Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Churchill's strategy was awful. Once in Norway, British troops were to head to Narvik and occupy the port and it was then further hoped that the Norwegians wouldn't actually turn against a British invasion force and just get on board against the Germans. Although they had neither the desire to be at war with either country.
Ahh well, the difference here is that I don't believe for a second that he was directly involved in the actual planning of the operation. He oversaw it, but he was never a soldier. He served in the Navy, and while he had experience as a governor, he would have relied on the military to advise him.
The strategy was sound if they had the resources available to consolidate on gains... but they had neither the manpower, nor the equipment to deal with the German forces.Catherine was one of the most flimsiest plans in the whole war and coupled with Wilfred was a disaster waiting to happen.
Oh, I do agree that it was a disaster...There were better minds that were arguing against the First Lord of the Admiralty and a lot of them hadn't forgotten Churchill's previous farce in the Dardanelles in WWI. But he wouldn't listen to them.
All he achieved in the end was plunging Norway into a German occupation for five years.
There were a lot of voices shouting for action, and few sensible heads saying where that action should happen. Norway was a propaganda piece with limited realistic value... And Norway would have been taken anyway due to the need for submarine bases, minerals supply, and later the need for heavy water. (Telemark, good movie.
) Germany would never have allowed Norway to stay neutral since their coast was needed to close down the Baltic to the British fleet which would have been raiding the supply of copper from Sweden..
I'm not saying that Norway was a good operation by Britain. It wasn't. It was badly planned, had few benefits, and was incredibly badly executed. It showed just how amateurish the British forces had become, and the divisions between the Army and the Navy... although it gave Churchill grounds to chop some heads and rebuild the command structure somewhat.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »I think you need a history lesson,
Eh...no.
I had all those history lessons long, LONG, before.
Catherine Wilfred and R4 were unmitigated disasters, which was a British defeat, and led to a German occupation of Norway for 5 years.
There's no two ways about it.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »Ahh well, the difference here is that I don't believe for a second that he was directly involved in the actual planning of the operation. He oversaw it, but he was never a soldier. He served in the Navy, and while he had experience as a governor, he would have relied on the military to advise him.
Oh Winston was very much involved. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he had the rank to be and coupled with Churchill's personality made sure he had an input.
To his credit, and not in any small part due to his contribution in the Norway fiasco, he learned to step away from military planning after 1940 when he became PM and let the better minds do their job unhindered.
Until he insisted in his belief that Italy was the "soft underbelly" and not the tough old gut it turned out to be.Deleted User wrote: »The strategy was sound if they had the resources available to consolidate on gains... but they had neither the manpower, nor the equipment to deal with the German forces.
That is not a sound strategy though Klaz.
If the tactical situation is bound to leave you in a loss at each turn, then the strategy is extremely flawed and probably doomed to failure.
Knocking out the shipping of iron ore from Gallivare and essentially occupying Norway themselves may have been an ok idea on paper, but the British totally ignored all the problems with that idea in the hope that everything would go fine...somehow.
It, inevitably, turned into a monumental farce and even Wesserubung, which itself was knocked together once the Gerries got wind of the British plans for Norway, was enough to see the British off.
At the end of the day, Norway became the playground for two warring parties that had no real business there.Deleted User wrote: »And Norway would have been taken anyway due to the need for submarine bases, minerals supply, and later the need for heavy water. (Telemark, good movie.) Germany would never have allowed Norway to stay neutral since their coast was needed to close down the Baltic to the British fleet which would have been raiding the supply of copper from Sweden..
This isn't the case.
Hitler preferred Norway to be neutral and even dismissed Raeder's suggestion in 1939 that Germany try and occupy it. A neutral Norway was more to German advantage than a country they had to occupy, especially with the looming war in France being almost a 100% certainty in the new year, coupled with Hitler's longer term plans for Russia that were his be all/end all reason for war in the first place.
The fact is, the more territory Germany had to cover to deny it to the allies, the worse it actually was for her and her leadership's actual goals.
Having to spread forces around so many countries was a pain in the arse, to put it bluntly, when what Hitler wanted to do was create some Barney in the east. Every bit of ground the Germans had to cover was another chip in the resources that could have been used against Russia.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
His post was actually very interesting and he clearly knows the history. You, not so much.
The view regarding Stalin's role in 1939 - 41 is not one of consensus. There is the neo-Stalinist view that his "genius" enticed Hitler into his web. Quite obviously nonsense even on basis of his personal behaviour. He did trust Hitler and killed agents who were telling NKVD of German plans to invade right up to when tanks were rolling!
Others plausibly argue that Hitler was never going to win anyway and that he made major error in invading Soviet Union. Latter is true but I also think that had Brits been beaten in 1940 that there would have been no American intervention and Nazis would have won.
The question regarding the Soviet Jewish population is interesting one as the documented plans by Stalin to liquidate them at the time of his death and the anti Semitic purges in the occupied countries completely defeat the argument that the Soviets were fighting for Holocaust justice!
Israel was already an enemy state to Moscow by 1950.
But as you say, you are better off not engaging
I read the man in the high castle too , or did you just watch the tv series ?
try some harry turtledove , more the out come your looking for …0 -
-
Eh...no.
I had all those history lessons long, LONG, before.
Catherine Wilfred and R4 were unmitigated disasters, which was a British defeat, and led to a German occupation of Norway for 5 years.
There's no two ways about it.
So you admit you were wrong about Norway then?
And the operstions would have been ok if it wasnt for the nazis invasion of France?
And the operations you mentioned are mainly for the Baltics.
And the invasion of Norway would have happened no matter with or without British interference.
As a Norwegian myself i think i do know a bit more about my countrys history than you do.
Was your grandfather fighting in Narvik as well?
And you havent showed f..k all links to anything to back up your claims0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The running argument about WW2 in this thread is great.
Why not? After all, people can circle on Antifa till the cows come home, repeating the same opinions.
Typically those who are pro-antifa have zero interest in listening to anybody else. So it's a endless cycle of "yes, they are", "no, they aren't", "you don't know what you're talking about". Yadda yadda yadda. 280 pages.... the WW2 discussion is the most interesting aspect for a long time.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Grand strategy PC game. Quite detailed. Think strategic war gaming.
Oh...Hearts of Iron.
Duh. 0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement