of the German 196th Division march into Åndalsnes, they found the port ruined by bombs of the Luftwaffe - and empty of British troops.

HMS Ark Royal and HMS Glorious, in company with battleship HMS Valiant, heavy cruiser HMS Berwick, and destroyers HMS Fury, HMS Encounter, HMS Escort, HMS Fearless, HMS Acheron, HMS Antelope, HMS Fortune, and HMS Kimberley continue to steam towards Scapa. HMS Furious in dockyard hands at Greenock. (Mark Horan)

ITALY: Rome: Mussolini proposes a bargain with Roosevelt; he will refrain from invading the USA if the President keeps America out of the war in Europe.

CANADA: Corvette HMCS Collingwood laid down Collingwood, Ontario. (Dave Shirlaw)


5 posted on 05/02/2010 6:28:18 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

.


6 posted on 05/02/2010 6:57:24 AM PDT by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
If you can pardon a brief digression:

As the allies evacuate Norway, and May 9 - 10 approaches with Hitler's Fall Gelb "Case Yellow," we might take note of Patrick Buchanan today on C-Span again defending his 2008 book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War."

I've argued here that Buchanan's logic, while interesting, is based on several false premises. Among them are:


7 posted on 05/02/2010 1:02:08 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
But that would also mean those parts of France which Germany conquered -- and in which Corporal Hitler had served -- during the First World War

No, even after the crushing defeat of France, Hitler never sought the return of the European German territories given to France after the first World War.

Hitler did seek the return of the German colonies split up among the winners.

Much of the carnage of World War II in Western (and even Central) Europe could have been avoided if the west had done two things - forced the Poles into accommodating the demands of Germany for free access to Danzig and a common front against the true enemy, and more importantly, put aside (with the American elite) the antisemitism that prevented giving refuge to the Jews.

8 posted on 05/02/2010 2:02:33 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
"Much of the carnage of World War II in Western (and even Central) Europe could have been avoided if the west had done two things - forced the Poles into accommodating the demands of Germany for free access to Danzig and a common front against the true enemy, and more importantly, put aside (with the American elite) the antisemitism that prevented giving refuge to the Jews."

On Poland -- Hitler was never going to find a better negotiating friend than Neville Chamberlain.
Chamberlain was fully prepared to appease any reasonable demands Hitler made.
But when Hitler scr*wed Chamberlain over, big time, in Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain said, in effect: "never again."

The problem, of course, is that Hitler was not a dependable negotiating partner.
Indeed, what Hitler wanted was war, and is reported as disappointed that he didn't get war with Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.

So the issue was never: "could war be avoided?" but rather, "how much do the allies have to give in before finally drawing a line that will lead to war?" In 1939 Chamberlain thought he had given up enough already, and would soon be ready to confront Hitler.

As for refuge for Jews: most of the refugees who arrived in the US during that period -- late 30s to early 40s -- were Jews.
President Roosevelt did everything he could to both increase the number of Jews arriving here and to encourage other countries to accept Jewish refugees.

And his program was successful, in that nearly all German Jews and most Austrian Jews did escape before the war.

But the problem was that most went to countries like Holland (i.e., Anne Frank), and once overrun by German armies had no further chances to escape Hitler's clutches.

About those millions of Polish and other Eastern European Jews who died in the Holocaust -- there was never a suggestion or plan for them to immigrate here before the war. And once war began, Hitler closed the door on them.

9 posted on 05/03/2010 5:30:15 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

http://worldwar2daybyday.blogspot.com/

Day 245 May 2, 1940

Vice-Admiral John Cunningham’s flotilla (3 cruisers, 5 destroyers & 3 transports) joins Mountbatten’s 4 destroyers off Namsos to evacuate General de Wiart’s 146th Brigade. However, yesterday’s evacuation at Åndalsnes alerted the Luftwaffe to British intentions at Namsos. Bombing runs start as the destroyers move up the Namsenfjord to begin embarking troops. HMS Maori is damaged by a near miss (5 lives lost, 18 wounded), delaying the operation until weather or nightfall blinds the Luftwaffe to their activities. In the evening heavy fog comes in and the destroyers safely ferry 5350 men out to the cruisers & transports overnight. 146th Brigade has lost 153 men killed or captured.

While the French & British are distracted by events in Norway and withdraw troops from the Western Front, Hitler prepares for his knockout punch against the Allies. 93 front-line divisions (including 10 armored & 6 motorised) are assembled to invade Northern France and the Low Countries (Fall Gelb).


10 posted on 05/03/2010 5:34:59 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: PAR35
PAR35: "No, even after the crushing defeat of France, Hitler never sought the return of the European German territories given to France after the first World War."

Oh really? Say, I'd hate to give away too much of the story before we even get there, but perhaps you can explain this map to us?


11 posted on 05/03/2010 10:38:41 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2991


12 posted on 05/03/2010 5:31:22 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
Oh, now I get it...

Since the German dictated Armistice Agreement does not say anything about annexing French territories to the Reich, therefore it didn't happen, right?

And since the Armistice Agreement says nothing about a Zone of German settlement, where return of French refugees was prohibited, that didn't happen either, right?

And since it said nothing about the areas of military administration in Belgium and Norther France, those also didn't happen, no doubt.

Or the Atlantic Wall zone, "entry prohibited," --
just like Sergent Schultz on Hogan's Hero's: "I see N O T H I N G." ;-)

13 posted on 05/04/2010 5:03:43 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Find something better than Wikipedia, and I’ll be happy to read it.

In the meantime, we can all celebrate how Roosevelt threw out the welcome mat to the Jews on the St. Louis, before they chose to seek refuge in the low countries.


14 posted on 05/04/2010 5:31:17 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
PAR35: "Find something better than Wikipedia, and I’ll be happy to read it."

Do you seriously deny that Hitler carved up France, confiscating whatever resources and territories he wanted, including hundreds of thousands of French slave laborers, and that's not even to mention the Jews?

Really, any suggestion that Hitler's treatment of France was somehow "fair" or "just" is ludicrous -- except, of course, in contrast to his genocide in Poland or elsewhere in the East.

And if you will not accept the word of Wikipedia on this, then I'd be curious to learn which historical "authorities" you do believe?

PAR35: "In the meantime, we can all celebrate how Roosevelt threw out the welcome mat to the Jews on the St. Louis, before they chose to seek refuge in the low countries."

Mark my words carefully on this: During that period, and for the only time in American history, the vast majority of refugees landing here were Jews.
Roosevelt did everything he legally could to increase that number, and to find other homes for those who could not reach America.

But he was highly restricted by both Congress and entrenched interests in the State Department, some of whom lied to him, exaggerating their efforts.
American anti-Semitism of that era can in no-way be compared to Nazi Germany, but it did exist to the point of restricting numbers who could legally enter.

The St. Louis incident happened in May 1939 -- months before Hitler's invasion of Poland, before any declarations of war, and a full year before Hitler's invasion of western Europe.
As a result of American officials' efforts:

At the time all appeared to be safe from Hitler's persecution -- which did not then include genocide.
Years later, after overrunning Holland, Belgium and France, Nazis murdered 254 of the St. Louis Jews.

So, in what sense was this Roosevelt's fault?

"In 1993 Gustav Schröder was posthumously named as one of the Righteous Among the Nations at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Israel in recognition of his heroism in finding safe haven for his passengers on the MS St. Louis."

15 posted on 05/05/2010 5:15:32 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
And if you will not accept the word of Wikipedia on this, then I'd be curious to learn which historical "authorities" you do believe?

Contemporary German documentation; legitimate academic publication; researched and documented popular press; Other material to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Poor quality wartime or postwar propaganda not accepted, nor are maps drawn for Wikipedia publication.

I looked to see if the Wikipedia material was properly sourced (some is) before questioning you, but this looked to be home cooked garbage.

16 posted on 05/05/2010 5:57:56 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
PAR35: "I looked to see if the Wikipedia material was properly sourced (some is) before questioning you, but this looked to be home cooked garbage."

You didn't look very hard. Go back and check again:

The Vichy France article

Look at the bottom. There you will find:

  1. 63 references listed.
  2. bibliography of 29 books and documents in English, French and German,
  3. 10 External links to other articles and data.
    This includes the French source for the map I posted.
    Note both of them below.

Please read the article in full, then tell us which parts you find not credible.

17 posted on 05/07/2010 8:54:37 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Show me where the article, as it exists now, says that the Germans annexed their former lands. This? “except for Alsace-Lorraine, a disputed territory which was placed under German administration (though not formally annexed).” Oops, no, that says the exact OPPOSITE of what your map does. (You can jump in and do a quick edit on the text, but that won’t make the annexation claim any more factual.)

The map is garbage, whatever language it is in.

And footnotes dealing with other aspects of the occupation are totally irrelevant. Point me to sources showing annexation.


18 posted on 05/07/2010 10:53:02 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
PAR35: "And footnotes dealing with other aspects of the occupation are totally irrelevant. Point me to sources showing annexation."

Response:
From the Vichy France article, Overview:

From "Vichy's racial policies and collaboration"

And from this History of Alsace-Loraine:

From same Alsace-Lorraine article: World War II:

The tong-term historical context here is that Alsace-Lorraine was annexed, un-annexed, re-annexed and re-un-annexed -- several times over the centuries.
The most recent annexation was by Germany in 1940, though some sources, instead of using the word "annexed," merely say it was "administered from Berlin."

Is there a practical distinction to be made between "annexed" and "administered from Berlin"?

Among the ways we can see that Nazis treated Alsace-Lorraine as their own territory include:

Finally, you seem to be highly sensitive to this particular word "annexed," and to any legalistic distinctions regarding it.

Can you explain why?

19 posted on 05/08/2010 2:44:04 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Finally, you seem to be highly sensitive to this particular word "annexed," and to any legalistic distinctions regarding it. Can you explain why?

Yes. Words have meaning. Some folks can make a living making sure that the correct word is used.

20 posted on 05/08/2010 3:31:19 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
PAR35: "Yes. Words have meaning. Some folks can make a living making sure that the correct word is used."

There seem to be many people -- many of them French, no doubt -- who can't understand the difference between the word "annexed" and what Germans did to Alsace-Loraine during W.W.II.

Possibly you could explain it?

21 posted on 05/08/2010 3:50:03 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

After the war, East Prussia got annexed. Saxony was occupied, with the shots called from Berlin. You can bet the locals could tell the difference.

Or to use an example closer to home. After World War I, the German territories of Alsace and Lorraine were annexed by the French. The Saar was occupied and administered by Paris.

Annexation is a legal act, and it has an objective meaning.

If there was organic union between Alsace & Lorraine, and the Greater German Reich, how many seats did each province get in the Reichstag?


22 posted on 05/08/2010 4:22:17 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PAR35; CougarGA7; Homer_J_Simpson
PAR35: "If there was organic union between Alsace & Lorraine, and the Greater German Reich, how many seats did each province get in the Reichstag?"

Good point.
Obviously we are debating semantics -- what exactly does the word "annexation" mean?
If Nazi documents did not use the word "annexed" regarding Alsace-Lorraine, was that territory in reality still annexed, or should other words be used to describe its status?

Well, let me propose a theory -- and this ties back into the previous discussion with CougarGA7 over:
"when did WWII start?", indeed,
"was there really a Second World War?"

  1. In 1870 France declared war (more than once) on Prussia (soon to be Germany), was defeated and so lost Alsace-Lorraine, annexed by the new Germany.
    Curiously, I see nowhere that Germans had ever declared war on France.

  2. In 1914, Germany declared war on France (along with Russia & Belgium), was defeated and so lost Alsace-Lorraine back to France.
    Curiously, neither France nor Russia & Belgium had ever declared war on Germany.

  3. The end of the Great War -- the First World War -- was legally marked by the Versailles Treaty of 1919.
    This treaty restored Alsace-Lorraine to France.

  4. But Germans never accepted the Versailles Treaty as legitimate.
    • Germans had fully expected that President Wilson's "Fourteen Points" meant Germany could keep most or all the territories it had conquered through 1918, especially in Poland, Russia and France.
    • Once German General Erich Ludendorf realized this was not to be the case, he immediately recommend the war be resumed.
    • But by then it was too late -- Germans were starving and the nation was in danger of collapse. Communists were rioting in the streets. Revolution ala Russia was in the air.
    • Ludendorf was fired.

  5. So Germany signed the Versailles Treaty, but those responsible were later assassinated.
    General Ludendorff joined with the new National Socialist Workers' Party and its firebrand leader, young Adolf Hitler, advocating renouncing Versailles.

    Please stay with me on this -- am keeping it as simple as possible...

  6. When Hitler came to power, he DID renounce Versailles.
    What does that mean?

    • Legally, the First World War resumes, just where it left off.

    • Germany's 1914 Declaration of War against France is reinstated.

    • Germany considers the pre-WWI legal status of Alsace-Lorraine restored -- in other words: with the Treaty renounced, Alsace-Lorraine is already part of Germany.

  7. In other words, one reason Hitler did not formally annex Alsace-Lorraine in 1940 was because, legally, he considered there was no need to do so.

  8. This also explains why, until Declaring War on the United States in December 1941, Hitler had declared war on nobody!
    No need to -- since with Versailles revoked, the previous state of war was already restored.

So, was Alsace-Lorraine annexed by Germany in 1940?

Yes because, when you look up the definition of the word "annex" it does not necessarily require a formal legal document:

Normal dictionary definitions:

And, legal definitions:


23 posted on 05/09/2010 9:17:28 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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