EU as joke (modified)

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:

The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost
a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based
defences.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into
Oslo.

At some point you migth have picked up the term "Quisling"
which, you might find in your dictionary, is synonymous
with "treason". It stems from the fact that in 1940 Vidkun
Quisling, the former minister of defense, helped the
Germans to prepare the invation.

So you think that the fact that many Norwegians supported
the Nazis makes up for your rapid retreat and surrender??
Strange logic there.


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 "resistance" in both France and Norway has been
grossly over rated. How many Norwegians actually shot
at the Germans?

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.

Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

We won the war, with the staunch help of the Brits.


Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
and very expensive to operate.

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.

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.

The larger Oslofjord:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/SONKAR3.gif


And crop of Drøbaksundet (topmost), where Blucher
was sunk:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/A-702.jpg


That narrow pass is only 400-500 meters accross, so
you can imagine what kind of damage a few well placed
guns will do.


Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
There are very few tactical milletary installations,
as with the south in general. The war is fought up
north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
invation force would have to fight its way through
first.

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.

Al Minyard

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

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:20:51 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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.

Most of the damage was done by the RN, IIRC.

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?

Those were indeed defeats. And you can throw in Battan, etc.

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

True, but those folks should not claim to have had major successes against
either the Nazis or the Japanese.

Russia, the UK, and the US did the vast majority of the heavy lifting.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:

The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost
a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based
defences.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into
Oslo.

At some point you migth have picked up the term "Quisling"
which, you might find in your dictionary, is synonymous
with "treason". It stems from the fact that in 1940 Vidkun
Quisling, the former minister of defense, helped the
Germans to prepare the invation.

So you think that the fact that many Norwegians supported
the Nazis makes up for your rapid retreat and surrender??
Strange logic there.

So you think that the fact that a few Norwegians supported nasjonal
samling means that "many" of them did? If you know so embarrassingly
little of Norway, you just make a fool out of yourself, you know.



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 "resistance" in both France and Norway has been
grossly over rated. How many Norwegians actually shot
at the Germans?

You tell me, how many Norwegians did *not* shoot at the Germans?


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.

Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

We won the war, with the staunch help of the Brits.

Yes, and I'm sure you think it was good that you commies won. The
people of eastern Europe will not agree with you. A tragedy.



Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
and very expensive to operate.

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.

Evidently, it caused serious problems for the Germans.

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.

I'm sure a superman like you, Al, would never surrender no matter how
many times you were killed.

The larger Oslofjord:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/SONKAR3.gif


And crop of Drøbaksundet (topmost), where Blucher
was sunk:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/A-702.jpg


That narrow pass is only 400-500 meters accross, so
you can imagine what kind of damage a few well placed
guns will do.


Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
There are very few tactical milletary installations,
as with the south in general. The war is fought up
north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
invation force would have to fight its way through
first.

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.

Al Minyard

I do like your motto in life though, Al: "Never ever let reality come
in your way".

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...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard wrote in
:

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.


Erm no

The Blucher was a heavy cruiser (Schwere Kreuzer) and while
its loss was serious it had 4 sister ships, one of which was sold
to the USSR in 1940 (and sunk by the Luftwaffe in 1941).

Keith