Please consider making sure Norway is woth capturing in HOI4

[Secret Master]

False.

Germany invading Norway isn´t the same as UK invading Norway and to expect drastic diplomatic incident with Sweden for example, specially if they don´t go all the way with the plan, is nonsense. Germany was widely recognized as much more agressive. Besides, the plan was only occupying Narvik and not all of Norway. The brits were more than aware that complete occupation was pointless.

And this goes back to my point earlier that there's a big difference between garrisoning Norway with 300,000 men and garrisoning it with far less. At a certain point, Norway ceases to be worth the cost of occupying it. There are situations where it might be worth the effort to occupy for either side, but both the Allies and Axis have other commitments.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

And this goes back to my point earlier that there's a big difference between garrisoning Norway with 300,000 men and garrisoning it with far less. At a certain point, Norway ceases to be worth the cost of occupying it. There are situations where it might be worth the effort to occupy for either side, but both the Allies and Axis have other commitments.

That's also why I said if the allies invade and destroy the mines the production should stop drop dramatically.

If Sweden is producing 1000 Iron from the mines in the north, of which this can be used to produce 500 tanks/week, and these mines are taken out of commission for 3 years because the allies destroyed them, well thats a lot of iron production missed out by Germany. If the event launches as historically happened in April 1940, then they wouldn't be back to full operation until April 1943 far into the Germany/USSR campaign.

Now we have a value associated with the event, 1 more Iron produced per day for 1000 days, Does Germany risk this less supply for it's war machine?

 

[Dalwin]

I guess to recap, the original thread title is a bit off. It is not necessary or even, depending which side of the argument you are on, historically reasonable to make Norway "worth" capturing.

What should happen is that there be realistic reasons to consider doing so, real gains from having done so, and let the commanders (players) decide if those gains justify the cost. I am tired of games where things like this campaign happen only because they historically did, with there being no real benefit from having done so (or at best an arbitrary benefit like assigning some victory points which has nothing to do with conducting the war).

No better, is the alternative in many games, which is that there is no real reason to even consider doing so and only bad players (or the AI) do.

 

[shri]

Dude, some mathematics is wrong here. ... 500 tanks per week will give you 25000+ tanks per year, Germany never came even remotely close to that figure.
They were producing that much per month.


Quote Originally Posted by Beagá View Post
False.

Germany invading Norway isn´t the same as UK invading Norway and to expect drastic diplomatic incident with Sweden for example, specially if they don´t go all the way with the plan, is nonsense. Germany was widely recognized as much more agressive. Besides, the plan was only occupying Narvik and not all of Norway. The brits were more than aware that complete occupation was pointless.


As for this post- History is twisted by the Victors in their favor, the winner is never disputed and the loser always had horns in hi head, truth is somewhere in between. Brits did have a plan to occupy Narvik and Destroy the Swedish Iron Mines, as Norway and Sweden were neutrals this was wrong- Legally and Morally. But the Germans per-empted this invasion (one of the few times, Germany did not want to be aggressive and reacted to a threat).

 

[Porkman]

Dude, some mathematics is wrong here. ... 500 tanks per week will give you 25000+ tanks per year, Germany never came even remotely close to that figure.
They were producing that much per month.


Quote Originally Posted by Beagá View Post
False.

Germany invading Norway isn´t the same as UK invading Norway and to expect drastic diplomatic incident with Sweden for example, specially if they don´t go all the way with the plan, is nonsense. Germany was widely recognized as much more agressive. Besides, the plan was only occupying Narvik and not all of Norway. The brits were more than aware that complete occupation was pointless.


As for this post- History is twisted by the Victors in their favor, the winner is never disputed and the loser always had horns in hi head, truth is somewhere in between. Brits did have a plan to occupy Narvik and Destroy the Swedish Iron Mines, as Norway and Sweden were neutrals this was wrong- Legally and Morally. But the Germans per-empted this invasion (one of the few times, Germany did not want to be aggressive and reacted to a threat).

Your pathological hatred of Britain makes you say some silly things. It certainly would have been wrong for the UK to invade neutral Norway.

However, this in no way justifies Germany's invasion. "Britain was going to invade a small part so that makes our invasion of the whole thing morally justified." this is stupid. Imagine a man who meets two thieves. Thief A starts moving towards the man, but before thief A can do anything, thief B punches the man in the face and steals his wallet.

The man yells at Thief B, "You're a terrible person. You stole all my money!"

Thief B, utterly indignant, retorts, "How dare you sir! I did you a favor! Didn't you see that thief A was about to steal your wallet? So really, it's his fault that I had to punch you and take all your money."

The Germahe are the bad guys in the invasion of Norway.

 

[shri]

Your pathological hatred of Britain makes you say some silly things. It certainly would have been wrong for the UK to invade neutral Norway.

However, this in no way justifies Germany's invasion. "Britain was going to invade a small part so that makes our invasion of the whole thing morally justified." this is stupid. Imagine a man who meets two thieves. Thief A starts moving towards the man, but before thief A can do anything, thief B punches the man in the face and steals his wallet.

The man yells at Thief B, "You're a terrible person. You stole all my money!"

Thief B, utterly indignant, retorts, "How dare you sir! I did you a favor! Didn't you see that thief A was about to steal your wallet? So really, it's his fault that I had to punch you and take all your money."

The Germahe are the bad guys in the invasion of Norway.

The first part of my quote was on mathematics and i think i am right in the maths.

Now, second part- it is not as simplistic as you put it.

USSR invaded Afghanistan (wrong), USA sent arms and ammunition to Afghanistan via Pakistan (dubious), Pakistan used the same material to attack India covertly (wrong) ... this is the way geopolitics proceeds, each action has consequences and sets off a chain reaction.

If UK had taken control of Narvik and destroyed the Swedish Iron-Ore mines, soon RAF and RN would have had bases with which they will start bombing northern German ports.
That would be a bad outcome, so you do a preemptive strike and grab the whole and install a puppet (wrong of course, please read my earlier and these comments too; i am no way saying- Nazis were not sinners, only that UK is not a saint as perceived by many).

 

[tommylotto]

i am no way saying- Nazis were not sinners, only that UK is not a saint as perceived by many).

Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[rossBurglar]

That would be a bad outcome, so you do a preemptive strike and grab the whole and install a puppet (wrong of course, please read my earlier and these comments too; i am no way saying- Nazis were not sinners, only that UK is not a saint as perceived by many).

I'm sure Norweigians under British occupation would have fought for German liberation...

Oh wait! The other one. Noone thinks the British are or have ever been saints, but the United Kingdom in 1940 was not Nazi Germany. I'm sure Norways government would be massively annoyed but they are hardly going to side with Germany over it when Germany have already conquered Denmark. Was there resistance to the British occupation of Danish overseas possessions by the British when the mainland fell?

 

[Secret Master]

Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.

Tsk, tsk, you should know better than that. Give the French credit where credit is due:

"Prime Minister you said to me 'I hope you will never surrender the fleet'. I replied, 'There is no question of doing so'. It seems to me you did not believe my word. The destruction of the fleet at Toulon has just proved that I was right."

Churchill's actions made a lot of domestic and foreign policy sense at the time, but the execution of the operation in Mers-el-Kébir was FUBAR. Almost 1,300 French sailors died needlessly in an action that was NOT the finest hour of the Royal Navy.

From the wiki you linked:

"French Navy Minister Admiral Darlan never received the full text of the British ultimatum from Admiral Gensoul, most significantly with regard to the option of removing the fleet to American waters, an option that formed part of the orders Darlan gave to Gensoul, to be followed should a foreign power attempt to seize the ships under his command."

Of all the preemptive actions taken in WWII, I would list this as a fiasco of the highest order.

 

[tommylotto]

I was just linking that as definitely non-saintly behavior by the British, but that which at the time seemed like desperate measures necessitated by desperate times.

Also, in the Brits defense, they themselves were able to overcome the French sailors on the ships in Plymouth and Portsmouth and seize a number of a French ships including battleships. How could the Brits know that the Germans or those sneaky Italian frogmen couldn't pull off something similar, in spite of the French guarantees.

 

[Porkman]

The first part of my quote was on mathematics and i think i am right in the maths.

Now, second part- it is not as simplistic as you put it.

USSR invaded Afghanistan (wrong), USA sent arms and ammunition to Afghanistan via Pakistan (dubious), Pakistan used the same material to attack India covertly (wrong) ... this is the way geopolitics proceeds, each action has consequences and sets off a chain reaction.

If UK had taken control of Narvik and destroyed the Swedish Iron-Ore mines, soon RAF and RN would have had bases with which they will start bombing northern German ports.
That would be a bad outcome, so you do a preemptive strike and grab the whole and install a puppet (wrong of course, please read my earlier and these comments too; i am no way saying- Nazis were not sinners, only that UK is not a saint as perceived by many).

The Brits would have bases and ports to bomb North German (Nazi) ports.

Please explain how this is a "bad outcome." It seems to me, that anything that would have ended the war earlier, in the Allies favor, has to be seen as a "good outcome."

 

[Der Phonix]

False.

Germany invading Norway isn´t the same as UK invading Norway and to expect drastic diplomatic incident with Sweden for example, specially if they don´t go all the way with the plan, is nonsense. Germany was widely recognized as much more agressive. Besides, the plan was only occupying Narvik and not all of Norway. The brits were more than aware that complete occupation was pointless.

Might be a little bit naive of you to to think that the Brits would only have stayed at Narvik.

Airports in Southern Norway would have given the allies access to targets in Eastern Germany otherwise out of reach for the airforce. Also, Norway under British control, and the allies could have effectively materialised a naval blockade against Germany, as was done during WWI.

As for who was seen as more aggressive at the time, keep in mind that most of the third world was under British and French military occupation, indeed against their will.

 

[Ricox]

Y'all forgetting the heavy water thingy in Norway that let you research nukes. Dunno why, but that's more important than anything for me because ... NUKES.

 

[Hermanator]

Y'all forgetting the heavy water thingy in Norway that let you research nukes. Dunno why, but that's more important than anything for me because ... NUKES.

Agreed.

 

[Beagá]

Might be a little bit naive of you to to think that the Brits would only have stayed at Narvik.

Airports in Southern Norway would have given the allies access to targets in Eastern Germany otherwise out of reach for the airforce. Also, Norway under British control, and the allies could have effectively materialised a naval blockade against Germany, as was done during WWI.

As for who was seen as more aggressive at the time, keep in mind that most of the third world was under British and French military occupation, indeed against their will.

Yeah man, because occupying na european country and forcing them to labor until death, and demanding them their jews was the same in world eyes as British colonialism.

Keep dreaming. Shove your revisionism you know where.

Besides escalating things was in the interest of Germany not UK. UK could garrison only Narvik and would be cheap and effective in screwing Germany. Therefore the germans had no option besides escalation, invading the country by land and reach it, since the Kriegsmarine per se didn´t have the strenght to attack ONLY Narvik and occupy it. It´s not like keeping na airforce in Norway was easy and cheap either, genius. Occupying all of Norway after France was defeated would be a dumb burden for UK.

 

[Der Phonix]

Yeah man, because occupying na european country and forcing them to labor until death, and demanding them their jews was the same in world eyes as British colonialism.

Keep dreaming. Shove your revisionism you know where.

Besides escalating things was in the interest of Germany not UK. UK could garrison only Narvik and would be cheap and effective in screwing Germany. Therefore the germans had no option besides escalation, invading the country by land and reach it, since the Kriegsmarine per se didn´t have the strenght to attack ONLY Narvik and occupy it. It´s not like keeping na airforce in Norway was easy and cheap either, genius. Occupying all of Norway after France was defeated would be a dumb burden for UK.

Yeah man, because it was a more dumb burden for Germany than it would have been for the British. Also, genius, what makes you think the UK makes no strategical mistakes in war?

It's early 1940, so you might wanna show your ad hominems a bit further up you know where.

 

[Adonnus]

Nobody should be in any serious doubt as to whether the Norwegians would support the Allies after they theoretically occupied the country as compared to Germany. They are both liberal democracies with a strong rule of law, and British troops committed very few if any war crimes during the whole war. Compare that to Germany and you can see who they would support.

 

[shri]

Nobody should be in any serious doubt as to whether the Norwegians would support the Allies after they theoretically occupied the country as compared to Germany. They are both liberal democracies with a strong rule of law, and British troops committed very few if any war crimes during the whole war. Compare that to Germany and you can see who they would support.

War crimes - well here is the dicey part of history, when Japanese leaders were being tried after the war, 12 Judges were called including an Indian senior judge(British India then), he was the sole dissenter in the decision of awarding death to the Japanese. He gave a judgement - if you prosecute the Japanese, remember 40-50 countries are crying for Independence from Anglo-French in Asia and Africa and if they were ever to get power to prosecute, there would be no person left alive in your country.

 

[rossBurglar]

But Europeans generally didn't see it this way. Hence Beagas comment on revisionism. Europeans in the '30s didn't view colonialism as the evil we do now.

Even without that, the UK dominates Africa and India. In Europe outside of the mainland UK they occupy Cyprus, Malta and Gibraltar. Germany in the preceding 4 years have absorbed Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland (Who the UK and France are fighting Germany in aid of) One of these is a looming threat, the other is a power with a history of fighting to resist any power dominating the European mainland.

 

[Porkman]

War crimes - well here is the dicey part of history, when Japanese leaders were being tried after the war, 12 Judges were called including an Indian senior judge(British India then), he was the sole dissenter in the decision of awarding death to the Japanese. He gave a judgement - if you prosecute the Japanese, remember 40-50 countries are crying for Independence from Anglo-French in Asia and Africa and if they were ever to get power to prosecute, there would be no person left alive in your country.

Shri, the British would not have been seen as the bad guys by the Norwegians however much they were hated across Asia.