The Kreigsmarine decide to pause construction on the Bismarck and Tripitz and up gun the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in time for the Norway campaign how would the pair have done against Renown and later Scharnhorst vs Duke of York at the battle of the North Cape?
Why was USS Saratoga not at Coral Sea and Midway, i've heard conflicting reasons ranging from not back in time, to damage to the the ship and was she either incredibly lucky or unlucky also did she deserve the nickname "Sara Maru"?
"What went wrong in Norway? From a German perspective, quite a few things went right!" *Grand Admiral Raeder gives a thumbs up from in front of the sinking Bluecher*
At the Oslo defenses at Drøbak Sound, they didn't know what side the Blücher was on until they heard the Germans on board singing Deutschland, Deutschland über alles (the range was very close). And, then, of course there was Colonel Eriksen's famous order (he didn't know which side the Blücher was on either) "Either I will be decorated or I will be court martialled. Fire!"
just like how Drach assumes that Royal Navy forces will win by default (I really never understood historians belief in the power and durability of Renown and Repulse, who only got tested once, with the loss of HMS Repluse ), or even if the RN might have defended Narvik for a while longer^^ Lucky breaks for the RN and Norway : Orsel finds and torps Rio de Janeiro, Captain of "Bluecher" has a brush with arrogance and ignores Norwegian coastal fortresses. but yeah only the Germans get lucky breaks, never the RN. It's all skill and/or bad luck on their end.
@@mynameiswritinwater Because the RN massively outnumbers and outguns the Kriegsmarine, and Renown demonstrated her superiority over Scharnhorst and Gneisnau by driving them both off in the action off Norway.
The Royal Navy, and the Admiralty is taking a lot of heat in the comments here. As a Norwegian, a neutral country at the time, both our foreign ministry and military intelligence, had significant information from different sources, that an invasion was on. Information disregarded by our government. Had this been taken seriously, and our government mobilized when the chief of staff pleaded the first time, there would have been a significant stronger defense in place in Norway. So, if the RN had been in these positions, rather that these positions - the Norwegians would have been warned, and could have mobilized in time. Well we were already warned, and missed our opportunity to defend our country. Can't very well pin that on the RN
A good point, but you have to figure that the urgency would become a bit more clear when it changes from "our spies are 100% certain we're lined up to be invaded" to the more threatening "an invasion fleet full of soldiers is having a battle just off the coast". At least you'd hope that even the thickest politician could understand that situation.
@@johnladuke6475 Indeed, even though a ship full of troops right off our shores should do just that. My point is really, Norway was not an allay, and should not suspect warnings or support from anyone - and can not blame anyone for not being able to defend our self.
@@johnladuke6475 Sad chapter in history 3 times were they warned, first was that there was plans for an invasion. Second time that after the incident that they will get invaded this year, and final third warning was the day before. That tonight we will receive an ultimatum that all Swedish warships needs to stay in ports or Germany will take that as a declaration of war from Sweden. So all attempts to get the norwegians to mobilise was rejected.
@@johnladuke6475 Ah but did they not get also warnings about the French and British invasion? Every single invasion in that war was predicted accurately but after a flurry of inaccurate misinformation. Time and time again invasions and battles came as a surprise certainly in terms of time and location. Equally preparations were made to resist in the wrong place or time because of the skill of the deceiver. Mobilisation to resist invasion is a national effort and highly damaging to an economy so nobody should be surprised at the reluctance to mobilise. An attack by anyone concerned was rash with great risks it was reasonably to assume that it would not be done. In WW1 Norwegian neutrality had worked well for all. In the end the victors paid the price of having to defend with large forces what should have been self defending and they lost most of their fleet and chance to knock the UK out of the war through invasion.
As another norwegian: We did not trust, and had no reason *to* trust, the british. These were the british of the Empire, of before the battle of France. They were arrogant, too often incompetent shits.They were *also* threatening to invade. We wanted to stay the fuck out. Which is reasonable. And unlike south Norway, the north resisted the germans for longer than *any other german-occupied nation* in ww2.
like how the allies invaded neutral Iceland. The western allies allowed the USSR to invade Finalnd,lithuania and Latvia and allowed the USSR to keep Poland....................give it up on the double standards.
It's more like anything that is not a select few campaigns do not get a lot of attention. I would not say that either Rzhev, Tunisia, nor Bagration have a lot of attention, nor would I say that either was in the early part of the war.
Listening to this video while removing rust on a Norwegian research ship from 1957 nearby the hiding place of Tirpitz. It could still get a bit more appropriate, but not very much.
Are you at Tromsø Sørodda? Kåfjord? Which vessel? I ask because in the 80'ies I studied Fishery Science in Tromsø and sailed om their small blue and white trawler into Balsfjorden. I no longer recall her name.
Sensible...Kriegsmarine Surface Fleet was pretty much smashed from Narvik, certainly their destroyer fleet was. After that the Kriegsmarine had the large armoured Cruisers and BB's that the Royal Navy and RAF picked off. The only achievement was the channel dash. The U-Boat arm however was a different story.
They should have been more worried about the U-Boats, as it turned out. Any German warship that tired to break out for commerce raiding rarely seemed to find anything except a wall of 14 inch projectiles.
It's amazing how much luck the Germans had in the first couple of years of the war. Eg weak and poorly led opponents, but also grabbing that luck and making full use of it. But it couldn't last, and as soon as the weather turned bad near Moscow...
@@sillypuppy5940 really they lost because Hitler just could not, almost pathologically, keep from messing with stuff. he turned Army Group Center south to Kiev...had he not done that Center is in Moscow in Late winter (look up the battle of Kanenewo...I've mangled that spelling...to see what I mean. a full division of T-34s checks the advance of the Panzers long enough for winter to set in and cause the already creaking supply train to collapse fully). And bear in mind that given the central control of Russia at the time the country could not be governed from anywhere other than Moscow. so you take Moscow and you essentially knock Russia out of the war.
@Angel Apolinar They could have, but by the time Norway fell, there was little Britain could do to force anything, and Germany had no reason to keep stretching It's supplies.
Poland to norway "gotta love them 'allies' right, so helpful"
4 роки тому+5
@@michaelmcneil4168 Germany would never allow it. Because they depended so much on Norwegian resources that it was not even a question. Taking Norway & controlling it themselves vs hoping we would play by the neutrality and not take any sides and thus stopping the flow of resources was too much of a gamble. Thats one of the biggest reasons they invaded us. Resources, and they knew that Britain was planning to "invade" aka help reinforce Norway from a German invasion. Germans knew Norway would have sided with England if it came down to it as we've always been close. But yes, we could have benefited by playing both sides, but that was never an option. Norway was in a rough time back then and quite frankly just wanted to be kept out of it all together. But Germany were right, we would have stopped the flow of resources when it came down to it.
It always amazes me when military operations are planned on the basis of sound assumptions, such as "Let's invade a few of their cities, then they will appreciate it and we will live happily together ever after!"
@Marry Christmas I think I am pointing at a case of being delusional about the consequences of the planned actions, rather than bluffing to gain an advantage.
I think that was basically the German war plan in general. I get that Germany got a raw deal at the end of WWI, but how did going to war with the rest of the world ever seem like a brilliant plan? I mean Germany's allies didn't count except in a negative way. I guess it was easy to underestimate the USSR's military potential after the winter war.
In that situation the not very bright Glow Worm should have sent signals prior to any engagement to ensure the full SP was acknowledged received. Fisher never rammed home any remarks about wireless telegraphy, Churchill was acting as Admiral of the Kriegsmarine until late in 1942
Thank you so much for bringing together all the context for this. My understanding of the Norwegian Invasion has been greatly enhanced - not so much because I've learned new facts, but because you've done such an excellent job bringing together the context for the individual events I had known into a more coherent bigger picture. It's particularly interesting to see here an excellent example of the difference in focus that a good small unit commander might have compared to what sort of focus a theater commander must maintain for success. It's the duty of the highest command to be always double-checking their assumptions, looking at the big picture, and not getting bogged down in minutia at the tip of the spear.
I too wanted to express my appreciation for the way Drach covered this interesting secondary campaign which doesn't always get much attention. You put it quite well OP, thank you too.
Hi Drachinfel I love your material - thank you! Just a coincidence I am reading "Hitlers Preemptive War - the Battle for Norway 1940". I've just listened to the first part of your video - there are a number of very important things that are wrong. The Allies were by far the most aggressive in their breaches of Norwegian neutrality, both in what they were planning and what they did/did not eventually carry out. The French were particularly keen to open a front that was as far from French soil as possible - remember we are talking about the Phoney War period here - Hitler had taken no action in the West at this point. Churchill placed an undue emphasis on the Swedish ore that was being moved through Narvik in Northern Norway - he wanted to invade Narvik and then march on SWEDEN and capture the ore fields themselves - the cover he wanted to use was to "help" the Finns in their war against the USSR as the Finns had been invaded by them. These are not minor violations of the neutrality of other nations.Only the end of the war in Finland brought this plan to a halt. Similarly the laying of minefields in Norwegian waters is not a minor violation of Norwegian neutrality - the Norwegians viewed it as a de facto declaration of war. Unfortunately the Norwegian Navy was tiny and was in no position to stop the Royal Navy from so doing - they tried to prevent it but had to give in to a vastly superior force. The RN laid about 3 minefields although at least one if not two was a "dummy" minefield. The Germans had developed contingency plans to invade Norway but they were far less developed than than the Allies - the Allies HAD embarked their invasion forces and were on the point of invading to Narvik (Norway). This didn't happen at this point as at the last minute the Admiralty had found out about German heavy units at sea. The troops were hurriedly disembarked as it was felt that their escorts would be better used to chase down these units. These ships were actually part of the German invasion force - EVERYBODY thought that it would be inconceivable that the Germans would attempt to invade Norway - as Germany had a very small navy. One must remember the sensitivity of the Germans to a minefield - remember that it was the British naval blockade that had ultimately brought Germany to its knees in WW1 They had received good intelligence that the Allies were planning/going to invade Norway - the German invasion was a pre-emptive one - they simply got there first - just! Ultimately an invasion of a neutral country is just that - no matter who carries it out - Allied or German ... UPDATE The role of HMS Glowworm in the video has been grossly overstated. The Allies (and the Norwegians) were aware that the Germans were up to "something" well in advance of their invasion - you cannot "hide" an invasion of 40,000 personnel that easily! The various elements of the German forces were progressively spotted and reported on all through their passage in the Baltic. Thus the Allies (and the Norwegians) had ample evidence that an invasion of some sort was underway, LONG before they reached Norwegian shores."Hitlers Preemptive War - the Battle for Norway 1940" says that a combination of factors resulted in what eventually played out 1) The Germans were much more flexible and quick in their decision making and action - the Allies (and the Norwegians) by contrast were slow and ponderous in their decision making - and dithering 2) The old adage of if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then maybe it is a duck didn't apply - despite the obvious the Allies simply couldn't comprehend that the Germans would dare invade - if you are fixated on an attitude you will avoid all the obvious clues 3) The Norwegians eventually authorised a Partial mobilisation to the unfolding events - Allied and German - not a Full mobilisation - thus mobilisation papers were sent by POST and not on a general radio alert thus an earlier mobilisation may not have had the effect that is stated in the video - it would all have been too slow 4) The most obvious sign that it could NOT have been a break out was actually the significant number of German Destroyers - these were comparatively sort ranged craft and could not have been used in a wider Atlantic campaign - thus why were they there? No serious questions were asked 5) The Norwegian Government was in crisis mode because of the ALLIED mining campaign - THEY were seen as the threat and not the Germans i,e they were totally distracted and the many early warnings of the German movements were simply "lost" in the panic
Whenever I hear about the allied minelaying operations, I am always reminded of the first norwegian ship to be sunk in WW2: The M/S Ronda that struck a mine on the 13th of september 1939. Incidentally, one of the people that died was my great-grandfather.
Awesome documentary!!! I studied and knew of all the individual naval battles that occurred when the Germans attacked Norway. In fact, I always wondered how amazing it was that the Germans succeeded. Your commentary explains how events as they happened, along with what each side was thinking and planning, made it possible for Germany to succeed. Thank you so much for these videos. Well done!
Here's something I really value about your analyses: What you describe is not just what actually happened, but what the wide variety of considerations and counter-considerations were at a given point in time, the options, and the considerations and counter-considerations of those options, and then what actually happened, and why it ended up that way, and how it could have ended differently had various considerations been taken into account
I wonder if the RN so readily belived that the Germans were trying to breakout into the Atlantic not only because they feared it but because a fleet action with the Germans was something they had been dreaming about since Juntland.
Michael Jones axiom: plan to fight the current conflict the way “you” fought the last war that was won! Result: dismal failure before reorganization became effective
3:30 The "Altmark incident" (rescuing Allied prisoners from the ship) is cited to be the last time in naval history that cutlasses were used in battle. The British were said to have boarded the ship swinging their cutlasses like wild pirates.
@@LucioFercho _"Propaganda"?_ Whether true or "just a good story" 83 years old, how can it be "propaganda"? Please explain to us. Your explanation could turn out to be an even more funny story.
@@larsrons7937 LOL!!! It was propaganda 83 years ago, during the war, which is when most propaganda is manufactured son... People just like to parrot it without second thought.
I have many boks of this subject. The mobilization orders of the Norwegian forces where done by mail. This, of course, took some time. The reason for doing this was to not send any enemy a warning of the mobilization via radio. Plan B of mobilization doctrine was by sending mail. Many therefore acted on their own initiative, then joining other units as their met each other. Germans where surprised by the heavy Norwegian resistance, mostly armed with repeating Kragh-Jørgensen rifles. The numbers of german soldiers being killed by headshots was staggering. Norway had many reductions in defence budgets and was partly demilitarized by political reasons. They did, however, have a large number of people from local rifle ascociations. And they where excellent sharp shooters!
Should be noted the defense budget was more or less doubled in the years preceding the war, if I'm not mistaken. All the democracies slashed defense spending after WW1, and even major powers like Britain and France struggled to begin rearmament in the 30s. Norway was a small nation still dealing with the depression and with a government that (legitimately) feared their own officers. I think this is important perspective.
It wasn't only the Swedish iron ore, that was often used for critical components like german made ball bearings, engine parts, cannon barrels and so on. It was also about ball bearings made in Sweden, and machinery for making ball bearings in Germany, that was manufactured in Sweden. In 1940, Sweden (in the form of SKF) had a huge chunk of the global production of ball bearing. Partly in production in Sweden, but also with SKF-factories in Germany, the UK, USA and so on. The british for instance used aircrafts (including Mosquitos) and MGB's to import ball bearings and steel for special applications from Gothenburg after the fall of Norway. The US government was able to secure ball bearings from Sweden late in the war (to aviod Germany getting them) by promising to pay very well not only for the ball bearings them self, but also by promising to pay for the rebuilding of SKF facilities in Germany, what was bombed by the USAAF.
but manufactured Swedish goods would be exported via the ports, the main difference was the ore mines were closer to the Norwegian coast so Sweden exported that iron ore via Norway.
In addition, the British had plans to help Finland with troops via Narvik and at the same time occupy important key points around Norway, The plans were postponed when the winter war in Finland ended in March, German intelligence learned about those plans and saw that British control over Norway would means that the RAF could reach Berlin and other important bombing targets, The Norwegian coastal battery near Trondheim expected British vessels to arrive but the commander of the fort was more German friendly and ordered not to fire when they discovered Kriegsmarine sailed into the Trondheim Fjord. I wonder what could have happened if they had fought would it have been similar to what happened at the Oskarsborg Oslofjord incident?
@@bificommander lol, too true. In an interview with his daughter after he died she said he hadn't singled out the royal navy specifically, he just was that much of an asshole to everyone he dealt with and made no exceptions for anyone...
@@jmp01a24 They helped the nazsis first beacuse they would just got invaded anyways. In the late stage of the war they gave airspace to the alliesvand information.
@@jmp01a24 Yes, Sweden did profit a lot from selling iron ore, letting the germans use their railways for troops, selling ammo and in general doing business as usual. Sweden came out of the war with a intact industry and wealth to carry them forward for 20-30 years. But they also helped the norwegian population. They took in refugees, trained a police force, helped the resistance, sent relief help, etc. At the end of the war they also let the allied use the swedish airspace for bombing of targets in Norway. But in general I do not think they are proud of how they profited from Norways misfortune and they certainly do not teach all of it in history class in Sweden today. Greetings from Norway... :-)
Sitting here in Narvik, in the far north, among the frozen mountains of Lapplandia and fisherman villages, listening about the glorious past of the place. Btw Norge is pronounced more like Nohrgay, than that french atrocity you used.
Yes, the Normans have infected our Germanic English brethren with these weird Latin pronunciations, instead of following a more consistent path. Add to that at least a five century lack of proper spelling reform, and they struggle to write and pronounce their own language, let alone have a clue how to say anything in any other tongue.
We are the Anglophones. Your linguistic and grammatical distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile, your tongue will be assimilated.
Ive been to Narvik never realised it was so far north though... i loved the place but i`m not sure what the locals or other Warships there thought as some wag decided it would be a great idea to paint swastika on the side of our ship while in Narvik harbour,as we were there with the Polish,French and Norwegian navy for the anniversary of the Narvik raid you can imagine how well that went down...
Many thanks for the excellent explanation. I always wandered exactly what went wrong in Norway. I would like to add one fact in this regard. Norway and Danmark recieved exactly the same "ultimatum" (not considered as such by the Germans) to "let in" German forces into their countries. They reacted differently: Danmark accepted, while Norway did not and put up an (albeit short) fight. This showed later in the "political treatment" of both cuntries: Danmark kept her government and parties for quite some time into the war, while Norway was treated as an occupied country by the Germans (Quisling). Keeping a "blind eye" on the escape of Jews from Danmark to Sweden is also related to this subject.
10:54 - In fairness, the "show of overwhelming force" strategy _did_ work slightly earlier in getting Denmark to surrender with almost no fighting (which, in turn, worked out pretty well for Denmark, as they got to keep their government and a great deal of autonomy until fairly late in the war as a reward for not having killed lots of German soldiers).
This puts me in mind of a passage in one of Steven Brust's novels, but I had to wait for the weekend to look it up and cite it correctly: "War consists of missed opportunities alternating with narrow escapes, and it usually ends when someone, somewhere, fails to commit a timely error." And another, the one I was really looking for: "Battles are decided when timing and momentum and courage all come together and, at just the right moment, someone fails to make a critical mistake and doesn't manage to miss a vital opportunity."
Vidkun Quisling's mother was sister to the great grandmother of a friend of mine. The family came from "Kvislinge Mark" near "Sorø" (Sorö) in Denmark. Hos mother chose that as her (their?) new surname but with "Q" when she (they?) moved to Norway.
@32:12 "giving Norway more time to mobilise". Ahem, it was Sunday and all the weapons were locked away for safe keeping! It was something remembered by Norway for nigh on 70 years until quite recently. Now all weapons held by reservists are kept at central location under, you guessed it, lock and key!
As a Dane, thanks for not pointing too much out that Denmark's poor defence of our nation made things harder for Norway. For that we are very sorry !!! You see the clear difference in the two movies "The King's Choice" and "April 9th"
Allan Eriksen Yes and be thankfull for the small Danish resistance groups that blew up the railroad lines transporting goods to and from Norway. And about the Danish navy, it was sunk in the harbour by its crew, just before the Germans came to take the ships.
Denmark still have the world record at surrendering. They managed to concede in negative time, the German declaration of war hadn't reached the Danish government before the Danish surrender had reached the Germans.
@TzunSu Not true ! Copenhagen and the Danish government and King surrendered to the Germans around 6 am, but the Danish soldiers near the Danish border were fighting in Haderslev until they received the order to surrender 2 hours later around 8 am. Unlike in Norway, our coastal fort did not have a battleship to sink, and therefore, we did not have the possibility for our government and king to flee and resist the invasion.
My dad told me his unit was sent back to England from France to train for operations in Norway, but before they were sent that operation was cancelled and his unit was sent to Egypt.
A Ward. For you're sake I hope you are not a swede. Because if you known ww2 history and the state Sweden is in today you simply would not write that sentence.
Norway as Sweden are Big Government countries. As long as you're an obedient sheep the State will care for you all your live. Of course you pay the bill.
@@ducthman4737 Maybe. But in the US around 40 million people don't have health insurance and your education is only as good as your parents can afford to pay for. People want low taxes but complain when streets and water systems aren't maintained and there's 45 kids in a classroom with an untrained teacher. If you have a kid, there's usually 2 weeks leave, unpaid, and then back to work with no subsidized infant care.
The British Infantry Brigade kicked off the Cruiser Squadron was obliged to leave a large amount of its heavy kit behind on the ships and so when it was landed it did so without a lot of kit such as heavy radios, snow shoes*, tents and as I understand it field kitchens etc (I even recall that they left their mortars behind) so when they did eventually land in Norway they were at a disadvantage when they did eventually fight the Germans. *The Winter of 1940 was particulalrly cold in the UK (and Northern France) with heavy snowfall across the country so the British had gained some experience in using snow shoes.
A not isolated experience given it was planned by a drunk. It is a textbook example of thoughtlmess of such imbeciles. You'd think Jutland and Turkey never happened
@@michaelmcneil4168 I can understand why the decision was made (the Admiralty believed that a breakout was taking place) even if it was wrong. Easy for us up timers with 80 years of hindsight to judge said decision. As for Gallipoli - well a lot of people buggered that one up and by Jutland Churchill was no longer running the Navy so he had very little to do with it (asides from ensuring that it had the ships and support necessary). Castles of Steel by Robert K Massie is an excellent source if you want to read more on those 2 subjects. In fact if you have even a passing interest in Battleships its worth reading.
Great video! Its not often in videos that the problematic situation surrounding Norway is accurately told, about to be invaded by both sides while trying to cling to neutrality. Btw. 17:41 Norge is pronounced with a hard G and the E is not silent.
I watch your videos for a while now and I really enjoy your content. Good research, entertaining representation and a very nice voice. Keep up the good work.
My sense is that the biggest problem faced by the Allied forces is a near complete lack of desire to fight yet another war with Germany, as exemplified by Chamberlain and the Munich agreement. They just had no stomach for the fight in 1939 and 1940, and they were generally unprepared. Britain didn't develop a sense of resignation until Dunkirk, after which they soon came to understnd they were in a fight for national survival. Norway simply demonstrated Allied weaknesses and perhaps a lack of focus. I'm not sure this campaigned could have ultimately ended well for the Allies without all the luck falling in their direction and even then they might have botched it.
"They just had no stomach for the fight in 1939 and 1940, and they were generally unprepared.". Not really true - until the successful invasion of France German public morale was definitely lower than French or British because evreyone - including the generals on both sides - expected Germany to lose. And from 1938 French and British arms production was considerably greater than Germany's - if France had not fallen then by mid 1941 the allies would have had a crushing superiority.
@@benwilson6145 The Royal Navy certainly mined Norwegian waters on 8th of April 1940. The British even planned to invade several coastal cities in case of a German "reaction".
For me the most ironic thing about the Norwegian campaign, is that due to the british losing Norway Neville Chamberlain was forced to resign, the person they put in change was of course Winston Churchill, who was the person actually in charge of the Norway Campaign. So we basically ousted someone for the failure of the Norway Campaign and put someone in charge who was more to blame for the failure of the Norway Campaign 😂😂
A little bit unfair. If Churchill would have had his way, Germany would have been shut down in 1938, when they made their first move against Chechoslovakia. At that time, there was next to nothing Germany could have done against Britain and France.
Churchill accepted the blame and offered to resign his position, however Parliament refused to accept his resignation and kicked him into the hot seat in Number 10.
LarS1963 I don’t think Churchill in charge in 1936 or 1938 leads to a contained Germany. I think that leads to Germany that is unopposed in its European expansion, probably with a fascist France as an ally or client state.
So hearing what theoretically could have been, lined up right next to what was, made this listen so much more stressful than it needed to be. But I still love u drach.
As far as I know, the coastal guns at Oscarsborg fortress that fired at Blücher were German-made (Krupp). (before the land-fired torpedoes finished her).
They were three 28 cm Krupp guns. The first parts arrived in February 1893, but due to several circumstances, they were finally mounted and ready in May 1893.
A fascinating look at a fascinating campaign - thanks! Love learning about Norway and other KM surface operations other than Bis, channel dash and north cape.
"The Germans are attempting to breakout into the Atlantic!" "Bloody Hell, Geoff, the war ended 75 years ago!" "Yeah, but... Germans." "...You got me there."
If you mine someone else's waters that country can still sweep those mines and actually is obliged to do so. If it refuses - it sides with the country laying the mines. You can check the Corfu Channel incident for reference. Just after the end of WW2 communist Yugoslavia laid mines in communist Albanian waters on Albanian request. Albania was eventually held responsible when two British destroyers demonstrating force in Albanian waters (trying to prevent aid to Greek communists in the ongoing Greek Civil War) ran into the laid mines and got damaged (one beyond repair) with dozens of sailors killed.
Though the obligation exists even if the mined country does not require the mining, it is a textbook violation of sovereingty, may allow the offended country to make deadly use of force as self defence - it should go without saying, being for "self defence" is the big part here: the use of force allowed is the minimal possible and solely directed at stopping the aggression.
@@MSNL123 That is also true. That is why Britain was also found guilty of violating Albanian waters. Essentially in this case the duty to sweep mines in your waters in peacetime collided with the right to excersise self defense (there was no war declared or an outright hostile action by the British other than slight violation of teritorial waters). And since UK held much more sway on the international stage the rulings, while finding both sides at fault, were in practical terms less favorable to Albania.
A very accurate presentation. I would add that the Norwegian government was not prepared for war in April 1940. Few soldiers were mobilized, and they were equipped with obsolete equipment.
When Sweden mobilized in response to the invasion of Norway, it found its stock of ammunition for anti-aircraft guns was only sufficient for a simultaneous 1 minute firing of all guns.
@@AtomicBabel I ran across that item in Dunnigan and Nofi's Dirty Little Secrets of World War II. I agree, its is a jaw-dropping failure in procurement and readiness.
The Norwegian government had decided to mobilise. Secretly. By mail instead of radio. Wouldn't want to panic the population or offend foreign governments - that just wouldn't be polite. Of course the by-mail mobilisation never managed to complete before the invasion.
"Obsolete" is not... empirically correct. The Krag-Jørgensen rifles were mostly 1912-versions (not sure about first production date, but it's post-WWI), some sniper versions. For instance, the Kar98 (1935) which most Germans used was not all that different. In fact, Germany issued a production request of almost 15 000 of the Krag-Jørgensen rifles once she occupied Norway (but sabotage meant only 3000 and some of them was recieved). What Norwegian forces lacked, was combined arms equipment, support doctrine equipment.... basically any support on an organizational level except some artillery and anti air pieces. No divison mortars, no modern machine guns (Norway had effective but slow firing outdated Danish designed machine guns). Basically most troops had the carbines. Not prepared... not mobilized. But the Germans cut telecomunnications early. The three Norwegian armies were split off from each other. And had to rely on delivery by hand (mail) for operational planning with each other. She did not have many anti-tank guns, either, and soon the Germans landed Panzer II - III tanks, and when Denmark capitulated, close air support. 7 Norwegian fighters initially flew to fight off 70-80 German planes. They deployed mostly heavy fighters (BF110c) and strategic bombers (He versions) iirc.
And then Norway would become a self policing POW camp for up to 250,000 German soldiers that would never be used on any other front for the rest of the war. Just as an example that is as many as were lost at Stalingrad or used in the Battle of the Bulge.
@CommandoDude That all sounds like logical reasoning, but I'm not sure history has yet discovered the number of troops necessary to defeat Russia's greatest ally, winter.
@Marry Christmas They could have been trained to useful standards though. One of the greatest failures of Germany on the Eastern Front was the collapse of the infantry.
Sitting here and looking at the very places were Norge and Eidsvoll were sunk, I have to give a KUDOS for this analysis. There is only one minor error in this entire video to my estimation, and that is the pronunciation of the Norwegian name of Norway; Norge. It is pronounced "Nor-geh".
This is really great stuff per usual Drach. It really is a fascinating subject: So drastically different from most of the Allied amphibious invasions since in most cases the Allies spent immense amounts of time and resources just planning them and in most case enjoyed absolute naval and air dominance, and were able to continue extended landing operations basically indefinitely. Here the Germans had contested sea lanes and a tiny window to land forces and get their naval assets back to the safety of friendly waters. It was a blitz on the sea and quite impressively conducted despite the heavy losses in shipping mostly after the landings. Admittedly the forces they landed only had to defeat the surprised Norwegians but outside of maybe the extreme South they needed to be relatively self-sufficient once disembarked.
Well. When I served in the Norwegian navy, we had a ritual where both the kriegsmarine and the RN were flushed down the same toilet. Both nations violated Norwegian neutrality. The British under the pretext of “saving” Norway, although their goal were the same resources the Germans had their eye on. That said the British and allied land and naval operations were a study in a cocked-up plan.
And, of course, you were right. Great Britain (my country), in common with other "major powers", will do anything it thinks is in its major interests, provided, and this is the important bit, it thinks it can get away with it. Norway would be very unlikely to be able to do major damage to the UK, and so invasion was always a possibility. The UK and the US, of course, invaded Iceland against the wishes of the Icelandic government. Let there be no doubt, that if the UK had needed to go through Belgium in 1914 to defend itself from a major rival that had been re-arming for forty years to gain revenge for a previous defeat, the UK would have done exactly what Germany did. ...
It's down to preferences..... the Germans or the allies ..... which would you have chosen ? Allied occupation of Norway might have altered the course of the war
@@wisemanner5012 The difference is that the Kaiser was not a government in the true sense of the word, and his support for invading Serbia was error, just as the invasion was error and Sarajevo visit error. All the controversies amount to one question, was Germany able to Munich like UK? Germany needed a Munich in 1914, just as UK did in 1938, only the UK had the government to achieve it, Germany did not. For all the German greatness at engineering and organisation, the government was simply not up to the tasks, and the reason why UK government was, the civil strife over centuries at the centre of State, Germany was a new State and did not have the government system required to meet the diplomatic storms and further German ambitions to be the example of national success.
Everything was pretext, yet not necessarily deserving of being flushed the toilet! You should respect the genuine effort to avert the loss of life which flushed the reputation of a prime minister down the toilet. You should respect the sacrifice of millions to achieve the destruction of a cruel dictatorship, and if that cause meant flushing Norway down a toilet it would have been handed over to the chain gang. Most people let the troublemakers of this world make trouble, and if that is what you want to express say it, not a cock and bull story about two bully-boys demanding mineral waters from Norway. Dont jump on the anti-Chamberlain band-wagon because it is not seaworthy my friend, and you want to honour your navy not see it sunk.
Another factor is the impact that the loss of their destroyers and cruisers had on the German planning for operation Sealion. The lost units were essential were the Germans to have any chance of holding the Channel, irrespective of air cover. Their loss impacted the decision not to attempt an invasion of Britain.
The decision to undertake Seelöwe was made, it was called "The Battle of Britain", afterwards, it just never came to landing any troops the German destroyers were lost months before the order to start that battle began I'd say their loss merely made the invasion hinge even more on the Luftwaffe being victorious
Even so the Germans never had the logistics to provide their troops with everything needed once they were in Britain. The German army was a horse powered force.
@@Nightdare You are missing the point. First, I refer to the plans to invade Britain as " Sealion", not the Battle of Britain, and Sealion was predicated on Germany being able to hold a sea corridor across the channel to land and supply their troops. With the vagaries of weather they could not rely on airpower alone to do this, and naval forces were required to be transports and to hamper and interdict any attempt by the Royal Navy to destroy the landings, albeit that their role might be a sacrificial one. I am not suggesting that this was the key determining factor that led to Germany abandoning its plans, but it was a contribtary factor.
@@ericgrace9995 No, technically, Seelöwe was set in motion it was an all encompassing plan, like Operation overlord (which had operation Neptune for the invasion) had operation pointblank for air superiority Seelöwe had "Adlerangriff" The luftwaffe didn't start bombing RAF bases for shits and giggles Phase one was to achieve air superiority Because of this not happening, Seelöwe failed
@@Nightdare First, it is highly debateable whether or not Sealion was ever a serious plan to invade Britain, or "busy work" that the German High Command undertook to assuage Hitler. Goering, had a completely different political agenda. After the Luftwaffe's failure to stop Dynamo, he enthusiastically threw his airforce at Britain to regain his prestige in the Nazi hierarchy. If you don't realise that the German command syructure was more Darwinistic than cooperative, you've missed the point of Nazi Germany. To argue this was part of a coordinated and cohesive plan when the OKH had massive reservations about the invasion, and simply did not think it was a feasible operation, kind of means they were actually doing it for shits and giggles. OKH weren't complete idiots they knew that even had Goering established air superiority over Southern England, the Channel is often subjected to severe storms, similar to the ones that smashed the Mulberry 4 years later. Air cover would have been impossible and the Royal Navy would have been able to devastate any invasion fleet and any ships that might have had even the slightest chance of preventing this intervention were rusting in Oslo and Narvik Fjords. So yes, when you're planning the invasion of an island, losing most of your surface fleet will have an effect on your plans.
If the Uboat torps actually worked the Royal Navy would have lost a dozen more ships. Maybe even some capital units. It was bad Norway fell. But it could have been even worse
Max kennedy - Gunther Prien (“Bull of Scapa Flow”) had this to say after firing 11 G7e’s on a “Veritable Wall of Ships”, “Fired 11 Torpedoes at a veritable wall of ships. NONE worked, & we were depth-charged for 8 hours! I will not go to war with a toy rifle!” He broadcast it “in the clear” (uncoded & in plain German). Hitler found out the next day & went BALLISTIC! Heads at the “Torpedo Ministry” rolled, & the problems with the German torpedoes were resolved within 8 months.
British Admirals were always looking for the grand fleet lining up for glory against the Germans, when evidence came in that this was not happening, they ignored it.
@walt7500 > The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities. It can yield remarkable results for those who think they are stupid but plough on regardless.
I feel like in many ways the Admiralty in early WWII was stuck in the First World War. they were still trying to fight the Second Battle of Jutland. to get the decisive fleet action they were denied (mostly by Beatty/Seymour's rank incompetence).
The Dunning-Kruger effect is just such BS. How many times have people completely certified at the highest levels - have made mistakes resulting in total mindboggling calamity. The "effect" can be used to describe any circumstance, with "20-20 Hindsight". But, it is used mostly by people on forums to insult other people's usually radical innovative imaginative or creative ideas, that they don't like. Or are shocked at. Or don't understand. Or are afraid of. Or will result in a decrease in their stock portfolio. According to Dunning-Kruger - when Alfred Wegener proposed the Tectonic Plate Theory, or, Kristian Birkeland proposed the Solar Wind theory - seeing as how the world's best geologists and the worlds best physicists - for FIFTY years - all insisted vehemently were "below their skill level to understand, how wrong they are" to the point of brazenly destroying both men's careers - well by all rights - we should have laughed their theories into total oblivion, right? Dunning-Kruger effect right? Since they yes did not recognize they were below the level of their critics sacred, impervious divine knowledge that Plate Tectonics, or the Solar Wind, do not exist. Instead, thankfully, eventually people IGNORE Dunning-Kruger, as being just an artifact of the narcissists attack weaponry tookit, and eventually, the truth comes out, and those who actually operated below their skill level, end up smarter than everyone else... Another point. What about self-initiation. Taking the initiative. Confidence. Positive Visualization - of an outcome that has not yet happened - surely that is Dunning-Kruger right? How dare anyone predict what might happen in the future. What about just taking on challenges. According to Dunning-Kruger, when anything in life goes wrong, well, you are dumb so should call somebody else. How does anybody progress that way? Or any other task that is dropped on you. What about in the workplace? I laugh to imagine next time they ask me to take on the next impossible task, I just tell them: "well, uh, sorry, I never saw this before, I'll pass". Or the 25 other people in the same straights. Just sit at your desk, arms folded. If everyone was scared of the Dunning-Kruger boogieman at every juncture, calling up some central switchboard to see "am I, like, qualified, to like, do this?" - the entire world would grind to a halt. It is nothing other as effective or relevant in a discussion, than the modern version of blurting out: "let them eat cake..." (There - now you can have fun deciding is all the above, actually a real rebuttal of it, or, just an off the scale ~real~ application, of Dunning-Kruger Effect... heh heh heh... have fun buckies...)
@Drachinifel ORP "Orzeł" means "The Eagle" . Five Polish subs from 1939 had mountain animals' and birds-of-prey deriven names :) Wilk - Wolf . "Sęp" = "Vulture", Ryś= Lynx , Żbik- Wildcat. Latter three were interned in Sweden throughout the war. BTW. Great material as always!
Last time I was this early, the germans were apparently sending destroyers with nowhere near the required operational range to break out into the atlantic.
Could you do one of these for the Netherlands? I know it's not a maritime invasion like the one of Norway, but the navy did have a role, especially in the at the time Dutch East-Indies.
I recently watched a documentary with Jeremy Clarkso about the spectacular und suizidal St. Nazaire raid in 1942. Are you planning to also a video on that? Would be very interesting to see your view on that epic tale.
So here's me thinking Drachinifel forgot the KMS Emden in the beginning being like what? but thankfully he mention her halfway through. Such legendary battles took place in the Norwegian campaign HMS Glowworm H92 and KMS Admiral Hipper & her sister KMS Blücher against the Oslo berg fortress. May all be remembered.
The fortress in the Oslofjord is named Oscarsborg. That Commander had a lot of balls. Communication With the admirality had broken down, so Colonel Birger Eriksen took responsibility and said: "I either be court martial or become a warhero. FIRE!"
Oscarsborg Fortress. It's located in Drøbak Sund. (Drøbak Strait). Her commander (Birger Eriksen) was doing a routine inspection iirc. When Blücher (leading) was sighted, he swiftly recalled another retired officer to lead the torpedo battery. The two huge guns (although outdated, would had been able to sink any ship at the time (or later), had such large shells the commander accurately estimated they'd only get two shots off. He uttered some now almost legendary words. "Either I will be decorated or I will be court martialled, Fire!" They did not know at the time who they were fighting. The ships had recieved previous warning shots further down the coast. The first shell hit (and ignited a large area) before the aft mast, the second shell hit the forward gun turret base. Devastating fires spread, and she was riddled by secondary batteries (Husviks 2 57mm targetting the superstructure landing around 30 hits, Kopås' 3 15cm batteries landing around 13 hits, one of them disabling her steering and another her fire fighting systems. Her AA and secondaries fired back at the batteries but were ineffective. No Norwegian casualties.... Two torpedoes brought the mercy blow, rupturing her hull eventually. "Kongens Nei" ("The King's Choice" is the English title I think) has a good cinematographic scene of this event (Battle of Drøbak Sund).
Do you have the Hawkins class of heavy cruisers on your guide list? Considering they set the standard for cruiser limits in the Washington treaty they should be of interest.
Around here, "Norge" is pronounced something like "Norj". No, really, there's a town (or maybe village?) by that name within 2 or 3 miles of where I am.
The Royal Navy's tactic of blockading Germany is like a real life equivalent of that one enemy NPC in any video game that is programmed to only use one really annoying tactic that usually results in knock-back and several seconds of a getting up animation.
Ohh G'day there @Skreezilla fancy seeing you here... Anywho will you be covering the Regia Marina in 1.99, yeah nah or nah yeah? Still better than some Royal Navy ideas.
An interesting analysis, Drach, and as always thoughtful and well-argued. The one missing piece here was the role of Quisling and his boys in the Norwegian government. I think they may have had something to do with helping to confuse the Norwegian response, and the success of the Norwegian defenders was far more about individual initiative and courage, combined with steel nerves, skill and good equipment.
The honour of giving Norway away goes to Prime Nygårdsvoll and minister Koht... Read "Kongens Nei" for the embarrassing details.... the Norwegians soldiers could have defended the country ,but were told to stand down....
What would have been more important for the Kriegsmarine would have been crew losses. It takes a fairly long time to train technical and artillery personnel
Norway in Norwegian is Norge(pronounced Nor-guh, not Norge as in English). Interestingly, it is a contraction of Nordveg as in the old English, Nordveg which was contracted to Norway and transformed to Norwegian. More to the point, my aunt and her husband, educated in the US, owned a farm near Flekkefjord, that provided the only suitable place to allow British paratroops to land in. the British would land speak to my aunt(her husband was stranded on a freighter off South Africa after the German invasion) and she would reply to the invaders in English, then they would disperse to their target(s), then the survivors would be picked up by the British Navy. The Germans would follow, with a translator, always too late. This process took place several times during the war. Perhaps, the Germans had personnel problems, in that they never stationed troops on the farm. Her observation was this: "Norwegians expected that German officers would be arrogant, but the condescension of the British officers was unbearable."
Sounds about right in thread with the rest of the campaign. Arrogant British officers denied any (expert, mind you) advice from Norwegian officers when they landed, then they headed south and got promtly slaughtered in what is some of the worst defeats on a per-battle scale for the Brits throughout the entire war. You'd think they'd at least realize the Norwegians knew the terrain well (and they also came from the south, already having fought the Germans for weeks). When they came back to help Norwegian forces retake Narvik (along with Poles and Frenchmen), they weren't so arrogant anymore. Then they/we won. Makes you think... Later on, one of the two Norwegian RAF wings became one of the most decorated air wings on the Allied side, the Norwegian merchant fleet low-key saved GB's ass (GB struggling with all the convoy raiding), and Norwegian saboteurs prevented what was percieved at the time to be probably the absolute biggest threat to all Allied countries. (To put it short and bluntly. Not to speak of the countless equipment, weapons and supply sabotages).
@@ukunagjtyran127 Yes, but because of the isolation that comes with a country divided by fjords and mountains, there are many dialects with their peculiar pronunciations. Exacerbating the problem of pronunciation is that many dialects have vowels that are medial. An o may be heard speakers of other languages as either as a long o or an oo(long u). Careful listening will show that the actual sound used is medial between the two sounds. I have no idea how you can make such a sound but I have heard it over and over in different accents. (my grandfathers were from north of the Arctic circle- their accents were hard, clipped, stolid; my mother spoke with accent of her mother, from Sorlandet, which was warmer and flowing).
It's an overseas battlefield, practically a very long island where transports have to go by sea even between parts of Norway. Our fleet is completly dominat and the islanders (Norweigans) are on our side. We even have aircraftcarriers and planes that can fly in. What could go wrong?
Not everything went wrong at Norway. The Kriegsmarine lost 10 destroyers, the heavy cruiser Blucher, 2 K class light cruisers, and 10 destroyers. The Lutzow, Scharnhorst and another K class cruiser were severely damaged. The Gneisnau moderately damaged. None too shabby results for the Royal Navy.
I've been trying to imagine for years what might have happened if Eidsvold and Norge had been ready to fight. They were old ships, but had been somewhat modernized, and their guns were quite capable of thrashing the bejeezus out of destroyers at distance.
and they had the terrain advantage too,. I mean Warspite was able to do so well because she would be forewarned and have her guns trained and ready: I remember reading about the terrain behind one of the German DDs just erupting when she showed up and fired at point blank. now, the two old Norwegian coastal defense ships wouldn't be as spectacular, but they could sit and wait, with the range already calculated, to be able to fire. So in essence the first DD in the column comes around the corner and just gets a face full of 8.2in HE. everyone slams on the brakes and reverses to figure out WTF just happened, then they move on. meanwhile the Norwegian duo have moved to a new position. rinse and repeat.
@@sawyerawr5783 The DD in question «seized to exist» in one eye witness account I've read. With the Norwegian guns, I expect their fate would be like HMS Glowworm.
They would probably have needed significantly better weather conditions as well. The range finders and other optical equipment was woefully out of date and I'll suited for basically anything but clear weather. Dense snow made ranging the guns guesswork at best. However, clear skies, full crew and meeting the German force out in the fjord where the old ladies would at least have had a chance to maneuver to avoid torpedoes. (Their torpedo protection suffered from a critical lack of existing) would have made for an interesting confrontation! They were quite well armed for their tonnage: 2 x 21 cm guns (single turrets fore and aft) 6 x 15 cm guns (3 per side in casements) 8 x 7,6 cm guns (scattered all about the place) 6 x 47 mm quick-firing guns for anti-aircraft use. (also scattered about the place) Armour ranged from the 50mm deck, via 152mm belt to 229mm at the turret face. Top speed was about 17 knots at 4500 hp. They displaced 4233 tons and had a crew of 270.
@@Kennethah81 If I'm not mistaken, both ships had recently been fitted with new British gun sights and rangefinders. How well they were trained in using them, I don't know.
@@norcatch Its been too long since I read up on these ships in detail, but my impression was that they were pretty much outdated across the board, including the optics. There are quotes from the surviving crew that the gunnery-optics were all but useless under in the weather-conditions during the battle. Of course, it is possible that the conditions were too bad for optical range-finders no matter their quality. Norge fired at least one (possibly more) salvo from her 15cm guns without hitting. Eidsvoll were hit so fast that she couldn't get of any shots before going down.
Also the terrain was a big help. Remember that German forces at the time were mainly based on horses and trucks - they didn't have that many armored trooops at the time.
@@gunnar6674 Read up more about the campaign (German) in Norway. I believe already at Koppang they had Panzer tanks rolling in once they got a foothold. They also had close air support. The Norwegian fight in Norway is extremely underestimated in my opinion. Nothing more could had been done, especially considering the first thing the Germans did was cut telecommunication, leaving the 3 Armies (and some detachments) to war on "their own". I think you're thinking of how horses were one of the most used "resources" in the war. They towed toweables (AA, AT, supplies, artillery) and was part of the supply chain. Also they did have many armored troops at the time, but as it as early war they were limited to PzIII's in Norway I believe. Other than that, yes, windy roads and hilly terrain helped the Norwegian forces delay the Germans massively in regards to what forces they faced. Of course, they also had to face MG34's, submachine guns, medium mortars, artillery, air support, tanks and some mechanized.... while Norwegians (even though a Norwegian modernized the hand grenade) had little modern tech at the time, having some solid trusty Krag-Jørgensen carbines (M1912 and some subversions and sniper rifles), sure, but that's it. Mostly rifles and some machine guns. Interesting note: _During the occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany, the German forces demanded that Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk build weapons for the German armed forces.[25] They placed large orders for the Krag-Jørgensen, the Colt M1914 (license-produced Colt M1911), and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns. However, production was kept down by sabotage and slow work by the employees. Out of the total of 13,450 rifles ordered by the Germans, only between 3,350 and 3,800 were actually delivered._
SebSk one thing that helped was that many Norwegians used their personal weapons so their sights were adjusted. The German guns was not adjusted so they kept missing while the norwegians hit jackpot all the time.
@@cowboy9316 How common was that? Many of the Norwegian army units were hastily mobilized and equipped, with the exception of the 6. division in the north, and the King's Guard.
And once more a situation where a very few people decided nations or even wars with their decisions. if the french did not feared the German retaliation, and they vent with the original, earlier plan, the entire German Norway campaign could have been a disaster for them, which would lead a less than stellar morale for the Germans in the Benelux run and against France, while the allies had a victory under their belt to boost their morale. Making the entire war a much different one, where the germans bog down in France and probably got attacked by SU before the entire escalation happens, and than probably everyone in europe jumps on the kick the germans wagon, ending the european war before the end of '40 (and preparing an east-wast conflict in the late forties-early fifties, but that is a different topic)
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Pinned post for Q&A :)
The Kreigsmarine decide to pause construction on the Bismarck and Tripitz and up gun the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in time for the Norway campaign how would the pair have done against Renown and later Scharnhorst vs Duke of York at the battle of the North Cape?
I was watching your video on the Admiral Hipper class and i thought came to me, would they have been better served being shorter 20 meters shorter?
Why was USS Saratoga not at Coral Sea and Midway, i've heard conflicting reasons ranging from not back in time, to damage to the the ship and was she either incredibly lucky or unlucky also did she deserve the nickname "Sara Maru"?
Should I record for you names of Polish Ships? Video is great as always.
@Star Trek Theory It means you are originally from the mirror universe.
"What went wrong in Norway? From a German perspective, quite a few things went right!"
*Grand Admiral Raeder gives a thumbs up from in front of the sinking Bluecher*
with distant smoke from the 10/14 destroyers lost
It is very, if not extremely, difficult for me to NOT believe that Norway was a Pyrrhic Victory for Nazi Germany if not a Fatal Victory.
That hit hard
When somebody informed the king Norway was at war, he asked "With Whom?"
You can see why that was a good question.
At the Oslo defenses at Drøbak Sound, they didn't know what side the Blücher was on until they heard the Germans on board singing Deutschland, Deutschland über alles (the range was very close).
And, then, of course there was Colonel Eriksen's famous order (he didn't know which side the Blücher was on either)
"Either I will be decorated or I will be court martialled. Fire!"
What some people don't know about the Altmark incident is that it was the last time Cutlasses were issued to a boarding party in the History of the RN
The last time cutlasses were issued to a boarding party in the history of the Royal Navy *so far*
Cue British training yacht classing with Somalian pirates
Basically everyone to Norway: *Congratulations, you are being rescued. Please do not resist.*
And can we look at your nice warships as we have had to transfer some to the U-Boat service. What do you mean there in Scapa Flow.
isnt that the Iceland or greenland? "occupation" in a nutshell
If resistance is met then more rescuing will be conducted until all recipients have stopped twitching.
just like how Drach assumes that Royal Navy forces will win by default (I really never understood historians belief in the power and durability of Renown and Repulse, who only got tested once, with the loss of HMS Repluse ), or even if the RN might have defended Narvik for a while longer^^
Lucky breaks for the RN and Norway : Orsel finds and torps Rio de Janeiro, Captain of "Bluecher" has a brush with arrogance and ignores Norwegian coastal fortresses. but yeah only the Germans get lucky breaks, never the RN. It's all skill and/or bad luck on their end.
@@mynameiswritinwater Because the RN massively outnumbers and outguns the Kriegsmarine, and Renown demonstrated her superiority over Scharnhorst and Gneisnau by driving them both off in the action off Norway.
The Royal Navy, and the Admiralty is taking a lot of heat in the comments here. As a Norwegian, a neutral country at the time, both our foreign ministry and military intelligence, had significant information from different sources, that an invasion was on. Information disregarded by our government. Had this been taken seriously, and our government mobilized when the chief of staff pleaded the first time, there would have been a significant stronger defense in place in Norway. So, if the RN had been in these positions, rather that these positions - the Norwegians would have been warned, and could have mobilized in time. Well we were already warned, and missed our opportunity to defend our country. Can't very well pin that on the RN
A good point, but you have to figure that the urgency would become a bit more clear when it changes from "our spies are 100% certain we're lined up to be invaded" to the more threatening "an invasion fleet full of soldiers is having a battle just off the coast". At least you'd hope that even the thickest politician could understand that situation.
@@johnladuke6475 Indeed, even though a ship full of troops right off our shores should do just that. My point is really, Norway was not an allay, and should not suspect warnings or support from anyone - and can not blame anyone for not being able to defend our self.
@@johnladuke6475 Sad chapter in history 3 times were they warned, first was that there was plans for an invasion. Second time that after the incident that they will get invaded this year, and final third warning was the day before. That tonight we will receive an ultimatum that all Swedish warships needs to stay in ports or Germany will take that as a declaration of war from Sweden. So all attempts to get the norwegians to mobilise was rejected.
@@johnladuke6475 Ah but did they not get also warnings about the French and British invasion? Every single invasion in that war was predicted accurately but after a flurry of inaccurate misinformation. Time and time again invasions and battles came as a surprise certainly in terms of time and location. Equally preparations were made to resist in the wrong place or time because of the skill of the deceiver. Mobilisation to resist invasion is a national effort and highly damaging to an economy so nobody should be surprised at the reluctance to mobilise. An attack by anyone concerned was rash with great risks it was reasonably to assume that it would not be done. In WW1 Norwegian neutrality had worked well for all. In the end the victors paid the price of having to defend with large forces what should have been self defending and they lost most of their fleet and chance to knock the UK out of the war through invasion.
As another norwegian: We did not trust, and had no reason *to* trust, the british. These were the british of the Empire, of before the battle of France. They were arrogant, too often incompetent shits.They were *also* threatening to invade. We wanted to stay the fuck out. Which is reasonable. And unlike south Norway, the north resisted the germans for longer than *any other german-occupied nation* in ww2.
We have altered your terms of neutrality, pray we do not alter them further....
This deal's getting worse all the time
like how the allies invaded neutral Iceland. The western allies allowed the USSR to invade Finalnd,lithuania and Latvia and allowed the USSR to keep Poland....................give it up on the double standards.
I learned something today, thank you.
@@wazza33racer you know the decitionmakers are dead, yes?
@@Jumptownwore Your point being?
These early campaigns in the war tend to get glossed over, really glad you’re giving them your customary meticulous attention. Well done!
It's more like anything that is not a select few campaigns do not get a lot of attention. I would not say that either Rzhev, Tunisia, nor Bagration have a lot of attention, nor would I say that either was in the early part of the war.
Listening to this video while removing rust on a Norwegian research ship from 1957 nearby the hiding place of Tirpitz. It could still get a bit more appropriate, but not very much.
Where are you? A Norwegian shipyard?
@@Peizxcv just a small organization taking care of historical and noteworthy vessels.
@@welbhloud please tell us more about it...
Are you at Tromsø Sørodda? Kåfjord? Which vessel? I ask because in the 80'ies I studied Fishery Science in Tromsø and sailed om their small blue and white trawler into Balsfjorden. I no longer recall her name.
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 her name is Sørhavn, you will find her, she is a beauty.
“Glow worm thought free xp!” Excellent phrasing.
@Angel Apolinar *laughs in Bismarck secondary captain*
The naval battles around Norway should have been free xp for the British.
Please Explain 'Free xp'?
Ulrik Schack Meyer I’m told it’s a gamer term for an expendable ship.
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 Free training for the crew
Any German ship leaves port, British admiralty goes: THE GERMANS ARE BREAKING OUT INTO THE ATLANTIC
True but when this is your biggest fear can you blame them? In their minds better to focus on that than not to and allow a breakout.
Sensible at the time. But nowadays it gets tiresome. ;)
Given the commerce raiding possibilities of a German naval breakout, I can't blame them.
Sensible...Kriegsmarine Surface Fleet was pretty much smashed from Narvik, certainly their destroyer fleet was. After that the Kriegsmarine had the large armoured Cruisers and BB's that the Royal Navy and RAF picked off. The only achievement was the channel dash. The U-Boat arm however was a different story.
They should have been more worried about the U-Boats, as it turned out. Any German warship that tired to break out for commerce raiding rarely seemed to find anything except a wall of 14 inch projectiles.
Short answer: Luck.
Long answer: Glowworm.
Sassy Answer: The Admiralty
It's amazing how much luck the Germans had in the first couple of years of the war. Eg weak and poorly led opponents, but also grabbing that luck and making full use of it. But it couldn't last, and as soon as the weather turned bad near Moscow...
Silly Puppy i honestly believe they lost from winning-too-much syndrome
@@sillypuppy5940 really they lost because Hitler just could not, almost pathologically, keep from messing with stuff. he turned Army Group Center south to Kiev...had he not done that Center is in Moscow in Late winter (look up the battle of Kanenewo...I've mangled that spelling...to see what I mean. a full division of T-34s checks the advance of the Panzers long enough for winter to set in and cause the already creaking supply train to collapse fully).
And bear in mind that given the central control of Russia at the time the country could not be governed from anywhere other than Moscow. so you take Moscow and you essentially knock Russia out of the war.
@@LiveErrors Sussy Answer: The Amogus
Germany: We need ze land neighbor. Too bad.
Norway: Oh no.
Allies: We gonna save you buddy!
Norway: Oh no.
Norway would have benefited by playing both sides, feeding them both information and selling them services.
@@michaelmcneil4168 Miltary access or allowing the ore supply could have attracted the wrath of Britain
@Angel Apolinar They could have, but by the time Norway fell, there was little Britain could do to force anything, and Germany had no reason to keep stretching It's supplies.
Poland to norway "gotta love them 'allies' right, so helpful"
@@michaelmcneil4168 Germany would never allow it. Because they depended so much on Norwegian resources that it was not even a question. Taking Norway & controlling it themselves vs hoping we would play by the neutrality and not take any sides and thus stopping the flow of resources was too much of a gamble. Thats one of the biggest reasons they invaded us. Resources, and they knew that Britain was planning to "invade" aka help reinforce Norway from a German invasion. Germans knew Norway would have sided with England if it came down to it as we've always been close. But yes, we could have benefited by playing both sides, but that was never an option. Norway was in a rough time back then and quite frankly just wanted to be kept out of it all together. But Germany were right, we would have stopped the flow of resources when it came down to it.
It always amazes me when military operations are planned on the basis of sound assumptions, such as "Let's invade a few of their cities, then they will appreciate it and we will live happily together ever after!"
Apparently dropping freedom on people who might not accept it otherwise isn't the wild new idea that we all believed.
@Marry Christmas I think I am pointing at a case of being delusional about the consequences of the planned actions, rather than bluffing to gain an advantage.
@Marry Christmas LOL, ok! It happens ;) Best regards!
Just like Nixon's "incursion" of Cambodia...
I think that was basically the German war plan in general. I get that Germany got a raw deal at the end of WWI, but how did going to war with the rest of the world ever seem like a brilliant plan? I mean Germany's allies didn't count except in a negative way. I guess it was easy to underestimate the USSR's military potential after the winter war.
HMS Glowworm: Alright guys, let's do this.... LEEEEROY JENKINS!
At least his chicken got cold and wet. ;)
Hot dog! Free XP! Let's go!
In that situation the not very bright Glow Worm should have sent signals prior to any engagement to ensure the full SP was acknowledged received.
Fisher never rammed home any remarks about wireless telegraphy, Churchill was acting as Admiral of the Kriegsmarine until late in 1942
Glowworm is every destroyer in WOWs that dies capping in the first five minutes.
Lol I haven’t heard LEEEEROY JENKINS in yrs.
Thank you so much for bringing together all the context for this. My understanding of the Norwegian Invasion has been greatly enhanced - not so much because I've learned new facts, but because you've done such an excellent job bringing together the context for the individual events I had known into a more coherent bigger picture.
It's particularly interesting to see here an excellent example of the difference in focus that a good small unit commander might have compared to what sort of focus a theater commander must maintain for success. It's the duty of the highest command to be always double-checking their assumptions, looking at the big picture, and not getting bogged down in minutia at the tip of the spear.
I too wanted to express my appreciation for the way Drach covered this interesting secondary campaign which doesn't always get much attention. You put it quite well OP, thank you too.
Hi Drachinfel I love your material - thank you! Just a coincidence I am reading "Hitlers Preemptive War - the Battle for Norway 1940". I've just listened to the first part of your video - there are a number of very important things that are wrong. The Allies were by far the most aggressive in their breaches of Norwegian neutrality, both in what they were planning and what they did/did not eventually carry out. The French were particularly keen to open a front that was as far from French soil as possible - remember we are talking about the Phoney War period here - Hitler had taken no action in the West at this point. Churchill placed an undue emphasis on the Swedish ore that was being moved through Narvik in Northern Norway - he wanted to invade Narvik and then march on SWEDEN and capture the ore fields themselves - the cover he wanted to use was to "help" the Finns in their war against the USSR as the Finns had been invaded by them. These are not minor violations of the neutrality of other nations.Only the end of the war in Finland brought this plan to a halt.
Similarly the laying of minefields in Norwegian waters is not a minor violation of Norwegian neutrality - the Norwegians viewed it as a de facto declaration of war. Unfortunately the Norwegian Navy was tiny and was in no position to stop the Royal Navy from so doing - they tried to prevent it but had to give in to a vastly superior force. The RN laid about 3 minefields although at least one if not two was a "dummy" minefield. The Germans had developed contingency plans to invade Norway but they were far less developed than than the Allies - the Allies HAD embarked their invasion forces and were on the point of invading to Narvik (Norway). This didn't happen at this point as at the last minute the Admiralty had found out about German heavy units at sea. The troops were hurriedly disembarked as it was felt that their escorts would be better used to chase down these units.
These ships were actually part of the German invasion force - EVERYBODY thought that it would be inconceivable that the Germans would attempt to invade Norway - as Germany had a very small navy. One must remember the sensitivity of the Germans to a minefield - remember that it was the British naval blockade that had ultimately brought Germany to its knees in WW1 They had received good intelligence that the Allies were planning/going to invade Norway - the German invasion was a pre-emptive one - they simply got there first - just! Ultimately an invasion of a neutral country is just that - no matter who carries it out - Allied or German ...
UPDATE The role of HMS Glowworm in the video has been grossly overstated. The Allies (and the Norwegians) were aware that the Germans were up to "something" well in advance of their invasion - you cannot "hide" an invasion of 40,000 personnel that easily! The various elements of the German forces were progressively spotted and reported on all through their passage in the Baltic. Thus the Allies (and the Norwegians) had ample evidence that an invasion of some sort was underway, LONG before they reached Norwegian shores."Hitlers Preemptive War - the Battle for Norway 1940" says that a combination of factors resulted in what eventually played out
1) The Germans were much more flexible and quick in their decision making and action - the Allies (and the Norwegians) by contrast were slow and ponderous in their decision making - and dithering
2) The old adage of if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then maybe it is a duck didn't apply - despite the obvious the Allies simply couldn't comprehend that the Germans would dare invade - if you are fixated on an attitude you will avoid all the obvious clues
3) The Norwegians eventually authorised a Partial mobilisation to the unfolding events - Allied and German - not a Full mobilisation - thus mobilisation papers were sent by POST and not on a general radio alert thus an earlier mobilisation may not have had the effect that is stated in the video - it would all have been too slow
4) The most obvious sign that it could NOT have been a break out was actually the significant number of German Destroyers - these were comparatively sort ranged craft and could not have been used in a wider Atlantic campaign - thus why were they there? No serious questions were asked
5) The Norwegian Government was in crisis mode because of the ALLIED mining campaign - THEY were seen as the threat and not the Germans i,e they were totally distracted and the many early warnings of the German movements were simply "lost" in the panic
Whenever I hear about the allied minelaying operations, I am always reminded of the first norwegian ship to be sunk in WW2:
The M/S Ronda that struck a mine on the 13th of september 1939. Incidentally, one of the people that died was my great-grandfather.
Awesome documentary!!! I studied and knew of all the individual naval battles that occurred when the Germans attacked Norway. In fact, I always wondered how amazing it was that the Germans succeeded. Your commentary explains how events as they happened, along with what each side was thinking and planning, made it possible for Germany to succeed. Thank you so much for these videos. Well done!
The Brits were pretty much caught in WW1-naval battle-mode during the campaign. Wonder why?
Here's something I really value about your analyses: What you describe is not just what actually happened, but what the wide variety of considerations and counter-considerations were at a given point in time, the options, and the considerations and counter-considerations of those options, and then what actually happened, and why it ended up that way, and how it could have ended differently had various considerations been taken into account
I wonder if the RN so readily belived that the Germans were trying to breakout into the Atlantic not only because they feared it but because a fleet action with the Germans was something they had been dreaming about since Juntland.
there is also the Spee to take into account, she had already set a precedent for what the Kriegsmarine might want to do
I'd imagine that quite a large number of senior RN officers secretly or maybe not so secretly wanted a Jutland rematch with the Kriegsmarine.
Michael Jones axiom: plan to fight the current conflict the way “you” fought the last war that was won!
Result: dismal failure before reorganization became effective
@@LiveErrors True that did tie up a ton of allied resources, so they would have had a strong incentive to keep the Germans bottled up.
With the RN - never attribute to malice which can just be explained as incompetence ;)
3:30 The "Altmark incident" (rescuing Allied prisoners from the ship) is cited to be the last time in naval history that cutlasses were used in battle. The British were said to have boarded the ship swinging their cutlasses like wild pirates.
You seem to love propaganda... lol
@@LucioFercho _"Propaganda"?_ Whether true or "just a good story" 83 years old, how can it be "propaganda"?
Please explain to us. Your explanation could turn out to be an even more funny story.
@@larsrons7937 LOL!!! It was propaganda 83 years ago, during the war, which is when most propaganda is manufactured son...
People just like to parrot it without second thought.
I have many boks of this subject. The mobilization orders of the Norwegian forces where done by mail. This, of course, took some time. The reason for doing this was to not send any enemy a warning of the mobilization via radio. Plan B of mobilization doctrine was by sending mail. Many therefore acted on their own initiative, then joining other units as their met each other.
Germans where surprised by the heavy Norwegian resistance, mostly armed with repeating Kragh-Jørgensen rifles. The numbers of german soldiers being killed by headshots was staggering. Norway had many reductions in defence budgets and was partly demilitarized by political reasons. They did, however, have a large number of people from local rifle ascociations. And they where excellent sharp shooters!
Indeed!
Should be noted the defense budget was more or less doubled in the years preceding the war, if I'm not mistaken. All the democracies slashed defense spending after WW1, and even major powers like Britain and France struggled to begin rearmament in the 30s. Norway was a small nation still dealing with the depression and with a government that (legitimately) feared their own officers. I think this is important perspective.
To be fair, when you're fighting from prone or behind snowbanks, headshots are pretty much the only fatalities you'll get when there's no artillery.
Because here in norway many get hunter lisence and many got rifles
"Boks"? Ah, you're referring to shoes, "Reeboks." I think.
It wasn't only the Swedish iron ore, that was often used for critical components like german made ball bearings, engine parts, cannon barrels and so on. It was also about ball bearings made in Sweden, and machinery for making ball bearings in Germany, that was manufactured in Sweden. In 1940, Sweden (in the form of SKF) had a huge chunk of the global production of ball bearing. Partly in production in Sweden, but also with SKF-factories in Germany, the UK, USA and so on. The british for instance used aircrafts (including Mosquitos) and MGB's to import ball bearings and steel for special applications from Gothenburg after the fall of Norway. The US government was able to secure ball bearings from Sweden late in the war (to aviod Germany getting them) by promising to pay very well not only for the ball bearings them self, but also by promising to pay for the rebuilding of SKF facilities in Germany, what was bombed by the USAAF.
Would be interesting to see what Drach makes of the British blockade runners bringing ball bearings from Sweden.
VERY interesting detail. Tackar
but manufactured Swedish goods would be exported via the ports, the main difference was the ore mines were closer to the Norwegian coast so Sweden exported that iron ore via Norway.
@@mangalores-x_x Also the Baltic's pesky tendency of freezing over every year...
In addition, the British had plans to help Finland with troops via Narvik and at the same time occupy important key points around Norway, The plans were postponed when the winter war in Finland ended in March, German intelligence learned about those plans and saw that British control over Norway would means that the RAF could reach Berlin and other important bombing targets, The Norwegian coastal battery near Trondheim expected British vessels to arrive but the commander of the fort was more German friendly and ordered not to fire when they discovered Kriegsmarine sailed into the Trondheim Fjord. I wonder what could have happened if they had fought would it have been similar to what happened at the Oskarsborg Oslofjord incident?
Always one of my favourite campaigns to read about because it so well illustrates the allied command problems that were present early in the war
Early war? Adm. King has a few words about late war cooperation...
@@Colonel_Overkill None of them fit for print.
@@bificommander lol, too true. In an interview with his daughter after he died she said he hadn't singled out the royal navy specifically, he just was that much of an asshole to everyone he dealt with and made no exceptions for anyone...
@@Colonel_Overkill Adm King was described as being the most even-tempered man in the USN. He constantly in a rage.
The whole war*
And the Western European wonder why Russian and Americans meme them that they’d be fucked without them (which is true)
It’s Wednesday my dudes and Drach has released another perfect video
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
not perfect! Missing is so much video footage [that never existed].
Entirely absent of any welding or milling or marbles, though.
"What went wrong in Norway?"
"I'll make a list."
Make a traitor list for Sweden while you at it. They helped the Nazis throughout the whole war, earning a profit on Norways misfortune.
Item 374: Not enough cats.
@@jmp01a24 They helped the nazsis first beacuse they would just got invaded anyways. In the late stage of the war they gave airspace to the alliesvand information.
@King George V I liked your comments about women just wanna fuck. Great stuff there...
@@jmp01a24 Yes, Sweden did profit a lot from selling iron ore, letting the germans use their railways for troops, selling ammo and in general doing business as usual. Sweden came out of the war with a intact industry and wealth to carry them forward for 20-30 years. But they also helped the norwegian population. They took in refugees, trained a police force, helped the resistance, sent relief help, etc. At the end of the war they also let the allied use the swedish airspace for bombing of targets in Norway. But in general I do not think they are proud of how they profited from Norways misfortune and they certainly do not teach all of it in history class in Sweden today.
Greetings from Norway... :-)
Sitting here in Narvik, in the far north, among the frozen mountains of Lapplandia and fisherman villages, listening about the glorious past of the place. Btw Norge is pronounced more like Nohrgay, than that french atrocity you used.
Yes, the Normans have infected our Germanic English brethren with these weird Latin pronunciations, instead of following a more consistent path.
Add to that at least a five century lack of proper spelling reform, and they struggle to write and pronounce their own language, let alone have a clue how to say anything in any other tongue.
RogerWilco And yet despite its obvious idiosyncrasies, English/American continues its steady march to world domination.
We are the Anglophones. Your linguistic and grammatical distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile, your tongue will be assimilated.
@@rogerwilco2 : Don't worry Roger, we have plenty of improper spelling reform to compensate for the lack of proper! In fact, you can take some!
Ive been to Narvik never realised it was so far north though... i loved the place but i`m not sure what the locals or other Warships there thought as some wag decided it would be a great idea to paint swastika on the side of our ship while in Narvik harbour,as we were there with the Polish,French and Norwegian navy for the anniversary of the Narvik raid you can imagine how well that went down...
Many thanks for the excellent explanation. I always wandered exactly what went wrong in Norway. I would like to add one fact in this regard. Norway and Danmark recieved exactly the same "ultimatum" (not considered as such by the Germans) to "let in" German forces into their countries. They reacted differently: Danmark accepted, while Norway did not and put up an (albeit short) fight. This showed later in the "political treatment" of both cuntries: Danmark kept her government and parties for quite some time into the war, while Norway was treated as an occupied country by the Germans (Quisling). Keeping a "blind eye" on the escape of Jews from Danmark to Sweden is also related to this subject.
10:54 - In fairness, the "show of overwhelming force" strategy _did_ work slightly earlier in getting Denmark to surrender with almost no fighting (which, in turn, worked out pretty well for Denmark, as they got to keep their government and a great deal of autonomy until fairly late in the war as a reward for not having killed lots of German soldiers).
This puts me in mind of a passage in one of Steven Brust's novels, but I had to wait for the weekend to look it up and cite it correctly: "War consists of missed opportunities alternating with narrow escapes, and it usually ends when someone, somewhere, fails to commit a timely error."
And another, the one I was really looking for: "Battles are decided when timing and momentum and courage all come together and, at just the right moment, someone fails to make a critical mistake and doesn't manage to miss a vital opportunity."
Congratulations on presenting a well balanced and objective video on this subject without even once mentioning Vidkun Quisling.
Quisling was probably sleeping through most of this, only to be alerted as the Germans actually got onshore.
Vidkun Quisling's mother was sister to the great grandmother of a friend of mine. The family came from "Kvislinge Mark" near "Sorø" (Sorö) in Denmark. Hos mother chose that as her (their?) new surname but with "Q" when she (they?) moved to Norway.
Probably because this is about the invasion(s) of 1940 and not about Norwegian domestic politics 1940 to 1945?
Amazing work Drach.
German army, rejoicing: hooray! victory!
German air force, rejoicing: hooray! victory!
Germany navy, bleeding and dragging itself: ... hooray...
more like, ...... fuckin' hooray.....
@32:12 "giving Norway more time to mobilise". Ahem, it was Sunday and all the weapons were locked away for safe keeping! It was something remembered by Norway for nigh on 70 years until quite recently. Now all weapons held by reservists are kept at central location under, you guessed it, lock and key!
Because a fair few reservists.. used them. Which I'm sure you know.
Just keep them beyond Breivik's reach.
@@chavdarnaidenov2661 Yeah.
@@norcatch Buddy based chamber locks - problem solved. Too bad chamber locks cost money.
Moblization was done by mail instead of radio. The goverment was afraid of creating panic and still hoping to come to some arrangement with Germany.
As a Dane, thanks for not pointing too much out that Denmark's poor defence of our nation made things harder for Norway. For that we are very sorry !!! You see the clear difference in the two movies "The King's Choice" and "April 9th"
... but the Danes made up any deficiencies later in the war, not least in the evacuation of the bulk of the Jewish population to Sweden.
Allan Eriksen Yes and be thankfull for the small Danish resistance groups that blew up the railroad lines transporting goods to and from Norway. And about the Danish navy, it was sunk in the harbour by its crew, just before the Germans came to take the ships.
I'm Norwegian and this has never been pointed out to me. I don't think that is something we consider much or is something you need be sorry for!
Denmark still have the world record at surrendering. They managed to concede in negative time, the German declaration of war hadn't reached the Danish government before the Danish surrender had reached the Germans.
@TzunSu Not true ! Copenhagen and the Danish government and King surrendered to the Germans around 6 am, but the Danish soldiers near the Danish border were fighting in Haderslev until they received the order to surrender 2 hours later around 8 am.
Unlike in Norway, our coastal fort did not have a battleship to sink, and therefore, we did not have the possibility for our government and king to flee and resist the invasion.
My dad told me his unit was sent back to England from France to train for operations in Norway, but before they were sent that operation was cancelled and his unit was sent to Egypt.
So that is where our skis went!
Was he a soldier in the French foreign legion?
@@bgery0103 no his unit was The London Fusiliers.
What went wrong in Norway? Sweden has been asking the same question since 1905!
A Ward. For you're sake I hope you are not a swede.
Because if you known ww2 history and the state Sweden is in today you simply would not write that sentence.
Right back at you, Sweden.
Norway as Sweden are Big Government countries. As long as you're an obedient sheep the State will care for you all your live. Of course you pay the bill.
@@ducthman4737 Maybe. But in the US around 40 million people don't have health insurance and your education is only as good as your parents can afford to pay for. People want low taxes but complain when streets and water systems aren't maintained and there's 45 kids in a classroom with an untrained teacher. If you have a kid, there's usually 2 weeks leave, unpaid, and then back to work with no subsidized infant care.
A Ward, If you're a Swede, have a happy 17 May this Sunday.
The British Infantry Brigade kicked off the Cruiser Squadron was obliged to leave a large amount of its heavy kit behind on the ships and so when it was landed it did so without a lot of kit such as heavy radios, snow shoes*, tents and as I understand it field kitchens etc (I even recall that they left their mortars behind) so when they did eventually land in Norway they were at a disadvantage when they did eventually fight the Germans. *The Winter of 1940 was particulalrly cold in the UK (and Northern France) with heavy snowfall across the country so the British had gained some experience in using snow shoes.
A not isolated experience given it was planned by a drunk. It is a textbook example of thoughtlmess of such imbeciles. You'd think Jutland and Turkey never happened
@@michaelmcneil4168 I can understand why the decision was made (the Admiralty believed that a breakout was taking place) even if it was wrong. Easy for us up timers with 80 years of hindsight to judge said decision. As for Gallipoli - well a lot of people buggered that one up and by Jutland Churchill was no longer running the Navy so he had very little to do with it (asides from ensuring that it had the ships and support necessary). Castles of Steel by Robert K Massie is an excellent source if you want to read more on those 2 subjects. In fact if you have even a passing interest in Battleships its worth reading.
@@michaelmcneil4168 yes he was a very Big Professional drunk!
@@rickmoreno6858 I wish we had a drunk like that running the US today.
Great video! Its not often in videos that the problematic situation surrounding Norway is accurately told, about to be invaded by both sides while trying to cling to neutrality.
Btw. 17:41 Norge is pronounced with a hard G and the E is not silent.
Easiest way of explaining: Pronounce it "Norrr-gheh" (homemade phonetics :-) )
26:52 - a MINE you say? Seems Mrs. Drach has missed an opportunity here.....
I watch your videos for a while now and I really enjoy your content.
Good research, entertaining representation and a very nice voice.
Keep up the good work.
My sense is that the biggest problem faced by the Allied forces is a near complete lack of desire to fight yet another war with Germany, as exemplified by Chamberlain and the Munich agreement. They just had no stomach for the fight in 1939 and 1940, and they were generally unprepared. Britain didn't develop a sense of resignation until Dunkirk, after which they soon came to understnd they were in a fight for national survival. Norway simply demonstrated Allied weaknesses and perhaps a lack of focus. I'm not sure this campaigned could have ultimately ended well for the Allies without all the luck falling in their direction and even then they might have botched it.
"They just had no stomach for the fight in 1939 and 1940, and they were generally unprepared.". Not really true - until the successful invasion of France German public morale was definitely lower than French or British because evreyone - including the generals on both sides - expected Germany to lose. And from 1938 French and British arms production was considerably greater than Germany's - if France had not fallen then by mid 1941 the allies would have had a crushing superiority.
Excellent, as usual. Everything about your videos is "First Class".
> Allies: mine Norwegian waters
> Germans: literally invade the country one day later
> Allies: surprised Pikachu
Allies did not mine the Norwegian waters.
@@benwilson6145 The Royal Navy certainly mined Norwegian waters on 8th of April 1940. The British even planned to invade several coastal cities in case of a German "reaction".
@@benwilson6145 ...Did you even watch the video?
@@bkjeong4302 did you ever read history? Go back to the cartoon channel!
Thanks- it is a entertaining and informative review of the Norwegian campaign👍
For me the most ironic thing about the Norwegian campaign, is that due to the british losing Norway Neville Chamberlain was forced to resign, the person they put in change was of course Winston Churchill, who was the person actually in charge of the Norway Campaign. So we basically ousted someone for the failure of the Norway Campaign and put someone in charge who was more to blame for the failure of the Norway Campaign 😂😂
A little bit unfair. If Churchill would have had his way, Germany would have been shut down in 1938, when they made their first move against Chechoslovakia. At that time, there was next to nothing Germany could have done against Britain and France.
Churchill accepted the blame and offered to resign his position, however Parliament refused to accept his resignation and kicked him into the hot seat in Number 10.
LarS1963 I don’t think Churchill in charge in 1936 or 1938 leads to a contained Germany. I think that leads to Germany that is unopposed in its European expansion, probably with a fascist France as an ally or client state.
VERY interesting detail, Thank you.
Churchill, both times, was an absolute disaster as First Lord of the Admiralty. He should not be allowed to be a naval leader.
"Free XP!" Laughed so hard I scared my wife. Brilliant!
Please make a episode on MTB/MGB vs. E-boats.
There were mutch more action going on than with the Big ones.
Thank you, Professor Drachinifel. I say that because you are absolutely walking the walk as one. I found your analysis fascinating.
Norway has some really nice fjords, whoever designed them should get an award
; )
Slatibardfast
They give a continent a lovely baroque feel.
Well, a minor award perhaps.
@@CameraObscure ha, I am not the only one who got that. 42
Have You Driven A Fjord Lately?"
So hearing what theoretically could have been, lined up right next to what was, made this listen so much more stressful than it needed to be. But I still love u drach.
As far as I know, the coastal guns at Oscarsborg fortress that fired at Blücher were German-made (Krupp). (before the land-fired torpedoes finished her).
They were three 28 cm Krupp guns. The first parts arrived in February 1893, but due to several circumstances, they were finally mounted and ready in May 1893.
And the torpedoes were Austro-Hungarian
A fascinating look at a fascinating campaign - thanks! Love learning about Norway and other KM surface operations other than Bis, channel dash and north cape.
"The Germans are attempting to breakout into the Atlantic!"
"Bloody Hell, Geoff, the war ended 75 years ago!"
"Yeah, but... Germans."
"...You got me there."
Please talk about minesweepers! Please! I’ve been wishin for it!
If you mine someone else's waters that country can still sweep those mines and actually is obliged to do so. If it refuses - it sides with the country laying the mines. You can check the Corfu Channel incident for reference. Just after the end of WW2 communist Yugoslavia laid mines in communist Albanian waters on Albanian request. Albania was eventually held responsible when two British destroyers demonstrating force in Albanian waters (trying to prevent aid to Greek communists in the ongoing Greek Civil War) ran into the laid mines and got damaged (one beyond repair) with dozens of sailors killed.
Though the obligation exists even if the mined country does not require the mining, it is a textbook violation of sovereingty, may allow the offended country to make deadly use of force as self defence - it should go without saying, being for "self defence" is the big part here: the use of force allowed is the minimal possible and solely directed at stopping the aggression.
@@MSNL123 That is also true. That is why Britain was also found guilty of violating Albanian waters. Essentially in this case the duty to sweep mines in your waters in peacetime collided with the right to excersise self defense (there was no war declared or an outright hostile action by the British other than slight violation of teritorial waters). And since UK held much more sway on the international stage the rulings, while finding both sides at fault, were in practical terms less favorable to Albania.
Good presentation. From a Naval perspective, the awful German magnetic G7e/T2 torpedoes (especially bad in Northern waters) were an additional factor.
Did anybody's magnetic torpedo work in WWII?
A very accurate presentation. I would add that the Norwegian government was not prepared for war in April 1940. Few soldiers were mobilized, and they were equipped with obsolete equipment.
When Sweden mobilized in response to the invasion of Norway, it found its stock of ammunition for anti-aircraft guns was only sufficient for a simultaneous 1 minute firing of all guns.
@@kemarisite if anyone else wrote that comment, I would not believe. How is that even possible? That's a ready locker's worth (to be generous).
@@AtomicBabel I ran across that item in Dunnigan and Nofi's Dirty Little Secrets of World War II. I agree, its is a jaw-dropping failure in procurement and readiness.
The Norwegian government had decided to mobilise. Secretly. By mail instead of radio. Wouldn't want to panic the population or offend foreign governments - that just wouldn't be polite. Of course the by-mail mobilisation never managed to complete before the invasion.
"Obsolete" is not... empirically correct. The Krag-Jørgensen rifles were mostly 1912-versions (not sure about first production date, but it's post-WWI), some sniper versions. For instance, the Kar98 (1935) which most Germans used was not all that different. In fact, Germany issued a production request of almost 15 000 of the Krag-Jørgensen rifles once she occupied Norway (but sabotage meant only 3000 and some of them was recieved).
What Norwegian forces lacked, was combined arms equipment, support doctrine equipment.... basically any support on an organizational level except some artillery and anti air pieces. No divison mortars, no modern machine guns (Norway had effective but slow firing outdated Danish designed machine guns). Basically most troops had the carbines.
Not prepared... not mobilized. But the Germans cut telecomunnications early. The three Norwegian armies were split off from each other. And had to rely on delivery by hand (mail) for operational planning with each other.
She did not have many anti-tank guns, either, and soon the Germans landed Panzer II - III tanks, and when Denmark capitulated, close air support.
7 Norwegian fighters initially flew to fight off 70-80 German planes.
They deployed mostly heavy fighters (BF110c) and strategic bombers (He versions) iirc.
And then Norway would become a self policing POW camp for up to 250,000 German soldiers that would never be used on any other front for the rest of the war. Just as an example that is as many as were lost at Stalingrad or used in the Battle of the Bulge.
@CommandoDude That all sounds like logical reasoning, but I'm not sure history has yet discovered the number of troops necessary to defeat Russia's greatest ally, winter.
@Marry Christmas They could have been trained to useful standards though. One of the greatest failures of Germany on the Eastern Front was the collapse of the infantry.
@@keithplymale2374 No. the collapse was the result of the greatest failure on he Eastern front: the ineffective logistics.
Sitting here and looking at the very places were Norge and Eidsvoll were sunk, I have to give a KUDOS for this analysis. There is only one minor error in this entire video to my estimation, and that is the pronunciation of the Norwegian name of Norway; Norge. It is pronounced "Nor-geh".
This is really great stuff per usual Drach. It really is a fascinating subject: So drastically different from most of the Allied amphibious invasions since in most cases the Allies spent immense amounts of time and resources just planning them and in most case enjoyed absolute naval and air dominance, and were able to continue extended landing operations basically indefinitely. Here the Germans had contested sea lanes and a tiny window to land forces and get their naval assets back to the safety of friendly waters. It was a blitz on the sea and quite impressively conducted despite the heavy losses in shipping mostly after the landings. Admittedly the forces they landed only had to defeat the surprised Norwegians but outside of maybe the extreme South they needed to be relatively self-sufficient once disembarked.
Well. When I served in the Norwegian navy, we had a ritual where both the kriegsmarine and the RN were flushed down the same toilet. Both nations violated Norwegian neutrality. The British under the pretext of “saving” Norway, although their goal were the same resources the Germans had their eye on. That said the British and allied land and naval operations were a study in a cocked-up plan.
And, of course, you were right. Great Britain (my country), in common with other "major powers", will do anything it thinks is in its major interests, provided, and this is the important bit, it thinks it can get away with it. Norway would be very unlikely to be able to do major damage to the UK, and so invasion was always a possibility. The UK and the US, of course, invaded Iceland against the wishes of the Icelandic government. Let there be no doubt, that if the UK had needed to go through Belgium in 1914 to defend itself from a major rival that had been re-arming for forty years to gain revenge for a previous defeat, the UK would have done exactly what Germany did. ...
It's down to preferences..... the Germans or the allies ..... which would you have chosen ? Allied occupation of Norway might have altered the course of the war
@@wisemanner5012 The difference is that the Kaiser was not a government in the true sense of the word, and his support for invading Serbia was error, just as the invasion was error and Sarajevo visit error. All the controversies amount to one question, was Germany able to Munich like UK? Germany needed a Munich in 1914, just as UK did in 1938, only the UK had the government to achieve it, Germany did not. For all the German greatness at engineering and organisation, the government was simply not up to the tasks, and the reason why UK government was, the civil strife over centuries at the centre of State, Germany was a new State and did not have the government system required to meet the diplomatic storms and further German ambitions to be the example of national success.
Everything was pretext, yet not necessarily deserving of being flushed the toilet! You should respect the genuine effort to avert the loss of life which flushed the reputation of a prime minister down the toilet. You should respect the sacrifice of millions to achieve the destruction of a cruel dictatorship, and if that cause meant flushing Norway down a toilet it would have been handed over to the chain gang. Most people let the troublemakers of this world make trouble, and if that is what you want to express say it, not a cock and bull story about two bully-boys demanding mineral waters from Norway. Dont jump on the anti-Chamberlain band-wagon because it is not seaworthy my friend, and you want to honour your navy not see it sunk.
A really wonderful video. Your thesis well thought out and cogent and delivered very clearly. I really enjoyed this video, thank you Drach
Last time I was this early D'Oyley-Hughes was still legitimately beneath sea level and Glorious still above it
Excellent synopsis.....can't fault the analysis. Well done.
Another factor is the impact that the loss of their destroyers and cruisers had on the German planning for operation Sealion. The lost units were essential were the Germans to have any chance of holding the Channel, irrespective of air cover. Their loss impacted the decision not to attempt an invasion of Britain.
The decision to undertake Seelöwe was made, it was called "The Battle of Britain", afterwards, it just never came to landing any troops
the German destroyers were lost months before the order to start that battle began
I'd say their loss merely made the invasion hinge even more on the Luftwaffe being victorious
Even so the Germans never had the logistics to provide their troops with everything needed once they were in Britain. The German army was a horse powered force.
@@Nightdare You are missing the point.
First, I refer to the plans to invade Britain as " Sealion", not the Battle of Britain, and Sealion was predicated on Germany being able to hold a sea corridor across the channel to land and supply their troops.
With the vagaries of weather they could not rely on airpower alone to do this, and naval forces were required to be transports and to hamper and interdict any attempt by the Royal Navy to destroy the landings, albeit that their role might be a sacrificial one.
I am not suggesting that this was the key determining factor that led to Germany abandoning its plans, but it was a contribtary factor.
@@ericgrace9995
No, technically, Seelöwe was set in motion
it was an all encompassing plan, like Operation overlord (which had operation Neptune for the invasion) had operation pointblank for air superiority
Seelöwe had "Adlerangriff"
The luftwaffe didn't start bombing RAF bases for shits and giggles
Phase one was to achieve air superiority
Because of this not happening, Seelöwe failed
@@Nightdare First, it is highly debateable whether or not Sealion was ever a serious plan to invade Britain, or "busy work" that the German High Command undertook to assuage Hitler.
Goering, had a completely different political agenda. After the Luftwaffe's failure to stop Dynamo, he enthusiastically threw his airforce at Britain to regain his prestige in the Nazi hierarchy. If you don't realise that the German command syructure was more Darwinistic than cooperative, you've missed the point of Nazi Germany.
To argue this was part of a coordinated and cohesive plan when the OKH had massive reservations about the invasion, and simply did not think it was a feasible operation, kind of means they were actually doing it for shits and giggles.
OKH weren't complete idiots they knew that even had Goering established air superiority over Southern England, the Channel is often subjected to severe storms, similar to the ones that smashed the Mulberry 4 years later. Air cover would have been impossible and the Royal Navy would have been able to devastate any invasion fleet and any ships that might have had even the slightest chance of preventing this intervention were rusting in Oslo and Narvik Fjords.
So yes, when you're planning the invasion of an island, losing most of your surface fleet will have an effect on your plans.
Drachinifel - excellent report!
_Soooo_ many lessons here.
If the Uboat torps actually worked the Royal Navy would have lost a dozen more ships. Maybe even some capital units.
It was bad Norway fell. But it could have been even worse
It could have been raining?
Max kennedy - Gunther Prien (“Bull of Scapa Flow”) had this to say after firing 11 G7e’s on a “Veritable Wall of Ships”, “Fired 11 Torpedoes at a veritable wall of ships. NONE worked, & we were depth-charged for 8 hours! I will not go to war with a toy rifle!” He broadcast it “in the clear” (uncoded & in plain German). Hitler found out the next day & went BALLISTIC! Heads at the “Torpedo Ministry” rolled, & the problems with the German torpedoes were resolved within 8 months.
@@michaelmcneil4168 Frau Blucher?
Michael McNeil We’re talking about Norway- of course it was raining!
Warspite would have been sunk but for poor German torpedoes.
British Admirals were always looking for the grand fleet lining up for glory against the Germans, when evidence came in that this was not happening, they ignored it.
No, rather the Germans were smart enough to not go toe to toe with a superior force in an open battle, a logical and frustrating move for the allies
@@angryman132 I also think that Naval officers are always in a Naval mindset. They worry about ships, an invasion, that's the armys problem.
@walt7500 > The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities.
It can yield remarkable results for those who think they are stupid but plough on regardless.
I feel like in many ways the Admiralty in early WWII was stuck in the First World War. they were still trying to fight the Second Battle of Jutland. to get the decisive fleet action they were denied (mostly by Beatty/Seymour's rank incompetence).
The Dunning-Kruger effect is just such BS. How many times have people completely certified at the highest levels - have made mistakes resulting in total mindboggling calamity. The "effect" can be used to describe any circumstance, with "20-20 Hindsight". But, it is used mostly by people on forums to insult other people's usually radical innovative imaginative or creative ideas, that they don't like.
Or are shocked at. Or don't understand. Or are afraid of. Or will result in a decrease in their stock portfolio.
According to Dunning-Kruger - when Alfred Wegener proposed the Tectonic Plate Theory, or, Kristian Birkeland proposed the Solar Wind theory - seeing as how the world's best geologists and the worlds best physicists - for FIFTY years - all insisted vehemently were "below their skill level to understand, how wrong they are" to the point of brazenly destroying both men's careers - well by all rights - we should have laughed their theories into total oblivion, right? Dunning-Kruger effect right? Since they yes did not recognize they were below the level of their critics sacred, impervious divine knowledge that Plate Tectonics, or the Solar Wind, do not exist.
Instead, thankfully, eventually people IGNORE Dunning-Kruger, as being just an artifact of the narcissists attack weaponry tookit, and eventually, the truth comes out, and those who actually operated below their skill level, end up smarter than everyone else...
Another point. What about self-initiation. Taking the initiative. Confidence. Positive Visualization - of an outcome that has not yet happened - surely that is Dunning-Kruger right? How dare anyone predict what might happen in the future. What about just taking on challenges. According to Dunning-Kruger, when anything in life goes wrong, well, you are dumb so should call somebody else. How does anybody progress that way? Or any other task that is dropped on you. What about in the workplace? I laugh to imagine next time they ask me to take on the next impossible task, I just tell them: "well, uh, sorry, I never saw this before, I'll pass". Or the 25 other people in the same straights. Just sit at your desk, arms folded.
If everyone was scared of the Dunning-Kruger boogieman at every juncture, calling up some central switchboard to see "am I, like, qualified, to like, do this?" - the entire world would grind to a halt.
It is nothing other as effective or relevant in a discussion, than the modern version of blurting out: "let them eat cake..."
(There - now you can have fun deciding is all the above, actually a real rebuttal of it, or, just an off the scale ~real~ application, of Dunning-Kruger Effect... heh heh heh... have fun buckies...)
16:05 - you sir made me spit out my coffee! xD
"FREE XP!"
@Drachinifel ORP "Orzeł" means "The Eagle" . Five Polish subs from 1939 had mountain animals' and birds-of-prey deriven names :) Wilk - Wolf . "Sęp" = "Vulture", Ryś= Lynx , Żbik- Wildcat. Latter three were interned in Sweden throughout the war.
BTW. Great material as always!
"...alerted by the ruckus outside." "Oo! Free XP!" I love your dry humor!
Last time I was this early Blucher was still afloat
you are a redshirt, you where ON the Blucher
Which one?
@@katrinapaton5283 yes
Such a shitty and overused comment.
You should be punished for that stupidity.
Love of Mangos I mean, I'm a redshirt so it comes with the job
Great episode, great break down of the situation. Thanks, Drach.
Last time I was this early, the germans were apparently sending destroyers with nowhere near the required operational range to break out into the atlantic.
Could you do one of these for the Netherlands? I know it's not a maritime invasion like the one of Norway, but the navy did have a role, especially in the at the time Dutch East-Indies.
I'm just hoping for a vid on Dutch submarines. It'll be nice to get a Dutch vid that doesn't end with "And then the Japanese blew them all up."
On like the battles of the Java Sea, Sunda Strait, and others? Maybe...
getting sunk??
@@Arltratlo Like everyone in the whole world?
I recently watched a documentary with Jeremy Clarkso about the spectacular und suizidal St. Nazaire raid in 1942.
Are you planning to also a video on that? Would be very interesting to see your view on that epic tale.
Ah yes, the raid was also mentioned in "Das Boot" (the novel). Quite a crazy operation.
@Marry Christmas That's true, especially the words about Germans.
i was there last summer, Normandie dock still exists... its really big... also the German sub bunkers are huge..
5 min guide to warships. In 36 mins. Great footage. Keep it up.
So here's me thinking Drachinifel forgot the KMS Emden in the beginning being like what? but thankfully he mention her halfway through.
Such legendary battles took place in the Norwegian campaign HMS Glowworm H92 and KMS Admiral Hipper & her sister KMS Blücher against the Oslo berg fortress.
May all be remembered.
The fortress in the Oslofjord is named Oscarsborg.
That Commander had a lot of balls. Communication With the admirality had broken down, so Colonel Birger Eriksen took responsibility and said: "I either be court martial or become a warhero. FIRE!"
Oscarsborg Fortress. It's located in Drøbak Sund. (Drøbak Strait).
Her commander (Birger Eriksen) was doing a routine inspection iirc. When Blücher (leading) was sighted, he swiftly recalled another retired officer to lead the torpedo battery. The two huge guns (although outdated, would had been able to sink any ship at the time (or later), had such large shells the commander accurately estimated they'd only get two shots off. He uttered some now almost legendary words.
"Either I will be decorated or I will be court martialled, Fire!"
They did not know at the time who they were fighting. The ships had recieved previous warning shots further down the coast.
The first shell hit (and ignited a large area) before the aft mast, the second shell hit the forward gun turret base. Devastating fires spread, and she was riddled by secondary batteries (Husviks 2 57mm targetting the superstructure landing around 30 hits, Kopås' 3 15cm batteries landing around 13 hits, one of them disabling her steering and another her fire fighting systems.
Her AA and secondaries fired back at the batteries but were ineffective. No Norwegian casualties....
Two torpedoes brought the mercy blow, rupturing her hull eventually.
"Kongens Nei" ("The King's Choice" is the English title I think) has a good cinematographic scene of this event (Battle of Drøbak Sund).
Do you have the Hawkins class of heavy cruisers on your guide list? Considering they set the standard for cruiser limits in the Washington treaty they should be of interest.
I think he covered them?
Keep up the great work!
Norge is pronounced "Nor - geh"
Might have offered before, but can do a pronounciation recording for Norwegian names.
Remember the rhotic R
> Norge is pronounced "Nor - geh
Not in everywhere that isn't a population of >6 million, it isn't
Around here, "Norge" is pronounced something like "Norj".
No, really, there's a town (or maybe village?) by that name within 2 or 3 miles of where I am.
Moskus I sometimes forget that other languages have strong regional accents
Nor Germania wink wink bet you didn't know that nor ge is as i said short for nor germania and ipronounced the same way you would say it
The Royal Navy's tactic of blockading Germany is like a real life equivalent of that one enemy NPC in any video game that is programmed to only use one really annoying tactic that usually results in knock-back and several seconds of a getting up animation.
Gee. I never thought of it that way....Really interesting, Drach. Thanks, as always!
last time i was this early the British Battle cruiser fleet still seemed like a good idea.
*Angry Jackie Fisher Noises*
Skreezilla it was if used right. Putting them against heavy ships was the bad idea.
What ever you do change your signals officer.
Tell that to Admiral Maximillian von Spee you twerp.
Ohh G'day there @Skreezilla fancy seeing you here... Anywho will you be covering the Regia Marina in 1.99, yeah nah or nah yeah?
Still better than some Royal Navy ideas.
An interesting analysis, Drach, and as always thoughtful and well-argued.
The one missing piece here was the role of Quisling and his boys in the Norwegian government. I think they may have had something to do with helping to confuse the Norwegian response, and the success of the Norwegian defenders was far more about individual initiative and courage, combined with steel nerves, skill and good equipment.
The honour of giving Norway away goes to Prime Nygårdsvoll and minister Koht... Read "Kongens Nei" for the embarrassing details.... the Norwegians soldiers could have defended the country ,but were told to stand down....
What would have been more important for the Kriegsmarine would have been crew losses.
It takes a fairly long time to train technical and artillery personnel
Nicely done, sir. Nice discussion of alternatives of history.
Norway in Norwegian is Norge(pronounced Nor-guh, not Norge as in English). Interestingly, it is a contraction of Nordveg as in the old English, Nordveg which was contracted to Norway and transformed to Norwegian.
More to the point, my aunt and her husband, educated in the US, owned a farm near Flekkefjord, that provided the only suitable place to allow British paratroops to land in. the British would land speak to my aunt(her husband was stranded on a freighter off South Africa after the German invasion) and she would reply to the invaders in English, then they would disperse to their target(s), then the survivors would be picked up by the British Navy. The Germans would follow, with a translator, always too late. This process took place several times during the war. Perhaps, the Germans had personnel problems, in that they never stationed troops on the farm. Her observation was this: "Norwegians expected that German officers would be arrogant, but the condescension of the British officers was unbearable."
Sounds about right in thread with the rest of the campaign. Arrogant British officers denied any (expert, mind you) advice from Norwegian officers when they landed, then they headed south and got promtly slaughtered in what is some of the worst defeats on a per-battle scale for the Brits throughout the entire war.
You'd think they'd at least realize the Norwegians knew the terrain well (and they also came from the south, already having fought the Germans for weeks).
When they came back to help Norwegian forces retake Narvik (along with Poles and Frenchmen), they weren't so arrogant anymore.
Then they/we won. Makes you think...
Later on, one of the two Norwegian RAF wings became one of the most decorated air wings on the Allied side, the Norwegian merchant fleet low-key saved GB's ass (GB struggling with all the convoy raiding), and Norwegian saboteurs prevented what was percieved at the time to be probably the absolute biggest threat to all Allied countries. (To put it short and bluntly. Not to speak of the countless equipment, weapons and supply sabotages).
Nohr-geh
@@ukunagjtyran127 Yes, but because of the isolation that comes with a country divided by fjords and mountains, there are many dialects with their peculiar pronunciations. Exacerbating the problem of pronunciation is that many dialects have vowels that are medial. An o may be heard speakers of other languages as either as a long o or an oo(long u). Careful listening will show that the actual sound used is medial between the two sounds. I have no idea how you can make such a sound but I have heard it over and over in different accents. (my grandfathers were from north of the Arctic circle- their accents were hard, clipped, stolid; my mother spoke with accent of her mother, from Sorlandet, which was warmer and flowing).
It's an overseas battlefield, practically a very long island where transports have to go by sea even between parts of Norway.
Our fleet is completly dominat and the islanders (Norweigans) are on our side. We even have aircraftcarriers and planes that can fly in.
What could go wrong?
Not everything went wrong at Norway. The Kriegsmarine lost 10 destroyers, the heavy cruiser Blucher, 2 K class light cruisers, and 10 destroyers. The Lutzow, Scharnhorst and another K class cruiser were severely damaged. The Gneisnau moderately damaged. None too shabby results for the Royal Navy.
Very interesting analysis, thanks
I've been trying to imagine for years what might have happened if Eidsvold and Norge had been ready to fight. They were old ships, but had been somewhat modernized, and their guns were quite capable of thrashing the bejeezus out of destroyers at distance.
and they had the terrain advantage too,. I mean Warspite was able to do so well because she would be forewarned and have her guns trained and ready: I remember reading about the terrain behind one of the German DDs just erupting when she showed up and fired at point blank. now, the two old Norwegian coastal defense ships wouldn't be as spectacular, but they could sit and wait, with the range already calculated, to be able to fire.
So in essence the first DD in the column comes around the corner and just gets a face full of 8.2in HE. everyone slams on the brakes and reverses to figure out WTF just happened, then they move on. meanwhile the Norwegian duo have moved to a new position. rinse and repeat.
@@sawyerawr5783 The DD in question «seized to exist» in one eye witness account I've read. With the Norwegian guns, I expect their fate would be like HMS Glowworm.
They would probably have needed significantly better weather conditions as well. The range finders and other optical equipment was woefully out of date and I'll suited for basically anything but clear weather. Dense snow made ranging the guns guesswork at best.
However, clear skies, full crew and meeting the German force out in the fjord where the old ladies would at least have had a chance to maneuver to avoid torpedoes. (Their torpedo protection suffered from a critical lack of existing) would have made for an interesting confrontation!
They were quite well armed for their tonnage:
2 x 21 cm guns (single turrets fore and aft)
6 x 15 cm guns (3 per side in casements)
8 x 7,6 cm guns (scattered all about the place)
6 x 47 mm quick-firing guns for anti-aircraft use. (also scattered about the place)
Armour ranged from the 50mm deck, via 152mm belt to 229mm at the turret face.
Top speed was about 17 knots at 4500 hp.
They displaced 4233 tons and had a crew of 270.
@@Kennethah81 If I'm not mistaken, both ships had recently been fitted with new British gun sights and rangefinders. How well they were trained in using them, I don't know.
@@norcatch Its been too long since I read up on these ships in detail, but my impression was that they were pretty much outdated across the board, including the optics.
There are quotes from the surviving crew that the gunnery-optics were all but useless under in the weather-conditions during the battle. Of course, it is possible that the conditions were too bad for optical range-finders no matter their quality.
Norge fired at least one (possibly more) salvo from her 15cm guns without hitting. Eidsvoll were hit so fast that she couldn't get of any shots before going down.
Great video, as usual.
Norway punching above its weight, good for them,and their courage throughout the occupation.
Also the terrain was a big help. Remember that German forces at the time were mainly based on horses and trucks - they didn't have that many armored trooops at the time.
@@gunnar6674 Read up more about the campaign (German) in Norway. I believe already at Koppang they had Panzer tanks rolling in once they got a foothold. They also had close air support. The Norwegian fight in Norway is extremely underestimated in my opinion. Nothing more could had been done, especially considering the first thing the Germans did was cut telecommunication, leaving the 3 Armies (and some detachments) to war on "their own".
I think you're thinking of how horses were one of the most used "resources" in the war. They towed toweables (AA, AT, supplies, artillery) and was part of the supply chain.
Also they did have many armored troops at the time, but as it as early war they were limited to PzIII's in Norway I believe.
Other than that, yes, windy roads and hilly terrain helped the Norwegian forces delay the Germans massively in regards to what forces they faced. Of course, they also had to face MG34's, submachine guns, medium mortars, artillery, air support, tanks and some mechanized.... while Norwegians (even though a Norwegian modernized the hand grenade) had little modern tech at the time, having some solid trusty Krag-Jørgensen carbines (M1912 and some subversions and sniper rifles), sure, but that's it. Mostly rifles and some machine guns.
Interesting note:
_During the occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany, the German forces demanded that Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk build weapons for the German armed forces.[25] They placed large orders for the Krag-Jørgensen, the Colt M1914 (license-produced Colt M1911), and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns. However, production was kept down by sabotage and slow work by the employees. Out of the total of 13,450 rifles ordered by the Germans, only between 3,350 and 3,800 were actually delivered._
SebSk one thing that helped was that many Norwegians used their personal weapons so their sights were adjusted. The German guns was not adjusted so they kept missing while the norwegians hit jackpot all the time.
@@cowboy9316 How common was that? Many of the Norwegian army units were hastily mobilized and equipped, with the exception of the 6. division in the north, and the King's Guard.
Gunnar René Øie local weapon clubs (skytterlag)
Fascinating presentation on an aspect of the early part of the war that I, for one, had only a general impression of. BZ
Drach. "rz" in Orzeł is read like J in Jacques and "ł" is read like short W in water. So it's OJeW.
mixererunio huh good to know. Thanks for the info
@Ron Lewenberg that sounds like the stuff I dip a roast beef sandwich in.
Thanks.
@Ron Lewenberg You don't?
Ron Lewenberg I eschew the “Ozhew”. pronunciation (mostly just to be contrarian).
Good job as usual
And once more a situation where a very few people decided nations or even wars with their decisions. if the french did not feared the German retaliation, and they vent with the original, earlier plan, the entire German Norway campaign could have been a disaster for them, which would lead a less than stellar morale for the Germans in the Benelux run and against France, while the allies had a victory under their belt to boost their morale. Making the entire war a much different one, where the germans bog down in France and probably got attacked by SU before the entire escalation happens, and than probably everyone in europe jumps on the kick the germans wagon, ending the european war before the end of '40 (and preparing an east-wast conflict in the late forties-early fifties, but that is a different topic)