In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" bbolsoy@n
ospam.nospam wrote:
The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.

The loss of one ship was hardly a "major blow", and fighting
minor engagements for "two months" is hardly a credible
defense.

The Norwegian campaign basically gutted the Kriegsmarine for a few
months: numerous losses, and many more ships damaged. This was one of
the factors that kept Sealion being implausible.

Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
the guns or fort.

So a bunch of guys hiding in a fort survived long enough
to surrender.

Al, would you like me to make similar comments about (for example) the
wholly ineffective US defenders of Fort Drum, or Wake Island?

The US had the liberty of fighting far from its shores, with outposts
being lost: others were less fortunate

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk