Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
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",
For the raid on Oslo it was. Half of the invasion force for
Oslo went down with it, including much of the command
structures, including Gestapo, that were to set up the
occupation in Norway.
Not only was the Blucher the flagship of the operation,
it was the German navy's newest and most modern battle ship,
thus the navy's pride.
and fighting
minor engagements for "two months" is hardly a credible
defense.
Norway hardly had a credible defence, continously downforced
since WW1 due to hard economic pressure and based on old
doctrines and hardware, noone is disputing that.
Besides noone expected an invasion (except Quisling of course)
similar to the US positon before Perl Harbor.
The "resistance" in both France and Norway has been
grossly over rated.
In what way?
How many Norwegians actually shot
at the Germans?
It's perhaps a bit naive to rate undrground resistance
by the number of shots fired.
Resistance work ranged from organised civilian opposition
towards the Nazi regime and its values to providing vital
intelligence data and sabotaging the Germans throught
the war. Some fled to Britain where they joined the Norwegian
units which had escaped the invasion and fought from there.
The Rukan heavywater raid is particulatly interesting. A
group of Norwegian resitance fighters infiltrated the most
heavily guarded structure in occupied Europe and blew up the
heavywater plant. It effectively stopped the Germans atomic
bomb program and is regared as one of the most important
sabotage actions in history.
Not a single shot was fired in the operation.
In 1965 Kirk Douglas starred in "The Heroes of Telemark"
which portaits that mission and you can pick up Thomas
Gallaghers novel "Assault on Norway" for an ever better story.
The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
from Oslo.
One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "escape from Oslo"
Sunk one heavy cruiser, damaged or badly damaged another
two and some smaller vessles. Shot down 6 He 111´s and
Me 110's, damaged another two cruisers and sunk a couple
of troopships in other fights up and down the coast on
that first day.
Wow, shot down 6 aircraft, what a devastating defense.
If I was to follow your logic it seems Perl Harbor shows
that the US didn't have much of a "devestating" defence either.
It wasn't prepared (even though it should have been) and it
ignored vital tell-tale signals prior to the attack. One
can speculate what would've happend if they had hit the US
mainland with a full scaled invasion force and were subjected
to the same level of intelligence.
Besides at the brink of WW2 the German land and air forces
were superior to anything in the world.
Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?
We won the war, with the staunch help of the Brits.
You also "won the war" because every occupied country
provided you with invaluable support and intelligence, and
you had the luxury to mobilise whatever means you had because
you weren't invaded and occupied.
Would the US ever have joined the war if the Japanese
hadnt attacked you think?
Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.
Not in the narrow Norwegian fjords. Blucher was sunk
(and it's attack group halted) by three 28cm Krupp's
(built in 1892) a couple of 15cm and 5.7cm guns and
two torpedoes.
Hardly prevented the invasion.
That wasn't your argument. You claimed that fixed forts
have been inaffective since WW1, yet here, in WW2, a small,
severly undermanned and outdated fort managed to halt
a highly modern and capable invasionfleet with airsupport.
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.
Surviving, by whatever means, for as long as you can
is something that tend to characerise combat, yes.
Besides the guns weren't digged into the mountain, but
was open facilities with little protection:
http://it-
student.hivolda.no/prosjekt/v99/norske_kystfestninger/grafikk/mose
s3.JPG
So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.
We would hardly run for the hills. Any attacker from
the north or north east (the old Soviet) would have
a difficult time traversing the thundras or landing
by sea. The most effective tactic would be a massive
airlift, but it's hard to land an invation force when
the air runaways are disabled..
Regards...
Well, you DID run for the hills when the Germans
showed up. The Germans simply walked into
Oslo, and the airfield around it.
Actually, here in Oslo, people stood on the sidewalks of Karl
Johan street watching the Germans marching up the street.
Some weren't sure to believe what we've had heard on the
radio that morning, when Quisling, announcing the new
goverment, told us to greet the Germans as our new friend
and ally.
Regards...