History questions not worth their own thread V

[Bowsling]

The liberation of the Netherlands, executed by the not-actually-all-that-Canadian Canadian Army, is a pretty big deal here for exactly that reason. And that's an overland invasion from France.

 

[History_Buff]

Now, why wasn't attempted during WWI? England seemed more willing to try zany plans in that round, and she seemed to have better control of the North Sea, without so many threats of aircraft or petroleum requirements. Or was it just that the whole amphibious thing pretty was discredited after Galipoli?

 

[ace99]

and she seemed to have better control of the North Sea

I don't think that's true.

 

[Lord Baal]

The liberation of the Netherlands, executed by the not-actually-all-that-Canadian Canadian Army, is a pretty big deal here for exactly that reason. And that's an overland invasion from France.

An overland invasion from France is actually considerably easier to do than any of the alternatives.

 

[Dachs]

Now, why wasn't attempted during WWI? England seemed more willing to try zany plans in that round, and she seemed to have better control of the North Sea, without so many threats of aircraft or petroleum requirements. Or was it just that the whole amphibious thing pretty was discredited after Galipoli?

I don't think that's true.

This.

The Royal Navy had scotched any plan other than distant blockade as unnecessarily risky by 1911. Only the perpetually crazy Churchill and out-of-touch retread admirals still thought of the so-called Borkum Plan - not an all-out invasion, but, as mentioned before, attacks on Helgoland and Borkum to use them to destroy the High Seas Fleet - as an even remotely good idea.

In the Eurasian War alternate history I wrote, the British decide to resort to a variant on the Borkum Plan in 1916 due in significant part to the lack of a Russian front for the Germans and an Anglo-French plan to widen the war into the Low Countries and bypass the German fortifications in the West. It is a spectacular failure.

 

[Domen]

The liberation of the Netherlands, executed by the not-actually-all-that-Canadian Canadian Army, is a pretty big deal here for exactly that reason. And that's an overland invasion from France.

As far as I know important role in the liberation of the Netherlands was also played by 1st Polish Armoured Division:

 

[r16]

there is this plan by Churchill to up-armour old battleships to ram into the Baltic , before May 1940 ı believe . Apart from saving his reputation by succeding this time in a March 18, 1915 type operation , it also seemingly aimed to bring Sweden into war .

a wikipedia link

 

[ParkCungHee]

there is this plan by Churchill to up-armour old battleships to ram into the Baltic , before May 1940 ı believe . Apart from saving his reputation by succeding this time in a March 18, 1915 type operation , it also seemingly aimed to bring Sweden into war .

The horrible thing is I honestly can't guess on which side.

 

[innonimatu]

Poland had only two ways to go at that time.

1) Reform itself and fight (then either win and become strong again or lose its independence).
2) Continue to exist as a vegetable-protectorate of one or more of neighbouring powers.

Being a protectorate can be a good option if you play your cards right. Mostly make sure you're a protectorate of the most powerful state around, and try to avoid having wars fought on your territory.

Historically Central and Eastern Europe was a good geographic position for trade but it sucked for war: too many wars after the middle ages.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Like Ragusa, until the French came.

 

[Domen]

and try to avoid having wars fought on your territory.

In case of Poland - impossible. Too vast territory and location between various rival absolute monarchies, which wanted to fight each other.

But indeed - the conservative part of Polish magnatery / nobility who opposed any reforms, supported their view with similar argument as you mentioned above. According to those conservative nobles, Poland would be able to avoid wars by being militarily weak and "servile" to one of neighbouring powers.

However, as the reality proved, it was not the case. Even in period when Russia started to intrude into Polish internal affairs (since the Great Northern War - which was fought mostly on Polish territory, even though Poland officially did not take part in that conflict) many wars were fought on Polish territory.

At that time even during peacetime, foreign armies marching through territory = devastation. Armies had a habit of robbing villages of food and animals.

Also destroying landed property of your political opposition was a method to force them to change sides of the conflict.

For example during the Great Northern War Swedish forces destroyed (burned) 100 villages of one of Polish magnates, just because he supported Russia instead of Sweden. Russian forces were doing the same with villages belonging to Polish magnates who supported Sweden... And peasants suffered the most...

Being a protectorate can be a good option if you play your cards right.

The problem is that Russia was hampering any attempts of reforms in Poland at that time. It was easy thanks to anachronistic element in Polish political system - i.e. Liberum Veto, thanks to which one deputy could prevent an act being enacted by the Parliament. With help of just several corruptible magnates and their cliches, Russia was able to control legislature in Poland - and Russian Emperors wanted to make sure that Poland preserves its anachronistic solutions in legislature (chiefly Liberum Veto - which worked well as long as Polish deputies were patriotic, not corruptible and were not working for the benefit of foreign Royal Courts).

Liberum Veto - when it was invented - was not such a bad idea. And for the first 150 years of its existence, it was not used for wrongdoings against the "reason of state". But at that time (16th century) nobody predicted that it could be exploited for such filthy wrongdoings and self-interests in the future.

It was not a good option to be a protectorate in such situation, because it meant being sentenced to anachronism - as Russia wanted Poland to remain anachronistic (both in political and military terms). Economic development of the country was also being hampered by its political anachronism.

Being a protectorate was relatively good for the Congress Kingdom of Poland in period 1815 - 1830 - at that time Russia was much less intruding into Polish internal affairs than prior to Partitions (perhaps learning from their own mistakes). The Congress Kingdom was even allowed to have its own, modern army.

During period 1815 - 1830 the Congress Kingdom of Poland experienced a relatively rapid economic growth under Aleksander Wielopolski.

Also Polish culture and Polish language enjoyed more liberties in the Congress Kingdom, than in the Prussian-occupied part of Poland. Only the Austrian Partition (i.e. Galicia) experienced more cultural liberties and better freedom of education than the Congress Kingdom. But Galicia - contrary to the Congress Kingdom - was not experiencing such fast economic growth as the other two Partitions (Prussian, aka the Grand Duchy of Poznan, and Russian - the Kingdom of Poland).

So in period 1815 - 1830 Russian "occupation zone" enjoyed perhaps the best quality of life out of all three occupation zones.

But the Congress Kingdom nevertheless rebelled against the Russian Empire in 1830 (the November Uprising, which later turned into a regular war) - and it had some chance to win that war, despite the Russian numerical superiority. But unfortunately it lost. After the war of 1830 - 1831, Polish internal autonomy was suppressed by Russia, Polish army was dissolved, various repressions imposed on Poland. The next uprising (1863 - 1864) was fought mainly by irregular partisans.

Historically Central and Eastern Europe was a good geographic position for trade but it sucked for war: too many wars after the middle ages.

Yeah. But as long as you have no any huge quantities of your own export goods, you are mostly involved in transit trade rather than export abroad.

Poland started exporting her own, "made in Poland" products on large scale in the 14th century, before that it was mostly involved in transit trade.

 

[say1988]

As far as I know important role in the liberation of the Netherlands was also played by 1st Polish Armoured Division:

One of the aforementioned not-very-Canadian parts of the First Canadian Army.

 

[Domen]

BTW - the Constitution of May 3, 1791, which abolished Liberum Veto (among many other important reforms it introduced), was enacted when some of the most conservative deputies were on vacations (Easter holidays) - and thus could not protest against it.

One of the aforementioned not-very-Canadian parts of the First Canadian Army.

Oh, OK. I forgot it was part of the First Canadian, rather than some British one.

 

[Lord Baal]

The horrible thing is I honestly can't guess on which side.

Britain and France had several different plans for an invasion of Sweden and/or Norway during the period before the fall of France. Most of them entailed ocupying Narvik and the area of northern Sweden where most of Germany's iron ore came from. Sweden and Norway both refused repeated requests from Britain and France for them to either enter the war on the Allied side or allow the Allies to cross their territory to defend Finland from the Soviets out of fear that it would provoke a German invasion in response. The British plans were known to the Germans, and largely inspired their own invasion of Norway.

The fall of Norway to Germany and Finland's alliance with the latter left Sweden in a position that was less free but less dangerous than the period of the Phoney War. The Swedes had never intended on joining either side in the war, but they were wary that their obvious strategic importance would provoke some sort of military response from either side if they considered Sweden too valuable to the Germans; the Germans would invade to protect the ore they needed, the Allies might invade to keep the Germans from getting it. Becoming too friendly with either side might make the other pre-empt.

Being completely surrounded by Germany and its allies counterintuitively made things simpler for the Swedes. If there was no risk of an Allied takeover of Sweden's mining operations - and as long as the shipments continued to arrive in Germany - the Nazis had no reason to waste men and equipment on an attack on Sweden, especially since the Swedes seemed to be very willing to acquiesce to Nazi demands. They allowed German troops in Norway to transit through Sweden ont heir way to Finland and Germany, for example.

Unbeknownst to the Germans, however, the Swedes were tapping their communications and passing everything they learnt on to the British, as well as secretly training Norwegian and Danish refugees to act as "police" - guerillas, or, more often, conventional forces in an Allied invasion - in those countries in the future. Sweden also appeared very close to officially joining the war as an Allied Power in 1945, with plans to launch an invasion of Norway and Denmark from Swedish soil. The Swedes also allowed Allied aircraft the use of Swedish airbases.

It seems obvious, in hindsight, that Sweden was sympathetic to the Allies through the whole duration of the war, but that it's main goal was always to avoid invasion and occupation itself. An actual invasion by Britain could have completely toppled that faction of Sweden's government in favour of the small pro-Nazi faction, however, which would obviously have been disastrous. Sweden actually ate a huge amount of the Nazi empire's incredibly important currency and gold reserves by charging ridiculously-high - so-called "smuggler's" - prices for its iron ore, which stretched the already-rotten German economy. A Sweden under German occupation or a puppet-regime would doubtless have acquiesced to German demands far more easily, and would have contributed troops to, at the very least, the Siege of Leningrad. They might have tipped the balance there. This might also have forced the Soviets to finish off Finland and march into Sweden and further into Norway during 1944-45, with potentially dire effects on Scandinavia's post-War political structures. Not to mentions the literally millions of Allied soldiers and European refugees, especially Jews, who only survived the war due to Swedish willingness to anger the Nazis by aiding their escapes and providing a safe harbour.

In other word, keep Sir Winston at the lecturn giving speeches, and far away from any strategic planning!

 

[r16]

The horrible thing is I honestly can't guess on which side.

while Churchill is famous for letting people fight on the opposite , ı can say this time it's highly probable that he wanted Sweden against Germany .

as amply explained by Lord Baal .

 

[dutchfire]

Not to mentions the literally millions of Allied soldiers and European refugees, especially Jews, who only survived the war due to Swedish willingness to anger the Nazis by aiding their escapes and providing a safe harbour.

And the nuclear scientists who escaped from Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Institute via Sweden to the UK/US to work on the bomb.

 

[History_Buff]

How the devil did this thread wind up off the first page?

Anyway, time for a question that may not have a real answer: why is modern Germany so much more populous than modern France, particularly since the latter is now quite a bit larger than the former. If we go back to the days of Rome (as all European history questions probably do eventually), I would expect that the area now enclosed by modern France would have had quite few more people in it, being more connected to the prosperous Mediterranean basin.

Am I wrong in that assumption, and (the area of modern) Germany has just always had more people in it? Was there a point when the French population precipitously declined? Or did the German population just slowly but continuously outgrow the one in France? Do we even have accurate population figures to attempt answering this?

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

How the devil did this thread wind up off the first page?

Anyway, time for a question that may not have a real answer: why is modern Germany so much more populous than modern France, particularly since the latter is now quite a bit larger than the former. If we go back to the days of Rome (as all European history questions probably do eventually), I would expect that the area now enclosed by modern France would have had quite few more people in it, being more connected to the prosperous Mediterranean basin.

Am I wrong in that assumption, and (the area of modern) Germany has just always had more people in it? Was there a point when the French population precipitously declined? Or did the German population just slowly but continuously outgrow the one in France? Do we even have accurate population figures to attempt answering this?

Because who actually wants to sleep with somebody from France? Perfume doesn't cover every smell...

 

[sophie]

Because who actually wants to sleep with somebody from France? Perfume doesn't cover every smell...

This actually

France has not had replacement reproduction numbers for much of the 20th century. Germany, by contrast has.

As for your reference to Roman times. The Black Death would have eliminated any of those residual advantages if they even had existed by then.

 

[madviking]

EDIT: nevermind.