Jump to content


A reply to a troll - Norway's war effort during WWII

Norway History WWII darthmaul15 forumtroll gettingannoyedatatroll

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
7 replies to this topic

Ewlo99 #1 Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:40 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37478 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011
TL:DR? This is just my reply in an appropriate thread to a forum troll that annoyed me. It's about Norway and their contribution to the allied war effort during WWII... and getting your facts right.

It all started here

Under follows the posts made with my comments to them.

View Postdartmaul15, on 10 April 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

(norwegian here) no, i don't want it. Wg would probably prove that it would be "historycally acurate" to use the "sildesalaten" (the flag used when norway, denmark nad sweeden were in union).
ALthough it' be hillarious (and it'd prove that WG "re-writes" history to suit their needs)

This post really do not have anything with the topic we were "discussing". It just shows this trolls level of  accuracy (and knowledge?) when posting anything.

Fact: The flag commonly known as "Sildesalaten" was an official flag used in the 19th century while Norway and Sweden were in a personal union under the Swedish king. We Norwegians like to think of it as two countries under the same king, but the best way to describe the actual situation is to say Norway was ruled by Sweden  :sceptic:

View Postdartmaul15, on 10 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

I tihnk theyshould include the flag of every country that fought in WW2 (includiong those that held a resistance only).
Of course you had to priorize the most important countries first.

Sorry, sweeden doesn't get a slot  :trollface:  But we norwegians do (rukjan sabotage and heavy sabotage of infrastructure)  :playing:

I typical quote by some Norwegians who don't really knowing what was our real contribution in the war. I know he only wanted to tease Swedes, but the historic remarks annoyed me, so I replied this:

View PostEwlo99, on 10 April 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

I'm sorry. I just could not let this go unanswered:
"Heavy sabotage of infrastructure? LMAO. Read up on history and think just a bit longer than what the nationalistic pre-90s Norwegian literature says.
"rukjan [Rjukan] sabotage"? Yeah, a truly great feat, but in reality it was unnecessary, too risky and had NO impact on anything else than their own egos and post war menality. If you want to talk real contribution to the war effort you mention the ships/sailors, and thats about it.

On topic: I couldn't care less!

I'm Norwegian.

Lets sum it up: Norways main effort for the allies during the war was done by our sailors in our merchant fleet. I really think he should have said that instead of the things he said, which are not even really correct. Btw, blowing up the Vemork plant was a British undertaking supported by Norwegians (in some key roles). Sinking the ferry with the heavy water I don't remember who actually did, but I think I remember it was Norwegians doing it. I can't be bothered to check it up now.

For some reason the troll found it right to post some half thruths (together with some LOLs):

View Postdartmaul15, on 10 April 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Let me see. The axis was planning to forcibly enlist ALL males old enough to serve. The Milorg blew up their registries, essentially eliminating ALL info.

They blew up blücher, and thus rescued the norwegian government. To quote wikipedia: "One notable exception was the sinking of the German heavy cruiser Blücher by the Oscarsborg Fortress at Drøbak sound, which delayed the capture of Oslo long enough for the government, the royal family and the regalia to escape the capital and escape to Britain."

Norwegian forces was the ones to SPOT bismarch, and thus ALLOW allies to KILL IT.

Also, the destruction of Rukjan crippled the axis nuclear research. It us unsure whether they would have gotten nukes by the ened of WW2, but they would have been close.

They furthermore sunk several axis ships, and in the end of the war they intentionalyy ruined large parts of the infrastructure to trap axis forces in norway, and thus halting reinforcements to normandy.


Come tell me the Norwegian forces didn't help in WW2!

I didn't try to tell you Norwegians or Norwegian forces did not "help" during WWII, only that their our main contribution was transporting goods for the allies on our ships.

Since what he said was full of BS I felt I had to reply. I put most of the reply in a spoiler since it really was off topic:

View PostEwlo99, on 10 April 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

History ftw ;)

(original spoiler)
Archives: Blowing up the archives was a good thing, but they did not plan to enlist all males old enough to serve in the army, as you make it sound like they wanted.The records was on a work force, comparable to the Reichsarbeitsdienst.
Blücher: Important for Norway, yes. A major war effort, not really. It was a highly risky move by the Germans moving in with a totally untrained crew and a not finished ship. With the common German boldness of the first days in Norway they really should have succeded passing Drøbak. The Norwegians were not prepeared and had ignored early warnings about German aggression and ship movement. But, those things aside...a very good effort by the limited crew at the fortress. Fun fact: the torpedo lauch system that sunk Blücher was one of the few military secrets Norway had managed to keep by 1940.
Bismarck: What can I say? A good thing after another high risk move by the Germans. Spotted by Norwegian T-50-2's? ;) The ship was spotted already before going through Kattegat from Sweden. Allies lost it a little later but the Brits (in Spitfires) found it again outside Bergen. Calling it a big Norwegian contribution is... lol
Rjukan: The German nuclear program had already been closed/scrapped. The Germans had no plans to develop nuclear weapons. If the war had dragged out 5 more years.... ;)
Several ships: A few! You've just heard about the few they did and come to think it was several?
Kept German troops in Norway: Um, really? Cant say I I remember ever reading there were big plans to exit Norway. I might be mistaken?

Anyway, Norwegian resistance only really became active when the war was "as good as won". Communist saboteurs were a lot more active early on trying to do real damage. If they had been supported early war, and not actually opposed, they might have become a "a major saboteur organization". Norwegian government did not want violent action as they were afraid of retaliations.

I did not tell you Norwegian forces didn't help in ww2. They did help as in sinking a few ships, doing smaller sabotage operations, reporting on German ship traffic (i.e. Tirpitz).
What I said was that part from the ships/sailors, they hardly made an important contribution to the war effort. Those who fought and/or risked their and their families' lives were truly heroes, but they were few and in the big scheme it was not as important as Norwegians like to think.
(end of spoiler)

Well, at least it put some facts straight  :tongue:  I wonder if he thinks suicide scouting is a game winner in WOT too. Particulary with nobody being able to shoot what he spots :trollface:
However, if we put in some ifs, maybe sinking Blücher was really important as we don't know what would have happened to the merchant fleet if the king and parliament were forced to surrender Norway to Germany, as happened in Denmark.

Anyway, someone saw the "discussion" and posted some good stuff:

View PostRibba, on 10 April 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

The heavy water operation may or may not have been a crucial contribution to the war, it's a matter of opinion. We know the Germans never would have gotten atomic weapons within the time frame the war lasted. But if you put in a couple of "ifs" and the war had progressed differently, the operation could actually had very important effects.  

But whats not a "may or may have" contribution by Norway, it was our massive merchant fleet and the awesome job from the crew who sailed those ships. Without the merchant fleet, the outcome of the war may have been different. Especially in the early part of the war before the US got it act together. Neither was our strategic position that kept at any times 300 000 to 400 000 Germans stationed in our country. Thats a lot of troops, especially when you take into consideration that the total numbers of Germans that served under WW2 was a bit over 18 millions. And that in a country that only had a population a bit under 3 millions. Those troops could also have made a big difference other places.

Also, the Germans faced their first defeats in Norway and also, Norway was the country that that the Germans used the longest time to occupy of every country they did occupied (only Soviet lasted longer, but they never capitulated). And if the allies had not let us down, we may even have kept the northern parts of Norway free of occupation. Because the Germans was a short time of total surrender around the area of Narvik at the time the allies chickened out. And if we could have kept northern Norway free of occupation, the war in the Atlantic could have been quit different.

Also we had a lot of peoples served other armies during the war.

So Norway, as one of the countries with the smallest population of those countries that was involved in the war, have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to the total war contribution during WW2. If only the politicians of Norway had ruined our armed services during before the war, we could maybe even have contributed more.

A good post  :smile: I agree with him, only I'm not so sure one the part about the German armies in Norway during the war and about the allies "chickening out" at Narvik.

Strategic value is in the eye of the beholder, and Hitler had some strange ideas, one of them being the extreme strategic value of Norway. Had the war developed diffrently he might have been correct and as such that might be a good reason to keep so many troops in Norway?

There are ofc other possible reasons, like i.e. you need to have a lot of troops in Norway to keep it secure due to its long coast and poor infrastructure, compared to west european standard of the time. Keeping resistance in check to avoid situations like in Yugoslavia might be another, and I guess it is possible to list many more. I actually have never thought about finding out the real reasons for keeping so many troops in Norway, but I think that you cannot undermine how highly strategic Hitler thought Norway was, and that this imo probably was the main reason. Even Himmler would have supported him in this as it follows his strange believes, best seen through the "scientific" research and results from his Ahnenerbe organization.

In Narvik the Germans should really have been finished up, but you cannot say the allies were chicken. They moved out because of the situation in France, and I think you know this. I do however think it was a bad move by the allies, but sometimes they happen, and even if they stayed, keeping the Germans in check in North Norway would have been difficult in the time to come. Also, the British and French cooperation was not the best in Narvik, as everywhere else. If the allies stayed maybe everything would have been different, or maybe not  :blinky:


View PostRibba, on 10 April 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

The Germans lost 1 heavy cruiser (Blücher), 2 light cruisers (Königsberg and Karlsruhe), 10 destroyers and a number of other ships/submarines during Operation Weserübung alone. Of course, it was the British navy that did most of this, but it was in the defense of Norway still.

Yes, yes   :smile:

View Postdartmaul15, on 10 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

*cough* nortraship.

And don't get me started on WHY the convoys were important.

The Troll strikes again!

Nortraship is the "company" Norwegian ships and sailors were "hired" by during the war . So, he nows take my reason and put it up as his own, like I didn't know!  ...just...eh?  :hiding:

And please, I really would like you to start on why convoys were so important. Come on, tell us, and don't forget to say why they are so special in Norway's war effort. That is, besides Norwegian ships sailing in them.

View PostEwlo99, on 10 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

I agree with you in (almost) everything you said. I only replied because the things posted earlier was at best extremely inaccurate (read: BS  :blinky: ).

PS1: As this thread is about the flags they made, I think we should leave the thread for the ones who want to discuss that topic.
PS2: You know you can multiquote?

(To darthmaul15)
Why don't you go read my first post and stop sending warm yellow stuff down your own leg? It do not make you look your best.

Edit: answer to dartmaul

First part is my answer to Ribba, the second part to dartmaul15, who I now was getting really annoyed at.

View Postdartmaul15, on 11 April 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

So i piss myself by pointing out exactly HOW Norway helped in WW2?
Saying they didn't help is like saying Sweeden didn't help either sides.

I'm tired of arguing with a tree. Go read a book or something about norway, and norwegians during WW2. You might get surprised.

Good luck on the red team.

darthmaul15: I am Norwegian, I have read a lot of books about Norway, more than you would imagine exists of literature on Norway during WWII and the war in general. I however do not read articles in magazines and take they as facts per see, nor do I believe everything I (half) hear on television. I like real facts! When you read Donald magazines, I read real books about history, and when you read articles in History (a magazine) about the war I read the full story behind the article.

If you tried to get your facts straight, and just not pull ut some half truths you half know about I might even not just think you are a troll that do not really know anything for sure.

There were some more post, spinn offs on the original "discussion", but meh...

Edited by Ewlo99, 11 April 2013 - 07:46 PM.


dartmaul15 #2 Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7819 battles
  • 1,180
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012
Either way this IS naming and shaming.
And we both know the rule for that. I don't care how much you hates me, but you got exalty 1 hour to fix this according to the rules of agreement, or i will report you. Hands down.

Dartmaul15 OUT

custardSPARTA #3 Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39003 battles
  • 954
  • [SPRT] SPRT
  • Member since:
    09-14-2011

View Postdartmaul15, on 11 April 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Either way this IS naming and shaming.
And we both know the rule for that. I don't care how much you hates me, but you got exalty 1 hour to fix this according to the rules of agreement, or i will report you. Hands down.

Dartmaul15 OUT

Actually that  rule is about what happens ingame I believe the stuff that happens on the forum is not included as long as you are not being rude.

@OP The Norway expedition we (British) mounted in Norway was a disaster the general concensus is we let Norway down at the begining of the war

dartmaul15 #4 Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7819 battles
  • 1,180
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012

View PostcustardSPARTA, on 11 April 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

Actually that  rule is about what happens ingame I believe the stuff that happens on the forum is not included as long as you are not being rude.

@OP The Norway expedition we (British) mounted in Norway was a disaster the general concensus is we let Norway down at the begining of the war
Not going to argue, but i daresay claiming i got my info from donald duck is more than a little rude.
Well, i daresay he is threading on really boggy ground with this post.

Ewlo99 #5 Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:39 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37478 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011

View Postdartmaul15, on 11 April 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Either way this IS naming and shaming.
And we both know the rule for that. I don't care how much you hates me, but you got exalty 1 hour to fix this according to the rules of agreement, or i will report you. Hands down.

Dartmaul15 OUT

View Postdartmaul15, on 11 April 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Not going to argue, but i daresay claiming i got my info from donald duck is more than a little rude.
Well, i daresay he is threading on really boggy ground with this post.

I haven't claimed you got your "info" from DD. I claimed I read real books when you read DD...you know the ones with long sentences and stuff. I hardly see a reason to act polite to you. You made sure of that!

How this is nameing and shaming is beyond my comprehension. Please report me as much as you'd like! I stand behind all the stuff in the text. If someone acted unpolite you started it with your post trying to tell me off with what nonsence came to mind.

You really think I would send you a link if I were afraid of getting banned over this? I wanted you to read it! And you even made sure to look ridicolus with your posts here too. Btw, your 800+ posts already told me you are a forum troll. "Just stating the obvious."

My best advice to you would be to not post anything more on this matter. I'd even recommend you not to post on the forum at all, but I dont see that happening.

Happy hunting!

He_from_Norway_ #6 Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:47 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 23858 battles
  • 2,339
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostEwlo99, on 11 April 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

I haven't claimed you got your "info" from DD. I claimed I read real books when you read DD...you know the ones with long sentences and stuff. I hardly see a reason to act polite to you. You made sure of that!

How this is nameing and shaming is beyond my comprehension. Please report me as much as you'd like! I stand behind all the stuff in the text. If someone acted unpolite you started it with your post trying to tell me off with what nonsence came to mind.

You really think I would send you a link if I were afraid of getting banned over this? I wanted you to read it! And you even made sure to look ridicolus with your posts here too. Btw, your 800+ posts already told me you are a forum troll. "Just stating the obvious."

My best advice to you would be to not post anything more on this matter. I'd even recommend you not to post on the forum at all, but I dont see that happening.

Happy hunting!

when someone lose a argumentation the first thing is to either find a spelling error to correct on or find a semi-insult and call the person rude for that reason and stop talking.

human nature at its best.

Norway sure held the germans at bay for some time, and the poor infrastructure sure comes with its qualities at war. Norwegian ski-infantry also made it a pain in the ass for the germans to take the northern part of Norway.

huts in the mountain were emtied for food and anything that could keep someone warm and feed, so the germans could not use them as cover for the night or a snowstorm.

dartmaul15 #7 Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:52 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7819 battles
  • 1,180
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012

View PostEwlo99, on 11 April 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

I haven't claimed you got your "info" from DD. I claimed I read real books when you read DD...you know the ones with long sentences and stuff. I hardly see a reason to act polite to you. You made sure of that!

How this is nameing and shaming is beyond my comprehension. Please report me as much as you'd like! I stand behind all the stuff in the text. If someone acted unpolite you started it with your post trying to tell me off with what nonsence came to mind.

You really think I would send you a link if I were afraid of getting banned over this? I wanted you to read it! And you even made sure to look ridicolus with your posts here too. Btw, your 800+ posts already told me you are a forum troll. "Just stating the obvious."

My best advice to you would be to not post anything more on this matter. I'd even recommend you not to post on the forum at all, but I dont see that happening.

Happy hunting!

800 posts? how come i manage, as you claims, being a forum troll, and still have a positibe thumb ratio of 121 thumbs (per 12:43 12.april 2013)? Surely i'm trolling. Why not look at my posting history to see EXACLY what i have been doing on the forums!

Ever heard about "History" or "warsailors.com". Heck, you can even find exactly when and where a ship/convoy was.

And before you clam that "history" is a pop cultre magazine, there's a difference between "pop culture" and giving alse information. OF all the cases i have looked into (for example intricate details about the tiger) they have not made wrong claims.

And sometimes things need to be seen from a relative angle. Do THAT with the norwegian actions - you clealy knows this, so it shouldn't be hard - and you will understand what i means.

Edited by dartmaul15, 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM.


Ewlo99 #8 Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:42 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37478 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011

Quote

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.






Also tagged with Norway, History, WWII, darthmaul15, forumtroll, gettingannoyedatatroll

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users