THE BRITISH STRIKE BACK IN NORWAY. Amid conflicting reports that Norway might be negotiating a capitulation to Germany, Britain has made it crystal clear Allied forces will fight to expel Hitler’s armies from Scandinavia. This morning’s bulletins on the radio bring some hopeful news. The ports of Trondheim and Bergen, seized by the Germans two days ago, have reportedly been captured by British naval forces, though this is unconfirmed. A broadcast from the B.B.C. last night claimed that British warships “appear to have routed” the Germans from Oslo Fjord, and are threatening an attack on Oslo itself, which had been seized by a small Nazi force on Tuesday. British marines are said to be driving a force of some 1,500 Germans out of the far northern ore port of Narvik. (But a United Press report Wednesday said British destroyers had been repulsed in an attack on Narvik Wednesday, with one ship sunk and a second grounded).
Meanwhile, a massive naval battle is taking place in open waters off Marstrand, Sweden, described by the Chicago Tribune’s Larry Rue as “the first major action between British and German warships since the Battle of Jutland.” According to Frank R. Kelley in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune, “powerful forces” of both navies fought Tuesday night in heavy seas and fog. One hopeful note about the naval battle -- the British are claiming to have inflicted “severe damage” on German forces all along the Norwegian coast, while the Germans, according to C.B.S. Berlin correspondent William Shirer, are saying nothing yet in that regard.
WILL THE NORWEGIANS SURRENDER? It can be hoped, too, that the British and French decision will toughen up the spines of some Norwegian politicians, who according to several reports asked the Nazis for “negotiations” Tuesday. The Chicago Tribune ran a bulletin from Stockholm in its Wednesday editions claiming that “Norway has decided to capitulate.” Reportedly the Norwegian parliament, which fled northward from Oslo to the small town of Elverum, appointed a committee of distinguished government figures “with the aim of negotiating an agreement with German authorities.”
An International News Service report says much the same thing, citing a dispatch from the semi-official Norwegian News Agency. The committee of three, it says, “will seek to win an agreement based on undisclosed demands which Premier Nygaardsvold outlined to the Storting [parliament] in last night’s secret session. Apparently, they were of such a nature that Norway might expect to retain some share of her sovereignty while preventing further bloodshed in what appeared to be futile resistance.”
But a late report this morning from Elverum says the Norwegians are fighting to keep the Germans out of the temporary capital, and that Premier Nygaardsvold has issued a proclamation reaffirming Norway’s determination to resist the invasion.
BIG STAKES IN NORWAY. Just how much might be riding on this new battle can be discerned from Raymond Daniell’s article in Wednesday’s New York Times. Mr. Daniell writes that “it is felt here [in London] that the destruction of the German fleet and the complete rout of German forces of occupation in Norway would disillusion Signor Mussolini about the infallibility of Herr Hitler and swing the Balkan States from the orbit of the Reich into that of the Allies.”
Then too, the Times story points out that if British sea power makes it too hard for Germany to maintain communications with her troops in Norway, Hitler might demand passage for Nazi forces through Swedish territory. “If Sweden is faced with the choice of granting or refusing such a demand, she might be forced into the war, willy nilly,” says Mr. Daniell.
“THE BALLOON HAS GONE UP.” Edward Angly paraphrases in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune the ordinary Briton’s reaction to this week’s news -- “The balloon has gone up; the war has really started.” He explains that “when the balloon goes up” has been the slang term in Britain and France lately to describe when the large-scale fighting gets going. Mr. Angly writes from London that the repercussions of Germany’s move into Scandinavia are expected to be widespread --
“That the flames of this war may spread quickly and with fury to other European areas was widely expected this morning by those who stay up at night and direct Allied strategy while the normal citizen gets his usual eight hours sleep....Near midnight and after, while Belgium kept mum and Holland cancelled all leaves for her mobilized men, the British expeditionary force and the Royal Air Force in France announced that all further leaves were cancelled until further notice....With Denmark in Germany’s control ‘under protest’ and Norway a new-found battleground for the struggle between the Nazi dictatorship and the democracies, London went to bed wondering what would be the fate of Sweden. Communications with that country, as with all the rest of Scandinavia, had been cut off during the swift-moving events of yesterday. Early this morning it was reported that Fuehrer Adolf Hitler had given Sweden the alternative of accepting German ‘protection’ or of being invaded by Nazi troops as Denmark and part of Norway were invaded yesterday.”
Not only Sweden but Finland might be in renewed danger. A United Press report Wednesday, quoting the Stockholm radio, says that Soviet Russia has made “new demands” on Finland for economic concessions. It looks more likely than ever like Stalin will do with Finland what Hitler did with Czecho-Slovakia a year ago, and the German attack on Scandinavia will give him cover to seize the rest of Finland without interference from the Allies.
WHAT IF GERMANY SUCCEEDS IN THE NORTH? Major George Fielding Eliot describes how German control of Norway could damage to the Allied cause, in a Wednesday New York Herald Tribune commentary --
“If the Germans are able to make good their lodgement in Norway, then the war seems likely to take a turn unfavorable to the Allied cause, for from the Norwegian bases on the open Atlantic a great part, at least, of the vital sea lanes of the British Isles are open to attack by submarine and surface raiders.”
WHY NORWAY, WHY NOW? (II). Barnet Nover offers some answers in his Washington Post column Wednesday --
“Why did [Hitler] choose Norway rather than the Low Countries or the Balkans as the scene of his latest blitzkrieg?....Hitler is on the march because now as throughout the period since he came into power he is a man in a hurry. And this time he cannot wait because he cannot afford to wait, particularly with the Allies showing every determination to to plug up every loophole in the blockade. It was not, therefore, the action of the Allies in mining Norwegian territorial waters which was responsible for the assault on Norway -- that is only the Nazi excuse for an action the German government must have planned long ago. More likely what led Hitler to strike was the increasing clamor of British and French public opinion for a more vigorous prosecution of the war, the change of government in France, the increased authority of Winston Churchill in England and other straws showing which way the wind is blowing in Allied lands. For Germany, to lose the initiative is to lose the war. And this week, as so often in the past, it was Germany which took the initiative.”
Mr. Nover notes that there are economic advantages to an occupation of Norway, in preventing the Swedish ore shipments from being cut off -- “it places valuable resources within reach of the Reich without the necessity of having to pay for them.” But beyond the economic advantages are further strategic opportunities. “If Germany succeeds in overrunning Norway and beating off Allied assistance to that country, she will have submarine bases very close to British waters. The attack on Norway presages the beginning of the long-delayed offensive against Great Britain.”
No comments:
Post a Comment