quote:

ORIGINAL: Agema

Er, please. The idea that Britain was going to invade Norway is deep into the sorts of things Nazi apologists argue when trying to make out Hitler was just trying to proactively defend Germany from allied aggression.

quote:

Churchill thought the iron ore should be stopped if shipments from Norway resumed (it was on hiatus.) What is true is that amongst the plans to prevent it was occupying forces at the ports. He had no authority to carry this out, the British cabinet and PM had to debate the options and refused to invade a neutral country, so they took a lesser plan to lay mines around the relevant harbours. That was still a violation of Norwegian territory, and there was another when they liberated the British POWs on the Altmark in Norwegian waters. Whatever, those incidents are a long, long way from actually invading a neutral country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agema

I stated that the British violated Norwegian sovereignty, so I've not called it what it wasn't. Nor have I queried that the British (or Americans, or Soviets) generally kicked weaker countries into line when it suited them - nor has much changed in the last 60 years. The fact remains however that the British were not about to invade and occupy a neutral Norway at the point that Germany piled the troops in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

German merchants were entitled to ferry ore from Narvik just as British ones were entitled to ferry supplies from New York Harbor. Had Germans sent a submarine to mine the entrance in New York Harbor in 1940, USA would rightly regard this as an act of war against USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoyle

Entitled? In my mind, an enemy is not "entitled" to do anything that furthers their war effort against you. The Germans did not think the english were "entitled" to ferry supplies from New York Harbor. They just could not do anything to stop it. And if they could, they would not want bring the US into the war.