House Rules

[AlbertN]

Originally the Brits and the French were planning to "Send help to Finland" when the Soviets performed their "Winter War", but in truth the Allies planned to militarize the swedish mine to stop the ore shipments to Germany.
That is why they had troops ready to be sent in Norway.

They evacuated Narvik because for them, it was of no strategic value anymore and any effort to keep it would have been futile. Especially with the fall of France.
Norway campaign started before France one, and after the "poor" image with Guaranteeing Poland and not being able to do much about it, it was a move to shine at the eye of the world or at least redeem their own political stance.

About Swedish Ore, the matter was never "Sweden fears invasion of Germany", Sweden economically needed the German coal, it was a trade agreement between two nations in good terms.
When the German downfall was pretty evident, and German economy crippled, as many others did anyhow, Sweden started to look to the winners. In '44 Sweden was still trading actively with Germany, to the extent the USA preemptively bought all the Sweden production of ball-bearings for '45. That came quite late as the Germany was crippled already. (The USA discovered of that trade notion after their bombing in '43 of the ball-bearing facilities in Germany. Sweinfurt and Ratisbon - spelling can be wrong).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it? I know, it was in the context of the full campaign and a hope that the Germans could be stopped in general, including in southern Norway.

I did read that both Gladiators and Hurricanes were in northern Norway. But the #s of military assets under discussion are small. A dozen Hurricanes or so, not even a full division of infantry, trivial amounts of supply shipping. Churchill, naturally, argued to stay, by the way, but deferred to his High Command on that one. Time would have proven him wrong as Orm's post indicates, and he had plenty to answer for in Norway in general; not one of his shining moments.

Warspite1

So why attack? If you mean why take Narvik, the rationale was that it would make the chances of a successful evacuation more likely.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

.........and after the "poor" image with Guaranteeing Poland and not being able to do much about it, it was a move to shine at the eye of the world or at least redeem their own political stance.

warspite1

No the Norwegian Campaign had nothing to do with "shine at the eye of the world or at least redeem their own political stance". In fact it was quite the reverse as already stated.

The Allied interest - or rather Churchill's - interest in Norway came about because he felt cutting off Germany's Iron Ore supply from Sweden would be a hammer blow to their war-making capability. The problem was the only way to do this was to effectively invade Norway - and Sweden!!

While the Winter War was on, Churchill hoped he could persuade the Norwegians and Swedes to accept British troops on their soil in order to aid their fellow Scandinavians. Quite naturally they wanted nothing to do with this folly - and the Allies (Chamberlain quite rightly) were concerned that carrying out such a foolhardy act was against international law. Fortunately the Allies dithered for so long the Winter War came to an end before the landing in Norway could happen.

The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.


Either version was frankly unacceptable for an Alliance taking the moral high ground, although at least in the case of the mining, the British could perhaps, with some justification, state that they were responding to Norways inability to stop Getman vessels using Norwegian waters.

But also as stated previously, as it turned out, the Germans beat them to it anyway, and the mining operation was only just underway when Weserubung started.

So no, this whole sorry affair was nothing like the failure to act on the guarantee to Poland - this was just one almighty balls up from start to finish.

[Centuur]

Why attack? That can be easily answered: to take the port and make sure the Germans can't use it.

I don't know if the port was destroyed by the retreating British and French or if it was already destroyed by the Germans earlier (I believe that to be unlikely, because of the value the Germans gave the port).

If the port was still usuable when the British and French captured it, I believe that half a division of troops with a small number of planes would have been enough to stay there for a long time. Also, don't forget that in that region of Norway, the Norwegians had about 15.000 to 20.000 man mobilized, of which 8.000 did fight at Narvik. That's a second division, which capitulated to the Germans after the allies left Narvik.

From the Norwegian point of view on this battle, the Allies simply abandoned them, not even wanting to evacuate the Norwegian soldiers...

[warspite1]

If the port was still usuable when the British and French captured it, I believe that half a division of troops with a small number of planes would have been enough to stay there for a long time.

This is not the view of the professional soldier and the man on the ground, General Auchinleck, who spelt out what was required to enable a proper defence of Narvik.

The forces – naval, land and air – he needed, if this wasn't to be a suicide mission - were simply not available given what was happening in France – and the then, real possibility of an invasion of the UK.

From the Norwegian point of view on this battle, the Allies simply abandoned them, not even wanting to evacuate the Norwegian soldiers...

The first part of that statement is undoubtedly true. You would feel that way wouldn’t you - its natural? As a proud Norwegian, you would feel that your country is being abandoned by your allies. Although in his excellent book The Battle for Norway, Geirr H Haarr makes clear that the true situation the British and French found themselves in was understood by senior Norwegian military. After all - by that time Norway was essentially lost. For her to be free again the French and British needed to stay in the fight - and for that they needed men and equipment in France and - ultimately - the UK.

As to the latter part of that sentence, that is simply untrue, and militarily makes no sense. The withdrawal communication that was advised to Defence Minister Ljungberg at the start of June made quite clear that the evacuation was open to as many Norwegian troops that wished to fight on from the UK.

As far as the Norwegian navy is concerned, many ships did sail for the UK (please see my write-up in the Norge counter, in which I pay small tribute to the men of the RNN, for details of this) and this included military and non-military vessels. But as Haarr questions in his book, there is an “unanswered question as to why the Norwegian military and political leaders did not intensify their efforts to have as many as possible of the experienced soldiers, sailors and officers taken to Britain – where they would have formed the nucleus of the Norwegian armed forces that would need to be developed again. Admiral Diesen encouraged all naval personnel to sail to continue the fight for a free Norway but there is little evidence of any active measures being undertaken”.

For those that chose not to go – no doubt they had their motives - and that was up to them. There is no criticism from me for those that stayed. But to say the British did not want to evacuate them is absolutely false.
24,500 service personnel were evacuated thanks to a combination of:

- Secrecy of the operation
- The ability to take Narvik prior to the evacuation
- Bad weather
- Good luck
Given that luck was on the Allied side for a change, in that early war period, no doubt many more could have been accomodated.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.

It was a bit more complicated than that, the Allied intervention in Scandinavia was to be carried out with the agreement of Norway and Sweden. The planning and ship loading was based on an agreed passage, a transport mission rather than an assault landing. When permission was refused, mining the waterways was the next best thing, this provoked a German invasion, but the Germans were not asking permission, they always knew that such an action would be an assault landing and had prepared accordingly. Essentially Germany had its retaliation prepared in advance, planning for 'Weserubung' starting in mid-Dec. 1939.

The Allies may have had ships and men available, but they had not been prepared, nor configured, for the mission they finally had to carry out.

The British trashed their position in North Africa in a hopeless attempt to help Greece against invasion, as politics, emotion and pride often forced operations doomed to fail. Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.

It was a bit more complicated than that, the Allied intervention in Scandinavia was to be carried out with the agreement of Norway and Sweden. The planning and ship loading was based on an agreed passage, a transport mission rather than an assault landing. When permission was refused, mining the waterways was the next best thing, this provoked a German invasion, but the Germans were not asking permission, they always knew that such an action would be an assault landing and had prepared accordingly. Essentially Germany had its retaliation prepared in advance, planning for 'Weserubung' starting in mid-Dec. 1939.

The Allies may have had ships and men available, but they had not been prepared, nor configured, for the mission they finally had to carry out.

The British trashed their position in North Africa in a hopeless attempt to help Greece against invasion, as politics, emotion and pride often forced operations doomed to fail. Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

warspite1

I don't think you've read my earlier posts - and my underlined comment was thinly veiled sarcasm. I know how complicated it was because I have read the war cabinet discussions, those between the British and the French, the communications with the Norwegians and the Swedes.

Permission had already been refused - hence the revised tactic of reacting to German reaction. There was no real plan for what to do about Sweden had they landed in the second scenario.

The Allied "planning" for action in Scandanavia was a total mess from start to finish - an absolute buggers muddle. Yes of course it was easier for Hitler; international law and the rights of individual neutral countries were totally irrelevant to him - that makes planning an attack a lot simpler [;)].

The problem was not just the way things were loaded aboard ships - but the fact that "plans" were made up as they went along. So in the most famous example, a unit bound for Namsos? was diverted to Narvik at the 11th hour. Trouble was, the ships had the equipment aboard for units that had already landed elsewhere.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

warspite1

True - although is perhaps countered to an extent by the fact we are armchair generals presiding over cardboard or pixel armies. E.g. we have been discussing the unwillingness of the British to leave units in Narvik - units that would effectively be asked to sacrifice themselves as they would be devoid of the assets (AA weaponry, heavy weapons generally, air cover, naval support) that was too badly needed elsewhere. In WIF I would be inclined to leave a corps there simply to cause my opponent problems [;)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.

It was a bit more complicated than that, the Allied intervention in Scandinavia was to be carried out with the agreement of Norway and Sweden. The planning and ship loading was based on an agreed passage, a transport mission rather than an assault landing. When permission was refused, mining the waterways was the next best thing, this provoked a German invasion, but the Germans were not asking permission, they always knew that such an action would be an assault landing and had prepared accordingly. Essentially Germany had its retaliation prepared in advance, planning for 'Weserubung' starting in mid-Dec. 1939.

The Allies may have had ships and men available, but they had not been prepared, nor configured, for the mission they finally had to carry out.

The British trashed their position in North Africa in a hopeless attempt to help Greece against invasion, as politics, emotion and pride often forced operations doomed to fail. Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

warspite1

I don't think you've read my earlier posts - and my underlined comment was thinly veiled sarcasm.

Permission had already been refused - hence the revised tactic of reacting to German reaction.

The problem was not just the way things were loaded aboard ships - but the fact that one of the plans was altered at the 11th hour meaning that troops were landed in central Norway, while their equipment headed to Narvik.

The Allied "planning" for action in Scandanavia was a total mess from start to finish - an absolute buggers muddle. Yes of course it was easier for Hitler; international law and the rights of individual neutral countries were totally irrelevant to him - that makes planning an attack a lot simpler [;)].

No sarcasm is intended, I was merely highlighting the text to which my comments apply. My point being that the Allied intervention in Norway was doomed for several reasons, one of which was that that although the Allies had planned for a Scandinavian intervention, it did not initially involve an assault landing. Conversely the Germans started planning from as early as Dec. 1939, for what was always likely to be an opposed landing.

I have read your previous comments and am not disagreeing with you, but attempting to amplify a some of the detail. [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa



It was a bit more complicated than that, the Allied intervention in Scandinavia was to be carried out with the agreement of Norway and Sweden. The planning and ship loading was based on an agreed passage, a transport mission rather than an assault landing. When permission was refused, mining the waterways was the next best thing, this provoked a German invasion, but the Germans were not asking permission, they always knew that such an action would be an assault landing and had prepared accordingly. Essentially Germany had its retaliation prepared in advance, planning for 'Weserubung' starting in mid-Dec. 1939.

The Allies may have had ships and men available, but they had not been prepared, nor configured, for the mission they finally had to carry out.

The British trashed their position in North Africa in a hopeless attempt to help Greece against invasion, as politics, emotion and pride often forced operations doomed to fail. Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

warspite1

I don't think you've read my earlier posts - and my underlined comment was thinly veiled sarcasm.

Permission had already been refused - hence the revised tactic of reacting to German reaction.

The problem was not just the way things were loaded aboard ships - but the fact that one of the plans was altered at the 11th hour meaning that troops were landed in central Norway, while their equipment headed to Narvik.

The Allied "planning" for action in Scandanavia was a total mess from start to finish - an absolute buggers muddle. Yes of course it was easier for Hitler; international law and the rights of individual neutral countries were totally irrelevant to him - that makes planning an attack a lot simpler [;)].

No sarcasm is intended, I was merely highlighting the text to which my comments apply. My point being that the Allied intervention in Norway was doomed for several reasons, one of which was that that although the Allies had planned for a Scandinavian intervention, it did not initially involve an assault landing. Conversely the Germans started planning from as early as Dec. 1939, for what was always likely to be an opposed landing.

I have read your previous comments and am not disagreeing with you, but attempting to amplify a some of the detail. [:)]

warspite1

No I wasn't accusing you of sarcasm toward my comment - but making clear I was being unapologetically sarcastic of Allied plans in Norway. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

warspite1
No I wasn't accusing you of sarcasm toward my comment - but making clear I was being unapologetically sarcastic of Allied plans in Norway.

OK, my misunderstanding, but this early war period is full of events, which the concentration on 1944 and after have overshadowed.

Totally off thread, but it was chilling to stand on the beach at Dieppe, one evening, and wonder how anybody thought that troops could cross 300 yds of open esplanade, overlooked by the castle above. Difficult to see the position the Allies were in, trying to play catch-up, and how many tragedies that caused.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it?

I believe it was an interview with J.R. Colville, assistant private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. This interview, and hopefully I've got the right fellow, is in episode 2, "Distant War" of the World at War series. This interview gave me insight into the thinking of the time by the allies. My impression is that the Brits, and French, in 1939 and early 1940 through, or hoped, that the Germans wouldn't want a repeat of WW1 and, therefore, wouldn't invade Western Europe. Instead, the allies hoped (wanted) WW2 to be fought and settled on distance battlefields, such as Norway. Operation Wesenbung was launched by the Germans on April 9th and almost a month before they launched Case Yellow. While the campaign by the allies was a total mess it makes more sense to me if I can see it in the context of expecting (hoping) that WW2 doesn't expand to Western Europe.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it?

I believe it was an interview with J.R. Colville, assistant private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. This interview, and hopefully I've got the right fellow, is in episode 2, "Distant War" of the World at War series. This interview gave me insight into the thinking of the time by the allies. My impression is that the Brits, and French, in 1939 and early 1940 through, or hoped, that the Germans wouldn't want a repeat of WW1 and, therefore, wouldn't invade Western Europe. Instead, the allies hoped (wanted) WW2 to be fought and settled on distance battlefields, such as Norway. Operation Wesenbung was launched by the Germans on April 9th and almost a month before they launched Case Yellow. While the campaign by the allies was a total mess it makes more sense to me if I can see it in the context of expecting (hoping) that WW2 doesn't expand to Western Europe.

warspite1

I thought brian brian was referring to Narvik, but if he was referring to Norway in that question, then yes, what you say was part of the Allied thinking; get WWII as far away from France (and the UK) as possible - hence the spiffing wheeze to bomb Caucasian oilfields [8|]

However, as also said previously, this was not the main reason for intervention in Norway. The reasoning was actually sound i.e. stop German access to iron ore.... it was just the way they went about it that was wrong politically, militarily and morally!!

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it?

I believe it was an interview with J.R. Colville, assistant private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. This interview, and hopefully I've got the right fellow, is in episode 2, "Distant War" of the World at War series. This interview gave me insight into the thinking of the time by the allies. My impression is that the Brits, and French, in 1939 and early 1940 through, or hoped, that the Germans wouldn't want a repeat of WW1 and, therefore, wouldn't invade Western Europe. Instead, the allies hoped (wanted) WW2 to be fought and settled on distance battlefields, such as Norway. Operation Wesenbung was launched by the Germans on April 9th and almost a month before they launched Case Yellow. While the campaign by the allies was a total mess it makes more sense to me if I can see it in the context of expecting (hoping) that WW2 doesn't expand to Western Europe.

warspite1

I thought brian brian was referring to Narvik, but if he was referring to Norway in that question, then yes, what you say was part of the Allied thinking; get WWII as far away from France (and the UK) as possible - hence the spiffing wheeze to bomb Caucasian oilfields [8|]

However, as also said previously, this was not the main reason for intervention in Norway. The reasoning was actually sound i.e. stop German access to iron ore.... it was just the way they went about it that was wrong politically, militarily and morally!!

I have to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion on Norway. I have to say it's as entertaining and informative as watching an episode of World at War or World War 2 in Color. You guys should do your own documentary on WW2. I'd watch that too!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


I believe it was an interview with J.R. Colville, assistant private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. This interview, and hopefully I've got the right fellow, is in episode 2, "Distant War" of the World at War series. This interview gave me insight into the thinking of the time by the allies. My impression is that the Brits, and French, in 1939 and early 1940 through, or hoped, that the Germans wouldn't want a repeat of WW1 and, therefore, wouldn't invade Western Europe. Instead, the allies hoped (wanted) WW2 to be fought and settled on distance battlefields, such as Norway. Operation Wesenbung was launched by the Germans on April 9th and almost a month before they launched Case Yellow. While the campaign by the allies was a total mess it makes more sense to me if I can see it in the context of expecting (hoping) that WW2 doesn't expand to Western Europe.

warspite1

I thought brian brian was referring to Narvik, but if he was referring to Norway in that question, then yes, what you say was part of the Allied thinking; get WWII as far away from France (and the UK) as possible - hence the spiffing wheeze to bomb Caucasian oilfields [8|]

However, as also said previously, this was not the main reason for intervention in Norway. The reasoning was actually sound i.e. stop German access to iron ore.... it was just the way they went about it that was wrong politically, militarily and morally!!

I have to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion on Norway. I have to say it's as entertaining and informative as watching an episode of World at War or World War 2 in Color. You guys should do your own documentary on WW2. I'd watch that too!

warspite1

If you really enjoy history, you might like this wonderfully informative series [:D]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd0 ... WXTdN4kOKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMBHZWe2S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you really enjoy history, you might like this wonderfully informative series [:D]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd0 ... WXTdN4kOKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMBHZWe2S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y

I do. I'll check them out. Thanks!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you really enjoy history, you might like this wonderfully informative series [:D]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd0 ... WXTdN4kOKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMBHZWe2S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y

I do. I'll check them out. Thanks!

warspite1

I take it from your avatar that you are from across the pond? If so I hope the joke comes across well - they way these guys dig at each other is just like we did at junior school when getting into arguments!! A superb piece of observational comedy [&o]

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


I take it from your avatar that you are from across the pond? If so I hope the joke comes across well - they way these guys dig at each other is just like we did at junior school when getting into arguments!! A superb piece of observational comedy [&o]

I thought it was a hoot! I really do enjoy the English sense of humor. Last night I watched a BBC satirical movie on WW1, "The Wipers Times." I haven't researched the subject but the beginning and ending of the movie left me the impression that it was based on true characters and a true story. Though funny I think it did capture the futility and senselessness of WW1.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: warspite1


I take it from your avatar that you are from across the pond? If so I hope the joke comes across well - they way these guys dig at each other is just like we did at junior school when getting into arguments!! A superb piece of observational comedy [&o]

I thought it was a hoot! I really do enjoy the English sense of humor. Last night I watched a BBC satirical movie on WW1, "The Wipers Times." I haven't researched the subject but the beginning and ending of the movie left me the impression that it was based on true characters and a true story. Though funny I think it did capture the futility and senselessness of WW1.

warspite1

If you want to learn everything about WWI look no further than this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WHSkbM9zAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeF1JO7Ki8E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDQ1ljlnSjU

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: warspite1


I take it from your avatar that you are from across the pond? If so I hope the joke comes across well - they way these guys dig at each other is just like we did at junior school when getting into arguments!! A superb piece of observational comedy [&o]

I thought it was a hoot! I really do enjoy the English sense of humor. Last night I watched a BBC satirical movie on WW1, "The Wipers Times." I haven't researched the subject but the beginning and ending of the movie left me the impression that it was based on true characters and a true story. Though funny I think it did capture the futility and senselessness of WW1.

warspite1

I can't believe I never saw this! Thanks for posting I will see if I can track down a copy. Apparently it is based on a true story.