Hitler’s Pre-Emptive War: The Battle for Norway, 1940 by Henrik Lunde (popular e readers .TXT) 📗

request, Fleischer demanded written assurances that there would be no sudden withdrawal of aircraft and pilots. Fleischer also rejected the use of Allied troops to clear snow at Bardufoss. He no doubt thought they could be used to better purpose somewhere else. According to some, the meeting was at times heated but in the end, Fleischer agreed to British use of the airfield, arranged for a workforce to clear the field, and provided a battalion as protection. Victor MacClure writes that Fleischer’s agreement was contingent on his chief-of-staff going to Harstad to present Fleischer’s conditions to Admiral Cork.21 Ash, while not mentioning any demands by Fleischer for his chief of staff to be taken to see Admiral Cork, also describes the meeting as tense and Fleischer as “completely intransigent” and says that he made it “plain that his intransigence would continue until he had evidence of some Allied will to fight.”22 Ash, who describes Fleischer as “resentful and uncooperative,” notes that the general had some good reasons for his bitterness. Moulton writes that the British account is denied by Lindbäck-Larsen who termed it inaccurate and insulting.

Fleischer’s distrust reached a point where he questioned the motives of Béthouart, an officer he had worked well with from the outset. In late May, Béthouart recommended that the French forces north of Rombakfjord be moved to Narvik and replaced by the Norwegian battalion that had participated in the capture of that city. Fleischer saw in this recommendation an Allied attempt to further shift the burden of fighting to the Norwegians while sparing their own forces and he refused. Béthouart’s recommendation had a different motive. He had just learned about the planned evacuation and was concerned that a precipitous withdrawal of French forces from the northern front would leave the Norwegian right flank wide open.

The campaign in Norway is a textbook example of what to avoid when multi-national forces are involved in joint operations. There are numerous examples of improper behavior on both sides and it was naïve for Norwegians to expect that their own objectives should be reflected in all cases in those of a world power like Great Britain. The Allies were involved in the beginnings of a giant struggle that had worldwide implications while the Norwegian leadership was more concerned about what happened in Norway.

Relations between Ruge and Fleischer

Hovland writes that Fleischer learned about the new Norwegian administrative and military command relationships in North Norway from Ruge at their meeting with Auchinleck. It is strange that Fleischer could not tell from the meeting with Ruge on May 6, and the document issued the same day by HOK, that he was no longer commander-in-chief but would continue to direct military operations against Narvik. Fleischer’s reaction to the new arrangements, as well as other episodes, suggests that he was a person who allowed his ego and pride to cloud his judgment. Fleischer’s apparent unwillingness to confront people directly on critical issues may have contributed to some of the already mentioned misunderstandings that characterized the campaign. His unwillingness to deal directly with his subordinate commanders at the critical time of the invasion is a most glaring illustration. However, there are other examples such as the uncertainty about his wishes when it came to the positioning of defensive installations in Narvik before the attack, confusion about the movement of Alta Bn in the fighting at Gratangen, General Béthouart’s understanding that parts of the 7th Brigade was under French command in early May, and the misunderstandings that arose between Fleischer and Getz about the destruction of lines of communications. So many examples of misunderstandings are difficult to explain except for the possibility that Fleischer may not have made himself clear.

General Fleischer wrote a protest letter addressed to the Defense Minister on May 17. The letter was a direct challenge to the competency, if not the authority, of General Ruge, Admiral Diesen, and the government. It is a damaging indictment of the government’s decision, scheduled to become effective by a Royal Proclamation the following day. The appropriateness of the government taking over the civil administrative apparatus in North Norway is questioned, and Fleischer claims this would weaken the war effort. He suggests that the government’s role be limited to foreign relations, the securing of resources from overseas, and dealings with those parts of the country that were already occupied.

Fleischer also challenged what he perceived as an undermining of his sole authority for conducting operations by removing the naval and air forces from his direct control. He maintained that operations in North Norway had to be viewed as a single effort and any weakening of his central authority would be damaging, both logistically and operationally. A part of his letter is worth quoting in view of his own failure for five weeks to meet with British commanders and to establish effective cooperation with them:

Since the joint command of North Norway must rest with the Commander-in-Chief [General Fleischer], the negotiations with the Allied forces about joint operations in North Norway must absolutely remain with the Commander-in-Chief. It is difficult enough to get the Allies to conduct effective operations with Norwegian military forces. The prerequisite for any hope of obtaining such cooperation is that there is no doubt whom has operational command. Moreover, those issues that the operational commanders cannot decide or reach agreement on must be handled on the diplomatic level between the respective governments. Any mixing of operational command and diplomatic negotiations will lead to tragedies as such mixtures always do in war.23

He appears to be saying that there was no good alternative to his continuing as commander-in-chief in all matters, military and civilian. He also appears to view the King, Government, and the commanders of the military services as guests in his domain who were welcomed as long as they remained inactive.

The government’s decision to take over their normal civil administrative functions in the three northern provinces rather than work through the system established by Fleischer at the outset of the war was probably not the