In many ways the benefits of Sedish (and Swiss) neutrality outweighed any military benefits that the Germans would have gained from occupation. But militarily, both countries would have been very difficult to conquer and keep subdued. Just imagine how many more trrops would have been required to garrison the two countries.
Yes, in both cases, the reality of the countries neutrality was far from the spirit of the concept, but the benefits to Germany is that they could acquire goods with less risk from enemy action than if they would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spidge  [font=Verdana]
Churchill "the visionary" (only a new member of the "War Cabinet" Nov 1939) wanted to mine Norwegian waters early in the war (Mid Nov 39) however Chamberlain & Halifax (surprise - surprise) refused. Mining of these waters did not then commence until early April 1940. |
I don't think that Chamberlain and Halifax were completely at fault on refusing this demand. By mining the Norwegian waters so early in the war, Britain risked both alienating the Norwegians, and possibly pushing them towards some sort of accord with the Germans, and focussing German attention towards the country earlier. And Churchill didn't exactly shine when it came down to the crunch. I honestly believe that his meddling in the military palnning played a major part in the reasons whu Britain did so badly in the Norwegian Campaign.
Quote:
|
Thailand capitulated to the Japanese and declared War on the US however Cordell Hull did not accept the declaration from the Ambassador.....Why?
|
The simplistic answer to that America could see that the declaration wasn't by Thailands own volition but under Japanese pressure.
One could compare it with the way that America viewed and acted towards Vichy France. Though technically at war with the country, America bent over backwards to try minimise atagonising Vichy, and instead tried there hardet to persuade it to come over to the Allies.