EU as joke (modified)

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

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".

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

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:20:51 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" news@jrwly
nch.demon.co.uk wrote:
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.

So the defenders were tremulous cowards who should be mocked? Don't
think so, from what I've read; seems like they fought as long as they
had any hope for.

What did the Norwegians fail to do?

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.

Neither should they be accused of casual surrender. The truth lies
somewhere in between.

The Norwegians weren't a difficult conquest for Germany, but they did
put up a fight and managed to bite back hard a few times before being
overwhelmed (and kept an active resistance through the war)

What more should they have done?

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

So long as by 'UK' you include the rest of the Commonwealth... but then
look at a map and see how much of a globe those three powers controlled,
and ask what you can expect from a small, sparsely-populated country on
the wrong end of mechanised warfare.

--
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

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...

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.


What "self rule"?

Weren't you just claiming to be "quite well informed"
on the issue?


The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

Wrong.

I didn't expect you to adhere to that, no.


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to.
Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed
under international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
camps for terrorists.

Can you site any of that evidence?

Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?


"Shared by many" is not an issue, what
some sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us
from defending ourselves.

"Think" is perhaps a key issue here.


The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

[..]

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.


That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?


The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

No, it had, and has, virtually no support in the US, including
both houses or Congress.

If it had no support the US would never had been a major
contributor to its framework. There is certainly a
substantial number of americans who feel Bush is
going the wrong way on this, and that this kind of
isolationism will ultimately only damage US influence
and intersts in the world.


Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

That is ridiculous.

We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:

http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html


Regards...

A "welfare state" is hardly something to be proud of. It merely
means that a lot of people who choose not to work are
supported by those who do.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

I also know from my own experience that if a person feels
respected and welcomed they are usually more productive
and better contributes to their suroundings.


In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.

You might want to take a look at the unemployment rates
of both countries again.


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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:
"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).

And later resurfaced I believe. Admiral Hipper, the first
cruiser, was comissioned in april 1939 with Blucher in sep
1939. However she was delayed because of a series of
modernifications she underwent in the 1939/40 winter.

Neither the Prinz Eugen, Lutzow or Seydlitz had been built
or comissioned at the time.


Regards...

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:17:56 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.

What "self rule"?

Weren't you just claiming to be "quite well informed"
on the issue?

Show me an effective, independent Palestinian State and
I will concede self rule. Until then it is simply an empty,
political promise.

The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.

The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

Wrong.

I didn't expect you to adhere to that, no.

Because I am correct.

No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to.
Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed
under international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.

You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
camps for terrorists.

Can you site any of that evidence?

Terrorist camps, billions of dollars, and prisoner
statements. And there is quite a bit more to come.

Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?

The Baathists were celebrating

"Shared by many" is not an issue, what
some sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us
from defending ourselves.

"Think" is perhaps a key issue here.

We think, then act. Europe thinks, then hides.

The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool. The structure
of the questions

In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias. The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University. The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

If it had no support the US would never had been a major
contributor to its framework. There is certainly a
substantial number of americans who feel Bush is
going the wrong way on this, and that this kind of
isolationism will ultimately only damage US influence
and intersts in the world.

You hire several of our "think tanks" to design a structure,
and then argue that we were "heavily involved". The
US Government will never ratify such an anti-US agreement.
Ex-president Clinton signed it on his last day in office, along
with pardons for his convict buddies and a lot of other utterly
ridiculous things. It did NOT signify support for the ICC in the
US. Our Congress would never agree to cede our
sovereignty.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

It promotes ridiculously high taxation, a loss of freedom,
and supporting people who do not feel the need to work
for a living.

I also know from my own experience that if a person feels
respected and welcomed they are usually more productive
and better contributes to their suroundings.

I, of course, know nothing of your experiences, by that would
be a single instance.

In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.

You might want to take a look at the unemployment rates
of both countries again.

Regards...

True, ours are fact based, not fantasy.

Al Minyard

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:
"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).

And later resurfaced I believe.

Indeed, it was bombed in port and the hulk was raised in 1943
and used as a floating battery

Admiral Hipper, the first
cruiser, was comissioned in april 1939 with Blucher in sep
1939. However she was delayed because of a series of
modernifications she underwent in the 1939/40 winter.


Hipper served in the Norwegian campaign, she was engaged and
rammed by the British destroyer Glowworm (which blew up),
putting a 120ft gash in her side. She was able to continue on to
Trondheim, where she silenced the only shore battery that opened fire.

Neither the Prinz Eugen, Lutzow or Seydlitz had been built
or comissioned at the time.


Prinz Eugen was launched in August 1938 but was still fitting out
at the time of the Norwegian campaign. This was delayed by
damage received in an air raid in July 1940 and she didnt
commission until August 1940

Seydlitz was launched in 1939 but never completed. Work was halted
in 1942 when the plan was changed to converting her into a
carrier but this was never completed and she was scuttled
at Konigsberg in March 45

Keith