Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Nevermind, zakk seems to not know the difference between 'General Military Subjects' and 'Free Fire Zone'. As smart as people who can't do the difference between 'muslim' and 'arab' (for example) in their twisted mind ...

 

:angry:

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
i had a tank in my platoon called " Narvik " , since we took part in a landing during the Norway campaign , actually taking that place, and on and on in liberating that country.

not bad for withe flag wavers !  :D

 

My grasp of history is vague but didn't we (UK, France & Norway) end up losing that campaign and evacuating from Norway? You're european and have at least a good historical education right? ;)

Posted
My grasp of history is vague but didn't we (UK, France & Norway) end up losing that campaign and evacuating from Norway?  You're european and have at least a good historical education right? ;)

202025[/snapback]

 

The battle was won and the city was taken, but the campaign was ended with the evacuation just before it would have been a total victory.

Now i don`t think it could have been held in the long run but thats another story. :)

Posted
i had a tank in my platoon called " Narvik ".....

 

Photos? ;) :)

Posted (edited)
My grasp of history is vague but didn't we (UK, France & Norway) end up losing that campaign and evacuating from Norway?  You're european and have at least a good historical education right? ;)

202025[/snapback]

 

Like Tony said, the city was taken and the battle for Narvik was won, but the campaign around Narvik ended with the evacuation just before it would have been a total victory. And you are also correct, we ended up losing the campaign in Norway.

 

France was at this time nearing the end of fighting at home, and the UK needed to concentrate on the withdrawal from Dunkirk. The Allied had decided to pull out of Narvik a week before they told the Norwegian government. As the Allied withdraw from Narvik, the Norwegian forces continued the fight for some days, but on 8. June 1940 the order of ceasefire was given to the Norwegian forces, and they withdraw. According to Generalleutnant Eduard Dietl, commander of the German forces in the area, the German forces were at this time only able to hold out for 24 to 48 more hours, but not more. The Germans were so sure that they would loose, that they had arranged with the government of Sweden to have 4 trains standing by just across the Swedish border to evacuate the soldiers. If the Allied had postponed the withdrawal for one week, the campaign would have ended with total victory.

 

The withdrawal of the Allied troops can be discussed (and has been discussed in Norway since 1940). The evacuation of the Allied forces was greeted with disbelief by the Norwegian soldiers, some even took to the tears. After so much hard fighting and so close to victory, the Allied just left them.

 

However bad descission, all the Allied forces had fought bravely against the Germans. The recapture of Narvik proved that on equal terms the Allies could hold their own against the feared German forces (many of them battle-hardened), and Allied morale had received a much-needed boost. Norwegian, French, British and Polish troops fought together and bested the Germans, even if their commanders didn't cooperate as effectively as they should have. Especially the Polish Independent Podhale Rifle Brigade - SBSP (Samodzielna Brygada Strzelców Podhalańskich) fought very bravely.

 

And, since this is Tanknet: The only Allied tank force present in Norway

in 1940 was the French 342nd and 343rd ”Compagnie Autonome de Chars”, equipped with 15 Hotchkiss H-39 light tanks (342rd, Capt. Dublineau) and 15 Renault FT-17 (343rd). One of the tanks can be seen here:

 

http://www.fotosamlinga.no/venner/displayi...album=25&pos=68

Edited by zakk
Posted
And, since this is Tanknet: The only Allied tank force present in Norway

in 1940 was the French 342nd and 343rd ”Compagnie Autonome de Chars”,  equipped with 15 Hotchkiss H-39 light tanks (342rd, Capt. Dublineau) and 15 Renault FT-17 (343rd). One of the tanks can be seen here:

 

Errata, only the 342e was sent. The other one was planned but was not sent because of the german attack in may.

I believe the british was sending some Mk.IV light tanks but these were onboard a ship that got sunk.

 

If you scroll about half-way down this site until you reach 342e CACC you`ll find alot of pictures of the tanks of this unit, including some taken later in Gabon:

http://www.chars-francais.net/archives/hotchkiss_h39.htm

Posted
I believe the british was sending some Mk.IV light tanks but these were onboard a ship that got sunk.

 

To be fair, the bottom of the ocean was probably the best place for a Mk IV light tank! :)

Posted
However bad descission, all the Allied forces had fought bravely against the Germans. The recapture of Narvik proved that on equal terms the Allies could hold their own against the feared German forces (many of them attle-hardened), and Allied morale had received a much-needed boost. Norwegian, French, British and Polish troops fought together and bested the Germans, even if their commanders didn't cooperate as effectively as they should have.

(My emphasis in the quote above)

Well, there were hardly "equal terms" involved here.

 

For an order of battle, see 1940 Scandinavian Campaign.

 

As can be seen from this link, the Germans had the 139th Mountain Infantry Regiment (three battalions), landed by ship, which had lost all of its heavy equipment when three other ships carrying it did not arrive in Narvik. One battery of mountain guns and some reinforcements were parachuted (or air landed) in the area. The 139th was joined by the crews of the destroyers sunk by the RN in the Fjord.

 

The Allies had French 1st Light Chasseurs Division, (with five battalions, an artillery battalion, a tank company, and other support units), the Polish Brigade (four Polish battalions), and British 24th Guards Brigade (three battalions), against the Germans in Narvik, in addition to the 6th Norwegian Brigade. And, as usual, the RN had control of the seas, and besides ensuring supplies, provided fire support.

 

Nothing against the troops fighting on either side, (and it was a hard fight just against the climate and terrain), but it really was not an even match. Furthermore, the Germans held out for six weeks (to the end of May) against this overwhelming Allied force. Hardly an event to crow about on the Allied side, I would think.

 

Cheers

Leo

Posted
To be fair, the bottom of the ocean was probably the best place for a Mk IV light tank! :)

202197[/snapback]

 

This i can agree on..... :D

Posted
:blink:

Sorry, I have reread my 3 posts in this thread over and over again, and I simply cant understand where you get this "rah-rah patriotic to the Unites States" from. Please enlighten me, will you? Or do you mean that if one is tired of stupid French selfconfidence, than you automatically are a dumbnut rah-rah patriot to the US? I have only mentioned USA once, that it has the highest BNP in the world, and that is a fact nobody can deny.  :mellow:

 

I am not even American, but from Europe. A great many people in Europe are fed up with French selfesteem, look no further than UK, but we dont automatically bend over for everything that comes from the US of A. Heck, everyone in Europe knows that Norwegians are the best anyway.

201502[/snapback]

 

You just sounded a lot like a lot of other people in other posts in other forums I have ran into before. It was nothing personal directed at you but just that type of person in general (the blindly patriotic US redneck type).

 

Yes, many French are rude and full of self-confidence but it was my understanding its mostly Parisians and the rural French people of the countryside are as every bit as good or bad as someone you would run into outside of Cleveland or Manchester.

Posted (edited)
You just sounded a lot like a lot of other people in other posts in other forums I have ran into before. It was nothing personal directed at you but just that type of person in general (the blindly patriotic US redneck type).

 

Yes, many French are rude and full of self-confidence but it was my understanding its mostly Parisians and the rural French people of the countryside are as every bit as good or bad as someone you would run into outside of Cleveland or Manchester.

203023[/snapback]

Actually, I have set foot in France. A few times. I was more than a little stunned at the public displays of very pro-US feelings in Normandy. This was back in the '80s so maybe it has changed. The other thing that caught me by surprise was the population in the Alsace/Saar region. I was expecting those on the German side to be "Germans" and those on the French side to be "French." It appeared that those on both side were neither German nor French and seemed a little suspecious of the rest of those two countries.

 

The other thing I found, as I'm sure most of you have, is that people everywhere are about the same. If you find them rude you've probably brought it with you. When visiting a country bring a happy attitude and be friendly. Oddly enough you'll find the population friendly too. The first person I met in France (I entered from Germany on a bus) was of North African ancestry. He didn't speak a word of English or German and I didn't speak any French. We seemed to get along fine regardless. The only "rude" person I ran into was a waiter in Rheims? When I asked if he spoke English his whole manner was pretty rude and he said "non". I then asked if he spoke German. He then discovered that he could in fact manage English. Rather odd.

 

I wouldn't go on too much about French white flags. In a time when a lot of the European (and US) population are pursuing the "pacifism at any price" course, the French seem to be the least affected. I also think their national casuality rate from WW1 buys them a "by" for the next 200 years.

 

Regards the EU. Yes, it took the US a long time to come to an agreement on how the government works. State power was pretty much more important than federal for over 100 years. Witness the makeup of the troops in the Civil War - they were almost completely "State Militia" vice federal troops. The death knell of state power is really a 20th century thing. 1930s in fact. The expansion of the Commerce Clause.

 

This isn't the FFZ. It's not the proper place for gratutous bashing. I also don't want to drive this topic off thread. That mention of the Swedes having trains available for the evacuation of the Germans troops. What say the Swedes? True or not? Not looking for justification or discussion. Just confirmation or lack thereof.

 

Edit to add. The best meal I've ever had was in a French Officers club. The chef, and the food, was from North Africa. Cous Cous? Steamed farina with a vegatable base in another pot and meats in a third. I've searched a number of times and everywhere else I've found it they don't steam the farina. I'm open to North Africa immigration as long as they bring experienced chefs.

Edited by FormerBlue
Posted (edited)
You just sounded a lot like a lot of other people in other posts in other forums I have ran into before. It was nothing personal directed at you but just that type of person in general (the blindly patriotic US redneck type).

 

Yes, many French are rude and full of self-confidence but it was my understanding its mostly Parisians and the rural French people of the countryside are as every bit as good or bad as someone you would run into outside of Cleveland or Manchester.

203023[/snapback]

 

French can be rude when insutled no doubt about that.

Peoples are insulting us here on tanknet and are still expecting us to stay nice, i can't bellieve it!

Zakk was much more rude, because he is insulting a country as a whole, i am not answering like he did because if i start to say all Norvegians are moronic,

1/ i will lie.

2/ i will insult peoples i like.

edit 3/ and a country i like.

When we are not insulted we can be very nice.

About Self-confidence, like everyone else from any country.

But obviouslly we are less hypocrit.

Edited by Durandal
Posted
Actually, I have set foot in France.  A few times.  I was more than a little stunned at the public displays of very pro-US feelings in Normandy.  This was back in the '80s so maybe it has changed.  The other thing that caught me by surprise was the population in the Alsace/Saar region.  I was expecting those on the German side to be "Germans" and those on the French side to be "French."  It appeared that those on both side were neither German nor French and seemed a little suspecious of the rest of those two countries.

 

The other thing I found, as I'm sure most of you have, is that people everywhere are about the same.  If you find them rude you've probably brought it with you.  When visiting a country bring a happy attitude and be friendly.  Oddly enough you'll find the population friendly too.  The first person I met in France (I entered from Germany on a bus) was of North African ancestry.  He didn't speak a word of English or German and I didn't speak any French.  We seemed to get along fine regardless.  The only "rude" person I ran into was a waiter in Rheims?  When I asked if he spoke English his whole manner was pretty rude and he said "non".  I then asked if he spoke German.  He then discovered that he could in fact manage English.  Rather odd.

 

I wouldn't go on too much about French white flags.  In a time when a lot of the European (and US) population are pursuing the "pacifism at any price" course, the French seem to be the least affected.  I also think their national casuality rate from WW1 buys them a "by" for the next 200 years.

 

Regards the EU.  Yes, it took the US a long time to come to an agreement on how the government works.  State power was pretty much more important than federal for over 100 years.  Witness the makeup of the troops in the Civil War - they were almost completely "State Militia" vice federal troops.  The death knell of state power is really a 20th century thing.    1930s in fact.  The expansion of the Commerce Clause.

 

This isn't the FFZ.  It's not the proper place for gratutous bashing.  I also don't want to drive this topic off thread.  That mention of the Swedes having trains available for the evacuation of the Germans troops.  What say the Swedes?  True or not?  Not looking for justification or discussion.  Just confirmation or lack thereof.

 

Edit to add.  The best meal I've ever had was in a French Officers club.  The chef, and the food, was from North Africa.  Cous Cous?  Steamed farina with a vegatable base in another pot and meats in a third.  I've searched a number of times and everywhere else I've found it they don't steam the farina.  I'm open to North Africa immigration as long as they bring experienced chefs.

203088[/snapback]

 

 

I am surprised, but a good surprise, thank you Formerblue.

You are right about Alsace and Couscous. ;)

Posted

Actually a lot of furrigners in France mix up a certain French shyness with rudeness. Before I knew French I thought they where quite rude - now that I speak with them I realize that many are quite bad in foreign languages* and are slightly ashamed of this - and this is misinterpret as rudeness.

 

Nowadays I've seen a warm friendly hospitality from many Frenchmen - the exceptions are the waiters in the tourist areas in Paris.

 

Cheers

 

Hans

 

*Just look at Durandals English, or lack of :P ;)

Posted
Actually a lot of furrigners in France mix up a certain French shyness with rudeness. Before I knew French I thought they where quite rude - now that I speak with them I realize that many are quite bad in foreign languages* and are slightly ashamed of this - and this is misinterpret as rudeness.

 

Nowadays I've seen a warm friendly hospitality from many Frenchmen - the exceptions are the waiters in the tourist areas in Paris.

 

Cheers

 

Hans

 

*Just look at Durandals English, or lack of  :P  ;)

203147[/snapback]

 

 

Maille Angliche ize pairfaict!

Posted

Understandable--when I lived in Washington, DC tourists were roundly hated by everyone as well. The urge to toss them off the Metro platform when they're in your way during morning rush hour..."You may be on vacation, Clueless One, but I have to get to work."

 

Nowadays I've seen a warm friendly hospitality from many Frenchmen - the exceptions are the waiters in the tourist areas in Paris.

 

 

203147[/snapback]

Posted

Predicting demographics is quite a tricky buisness. While I would generally be the first to warn about the dangers incorporated in Mulsim immigration I agree that France or Europe isn't "doomed" yet.

 

I think a main factor in European birth rates falling has been the situation of young women. In most European countries they started by wanting/being expected to get an education and job, but without society providing good child care. The result has been young women giving priority to education and career and not to giving birth and taking care of house, kids and husband - frankly I can understand them. But once child care etc. is becomming better the birth rate grows again, at least that has been the case here in Denmark. Fisrt the women who didn't get children when in their 20's get them in their 30's instead and recently the birthrate among Danish women in the 20's has risen again. the simple answer is that child care etc. has finally become so good, that is practically possible to have both children and a career type job.

 

The really interesting part is that most of the Muslims still are short of "women's lib". I will predict that it will hit them hard in the next few years with drastically reduced birthrates as a consequence, and with European rates growing simultaneuosly.

 

But anyway, as someone else alraedy said, lots of people is no base for power these days - perhaps on the contrary.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard - feeling feminist today

Posted
That mention of the Swedes having trains available for the evacuation of the Germans troops.  What say the Swedes?  True or not?  Not looking for justification or discussion.  Just confirmation or lack thereof.

203088[/snapback]

 

It is a well known fact that neutral Sweden let German forces and supplies pass through its territory during the fighting in Norway in spring 1940, after Germany used political pressure on Sweden.

 

It is well documented in a great number of books. From "Kampene i Norge 1940, Bind 2" by Andreas Hauge, Krigshistorisk Forlag AS - Sandefjord, page 208 (my not-so-good translation):

 

"...By this action, General Dietl had opened Ofotbanen (railway from Narvik to Kiruna in Sweden) all the way to the Swedish border, and as expected, this was crucial for his later defensive battle. ...By political pressure on Sweden, now finding itself in a dangerous situation, the Germans gained significant advantages by by transports through Sweden all the way up to the Narvik front. Normally it was medical- and supply-trains that got through to the German forces, but also significant reinforcements by "specialists". Key personell rescued from the sunken ships of the German Navy, was sent back to Germany through Sweden. Among the "specialists" reinforcing the German forces in Narvik, was 30 signals/communication specialists, that managed to establish decisive radio-communications with German forces south in Norway.

 

Same book, page 257: "...April 26. Sweden let a supply-train pass in to Norway and Narvik. The train was carrying 250 000 food rations (meaning daily rations). It was supposed to feed 4000 soldiers for 3 months. In this train was also 3 wagons with winter-uniforms."

 

Page 287: "...A number of different happenings by the turn of the month, ment that something was going on. From the Swedish commander of the border forces was coming a request for information on how the German forces could be interned in Sweden. The Swedish forces also started to mark the border line by flags. From May 25. 4 railway trains were standing by close to the border in Sweden on request from Germany, to pick up the German forces."

 

You will also find a lot of information on the net:

http://www.kristiansten-festning.no/Narvik...ra%20Narvik.htm

 

"6. mai kom en forsendelse med 25 underoffiserer og 170 spesialister med tog gjennom Sverige." Translated:"May 6. 25 NCO's and 170 specialists arrived by train through Sweden."

 

General Dietl, in his own diary from the battle of Narvik, is mentioning many instances where supplies and German specialists are coming with train from Sweden, and wounded and specialists beeing evacuated through Sweden. General Dietl's diary (in Norwegian translation) can be found here: http://www.bjerkvik.gs.nl.no/dietl2.htm

and here:

http://www.bjerkvik.gs.nl.no/dietl.htm

 

Some information in English:

http://www.barentsroad.org/Trailsofwar/content/timeline.htm

Posted
It is a well known fact that neutral Sweden let German forces and supplies pass through its territory during the fighting in Norway in spring 1940, after Germany used political pressure on Sweden.

 

[snip]

203434[/snapback]

Thank you. Same hold true for troops going to and from Finland? Anyone know?

Guest Hans Engström
Posted
http://www.barentsroad.org/Trailsofwar/content/timeline2.htm seems fairly correct as far as I can ascertain. Generally speaking, the transit trafficwas actually humanitiarian innature,and if regular troops were smuggled,they were of minor, if any importance during the Norwegian campaign. However, one whole divison was allowed to be transferred from Norway to Finland in 1942 (Divison 'Engelbrekt').
Posted
http://www.barentsroad.org/Trailsofwar/content/timeline2.htm seems fairly correct as far as I can ascertain. Generally speaking, the transit trafficwas actually humanitiarian innature

203754[/snapback]

 

In my opinion, the transit traffic which let Germany feed and clothe its military forces during the battle of Narvik was not humanitarian in nature. On the contrary, it was helping the German forces to fight longer, and therefore eventually win the battle after the allied forces pulled out.

 

If the food and clothing were going to the civillian population in and around Narvik, then I would agree that the transit traffic was humanitarian in nature. As it was, Sweden actually helped Germany win the battle.

Posted
In my opinion, the transit traffic which let Germany feed and clothe its military forces during the battle of Narvik was not humanitarian in nature. On the contrary, it was helping the German forces to fight longer, and therefore eventually win the battle after the allied forces pulled out.

 

If the food and clothing were going to the civillian population in and around Narvik, then I would agree that the transit traffic was humanitarian in nature. As it was, Sweden actually helped Germany win the battle.

203807[/snapback]

You are right.

 

Another example.

In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Egyptian 3rd Army crossed the Suez Canal, but was encircled by the Israeli counterattack. After the cease-fire, United States and Soviet Union put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian supplies (food and water) to be sent to the Egyptian troops. After the peace negotiations, the Egyptians claimed a victory, saying that not only had their troops crossed the Suez Canal, but had held their ground east of the Canal and only withdrew to comply with the peace agreement. :P

 

"Humanitarian" is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

As an aside, I was following the campaign fairly closely in the newspapers, and toward the end of the fighting in the Sinai when it was clear that the Israelis were trying to encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army, I remarked to a Jewish friend that the Israelis (David Elazar was commanding on the Sinai front, IIRC) were doing the wrong thing. Since the United States and the Soviet Union were pressing for a cease-fire, and since the goal of the Zahal clearly was to inflict as much damage on the Egyptian Army as possible, the Israelis should not close the ring around the Egyptian 3rd Army, but instead put in a heavy attack on the east side of the pocket. This should cause the Egyptians to try to evacuate the pocket, and the Israelis can cut them up as they run the gauntlet, inflicting much more casualties than they did in actual life. My Jewish friend accused me of being more Zionist than he was! :lol:

 

I still think that I was right in the narrow sense of inflicting more casualties on the Egyptians, but I was wrong in the grand scheme of things. By allowing the Egyptians to salvage their self-esteem, the cease-fire did lead to a more lasting peace with the Egyptians. If the Israelis had killed or wounded 30% of the 3rd Army, for example, I don't think that Egypt would have made peace with Israel afterwards.

 

Hojutsuka

Posted
In 2050 your "younger and more vibrant workforce" will consist of about 50% muslims, descendants and immigrants from third world countries. (That is, if the French government doesn't shut the door very soon).

 

Nonsense!

 

Population 75 million - work force 35-40 million. You're assuming the Muslim & 3rd world immigrants & descendants in the work force increase in numbers by a factor of 6 or 7 in 45 years, while white French non-Muslims of working age reduce in numbers. In order to get figures like that, you have to assume big increases in both immigration & the French Muslim birth rate (why would it increase after 40 years of dropping?), & a drop in the white French non-Muslim birth rate, which has been stable or slightly increasing for 20 years now.

 

The French Muslim birth rate is now only marginally higher than the white French non-Muslim rate. Both are around replacement rate (yes, really), though demographic lag will keep Muslim numbers increasing for a while. The birth rates in the countries from which those Muslim immigrants have mostly come are now near replacement rate - just below in Tunisia, above but dropping in Algeria & Morocco. Algerias birth rate will drop below replacement rate within a couple of years on present trends, Morocco is a bit behind.

Posted (edited)
I think I read somewhere that about 40% of all schoolchildren in France now are first or second generation immigrants, most of them muslims.

 

 

OK, let's do a reality check. Highest estimate of Muslims 10% (most put it slightly lower). Schoolchildren (ages 7-18, roughly, in France) are significantly more than 10% of the population. That requires an extraordinarily high proportion of French Muslims to be at school, & a very low proportion of the rest.

 

I think you read wrong. Maybe that's 40% in Paris.

Edited by swerve
Posted
You are right.

 

Another example.

In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Egyptian 3rd Army crossed the Suez Canal, but was encircled by the Israeli counterattack.  After the cease-fire, United States and Soviet Union put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian supplies (food and water) to be sent to the Egyptian troops.  After the peace negotiations, the Egyptians claimed a victory, saying that not only had their troops crossed the Suez Canal, but had held their ground east of the Canal and only withdrew to comply with the peace agreement.  :P

 

Two armies crossed the canal , the Second(the larger one) and the Third.IIRC they did not withdraw as part of the peace agreement.Could be wrong about that.

 

 

 

(David Elazar was commanding on the Sinai front, IIRC) were doing the wrong thing.

 

Was commanded by Gonen nominally but Bar Lev was "overseeing" him 

 

I still think that I was right in the narrow sense of inflicting more casualties on the Egyptians, but I was wrong in the grand scheme of things.  By allowing the Egyptians to salvage their self-esteem, the cease-fire did lead to a more lasting peace with the Egyptians.  If the Israelis had killed or wounded 30% of the 3rd Army, for example, I don't think that Egypt would have made peace with Israel afterwards.

 

Exactly what Kissinger  felt and told the israelis.

 

Hojutsuka

204282[/snapback]

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...