[spidge]

Originally Posted by Kyt

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.

I reserve my judgement on the Swiss however the Swedes were in a no win situation. With Germans troops in Norway, Finland & Denmark, their people would have virtually been starved into submission.

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.

Good point however there were political discussions with Norway by the British as to the possibility of action against them by Germany. Chamberlain and more importantly Halifax at this early stage were still looking for a way out and were not prepared to be pro active in Scandinavia.

And Churchill didn't exactly shine when it came down to the crunch. I honestly believe that his meddling in the military planning played a major part in the reasons why Britain did so badly in the Norwegian Campaign.

Churchill admittedly would think things through to the end before worrying about the middle however his objective planning could be said to be sound.

The later attempts to secure Norway were flawed by Germany knowing of their intentions.

His Greek campaign was credible on paper however he did not have sufficient forces to do it at the time. Result: Greece = Loss, Crete = Loss, North Africa a debacle.

The simplistic answer to that America could see that the declaration wasn't by Thailands own volition but under Japanese pressure.

I don't think it is as simplistic as that. Thailand had embarked on a land grab by taking advantage of the European situation. Japan was most definitely involved politically with Thailand Prime Minister Lang Pipul before December 8th 1941, as he saw the Japanese as the eventual winners of the conflict. The Thai people may not have wanted war however after Lang Pipul took dictatorial control of Thailand he wanted to be part of the spoils and his people did not have a choice.