Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Norway

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Freightshaker View Post
    Churchill and Parliament were not particularly concerned about world opinion.
    I'm sure they were very concerned about US opinion.
    A wild liberal appears! Conservative uses logical reasoning and empirical evidence! It's super effective! Wild liberal faints.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Destroyer25 View Post
      I'm sure they were very concerned about US opinion.
      More like Roosevelt's opinion. Mers/Oran is said to have actually helped their chances with US's involvement.
      "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Destroyer25 View Post
        I'm sure they were very concerned about US opinion.
        Then they had no worries that invading a neutral nation would affect that opinion since the operation was planned and partially put into action.
        If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Purist View Post
          Winter shipments via Narvik are simply cut by the British "Distant Blockade' policy, Norway's neutrality would mean little in the end and it was certainly not going to declare war over this issue. The Germans can't do much about it other than to occupy Norway.
          Pardon? How will a distant blockade interrupt coastal shipping?

          One way or another Germany was going to have to occupy Norway in order to secure the winter route. if left neutral, the Germans are even more tightly blockaded and the British have less pressure against themslves. Further, the lack of German bases in the Arctic would have allowed the expansion of the LL convoys via Murmansk much beyond what was envisioned and losses would have been minimal. The USSR receives even more LL than in the OTL and Germany's defeat is hastened by that much.

          Norway's occupation is an imperative for Germany both offensively and defensively.
          Both Britain and Germany had violated Norway's neutrality with the Altmark affair. This was the blue touchpaper that resulted in both the Allied and German invasions of Norway. Berlin moved quicker than London.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
            Both Britain and Germany had violated Norway's neutrality with the Altmark affair. This was the blue touchpaper that resulted in both the Allied and German invasions of Norway. Berlin moved quicker than London.
            So, as per the original post

            Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
            .... The main detour from OTL is the decision not to invade Norway in an attempt to secure iron shipments. ....
            Britains invasion of Norway may catch Germany by suprise (no guarantee of this). In any case the Atlantic ports are in Brit hands and even the fastest German reaction has only a limited chance of establishing a enclave in Norway. Later after France collapses Germany will have the opportunity to attempt a greater and more organized effort. I'd suggest this campaign or theatre would replace Libya as the principle British battlefield of 1940-41

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
              I'd suggest this campaign or theatre would replace Libya as the principle British battlefield of 1940-41
              Hopefully they would do better than historically in Norway. Both Britain and France sent troops to Norway woefully unprepared for what they would encounter. For example, French Alpini sent to Narvik had no ski equipment and British troops were surprised to find snow, 3-4' deep, still on the ground.

              For a good read on this campaign, and events leading up to it, I highly suggest Hitler's Pre-Emptive War: The Battle for Norway, 1940 by Henrik O. Lunde.
              If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Freightshaker View Post
                Hopefully they would do better than historically in Norway. Both Britain and France sent troops to Norway woefully unprepared for what they would encounter. For example, French Alpini sent to Narvik had no ski equipment and British troops were surprised to find snow, 3-4' deep, still on the ground.

                For a good read on this campaign, and events leading up to it, I highly suggest Hitler's Pre-Emptive War: The Battle for Norway, 1940 by Henrik O. Lunde.
                Had the British generals been taking lessons from the Red Army (The Winter War)? Military intelligence is definitely an oxymoron.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                  Had the British generals been taking lessons from the Red Army (The Winter War)? Military intelligence is definitely an oxymoron.
                  Oh, it gets better. British units were loaded onto ship hodge-podge, often with their heavy equipment loaded onto different ships. Many units had no maps of the area. When word of the German invasion reached them, they had to unload (they were to debark a few hours after the minefields were laid so they were already loaded onto transports) since the high command could not decide as to how now to deploy the troops.

                  The Germans had luck heavily on their side. Indecision and counter-orders from the Admiralty resulted in German transports slipping by British ships, often missing each other by a few miles.

                  British/French operations in Norway are a textbook example as to how not to conduct a joint operation.
                  If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Anyone have the plans at hand for what the Brits intended or had near ready to send to Norway? A lot depends here on what the Brits would have in place after France collapses. The German leaders will start reconsidering the Norway question sometime in July. Perhaps they will assume it will be settled after the Brits see sense & ask for a armistice in August, or at least in September or October, or.... Given Hitlers unpredictable stratigic judgement it could be as late as November before a decision is reached to run the Brits out of Norway.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                      Anyone have the plans at hand for what the Brits intended or had near ready to send to Norway? A lot depends here on what the Brits would have in place after France collapses. The German leaders will start reconsidering the Norway question sometime in July. Perhaps they will assume it will be settled after the Brits see sense & ask for a armistice in August, or at least in September or October, or.... Given Hitlers unpredictable stratigic judgement it could be as late as November before a decision is reached to run the Brits out of Norway.
                      If you can wait a week, I have that at home. Damn truck doesn't have room for a library. . I have the command structure in my Kindle but finding the force make up is much easier with a hard copy book. It seems to be 3 Bdes (1 Polish, 1 British, half a French and half a Canadian) and a French Lt division, in addition to 3 British task forces.
                      If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Freightshaker View Post
                        If you can wait a week, I have that at home. Damn truck doesn't have room for a library. . I have the command structure in my Kindle but finding the force make up is much easier with a hard copy book. It seems to be 3 Bdes (1 Polish, 1 British, half a French and half a Canadian) and a French Lt division, in addition to 3 British task forces.
                        We are making progress. The French are good until late May or June. The other question about Allied defense revolves around any Norwegian army. Would the government have accepted the Allied invasion as the best of a bad deal and cooperated, or? I think I know the answer but will let others with refrences at hand comment.

                        I also have to return to Hitlers erratic decision making. Would this unhinge him enough to postphone or drastically alter the Plan Yellow Operation set for early May?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                          We are making progress. The French are good until late May or June. The other question about Allied defense revolves around any Norwegian army. Would the government have accepted the Allied invasion as the best of a bad deal and cooperated, or? I think I know the answer but will let others with refrences at hand comment.
                          From my reading, the Norwegian army had orders to resist any invasion; be it British or German. Whether the ground units involved would have followed those orders against the British is anyone's guess. During the British minelaying operation, Norwegian ships confronted British ships but no fire was exchanged, the British had orders not to engage unless fired upon. The British simply laid mines in alternate sites.

                          The Norwegian situation is comparable to the Belgian one in 40'; The Belgians knew of the Dyle plan and the French intent to violate their neutrality but in order to maintain their neutrality, they were unable to approve of the operation until an actual German attack.

                          The Norwegian government had ample warning of both planned invasions. During the Winter War, the British had issued ultimatums to both Sweden and Norway that they were going to move into both countries regardless of permission. German preparations could hardly be kept secret and the Norwegian government was warned numerous of times, from different intelligence agencies, that a German invasion was imminent. Even though, the Norwegians were caught unprepared.

                          During the campaign, Norwegian troops gave a good showing, often outfighting the British, who treated them like conscripts.

                          EDIT- I'm currently training a student in his last week right now so I'll try and brush up on the campaign while he's driving.
                          Last edited by Freightshaker; 20 May 12, 21:55.
                          If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Oddly, though an espoused neutral, the Norwegians were definitely leaning strongly toward the British, just as the Danes leant toward the Germans. There was definite government and popular support for Britain within Norway, Quisling notwithstanding.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                              Oddly, though an espoused neutral, the Norwegians were definitely leaning strongly toward the British, just as the Danes leant toward the Germans. There was definite government and popular support for Britain within Norway, Quisling notwithstanding.
                              That is true.

                              Quisling's actions have been greatly exagerated, mostly by the Allies, in proportion to his actual contribution to the German effort.
                              If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Can you just imagine if the allies did send troops to finland...

                                Add Russia to the bad guy list...
                                Credo quia absurdum.


                                Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X