Mr President a second Sinking of the Blücher scene has hit the Norwegian film industry

"Either I will be decorated or court-martialled! FIRE!"

If I had a nickel for every time we've gotten to see the Blucher get smacked around at the Battle of Drobak Sound, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's awesome that it happened twice.

The guns may have been old by then, but an 11 inch high explosive shell is still an 11 inch high explosive shell

Almost 9 years later this dude stays committed to the sinking of Blucher in different films 😭✌

If a fleet is sailing into your capital city with all of their lights off...well, chances are they are not friendly.

this scene is so good Norway made it twice in recent years lol

First time I see the batery on the other shore also firing. They to deserve credit.

the irony of a ship that was so new the crew hadn't even completed training on its systems being sunk by guns and torpedoes made by a country that had stopped existing 20 years earlier.

A good rule of thumb for anyone who happens to be commanding the fortress that’s the last line of defence for the capital: if an unidentified ship is approaching, dark as a winter night and as silent as the grave, odds are they don’t come in peace, and I wouldn’t be preparing a welcoming party

1400 meters is basically bayonet range for coastal batteries like that...jeez

I love how they not only showed the main battery, but Kopas and the torpedo. Both equally epic and contributing in real life.

7:10
Gun #1 hit Blücher's rangefinder.
7:20
Gun #2  landed a devastating shot near Blücher's aircraft hangar, starting a major fire from the aviation fuel stored there.
7:22
Fire ignited stored explosives, lighting up the whole hangar, and severely crippling the ship's fire-suppression system.
7:40
Blücher started returning sporadic fire with its AA guns due to the first two shots disabling its turrets.
7:55
Drøbak's offshore 15 cm batteries, positioned at Blücher's starboard side opens fire.
10:00
Two land-based vintage Whitehead torpedoes were launched, the first one hitting below Blücher's midship.
10:28
The second torpedo hits the engine room, flooding it and further cripples the already stricken Blücher.

At 07:30 am,  Blücher listed and finally sank with significant casualties, taking down most of the command staff and officers who would be responsible for the occupation of Oslo, buying time and allowing the Norwegians to evacuate their royal families and gold reserves out of the country.

If you want a detailed history of the sinking, Calum made a good video of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAWwW_wdXAg

6:27 Blucher, Lutzow, and then Emden. All looking as they should, great job on the part of the special effects team!

I love how the searchlight reveal of the Blucher at 4:45 is framed like a monster movie

I’ve seen some people confuse neutrality with pacifism, especially because of the line “we won’t be firing on fleeing ships, we’ve demonstrated our neutrality.” But that line actually captures what neutrality really means. Neutrality isn’t about refusing to fight or being morally opposed to violence. It’s about refusing to align yourself with any side in advance, while being fully prepared to defend your sovereignty against anyone who violates it.

A genuinely neutral country has to be ready to fight alone. It can’t rely on alliances or guarantees, because the moment you depend on one side for protection, you’re no longer neutral. Neutrality only works if violating it is costly. That’s why historically successful neutral states were heavily armed, highly organized, and very clear about their red lines. Peace was the goal, but deterrence was the method.

Switzerland during World War II is the textbook example. It was officially neutral, yet it mobilized its army, fortified the Alps, and had concrete plans to retreat into the mountains and resist a German invasion to the last valley if necessary. Switzerland wasn’t spared because everyone respected its neutrality out of kindness. It survived because invading it would have been expensive, slow, and strategically inconvenient.

Sweden during the Cold War followed the same logic, but pushed it even further by treating neutrality as a whole-society commitment. Swedish neutrality rested on "totalförsvaret" ("total defense"): the integration of the military, civil defense, industry, infrastructure, and the civilian population into a single system designed to function under attack. Sweden maintained a large conscript army, advanced air and coastal defenses, a domestic arms industry, hardened air bases carved into rock, and detailed plans to keep the country operating during war. The assumption was explicit: if Sweden was attacked, the entire country would resist.

That logic was put to the test in 1981, when the Soviet submarine U-137 ran aground deep inside Swedish territorial waters. Sweden didn’t ignore the incident to “stay neutral.” Naval and air forces surrounded the submarine, the crew was interrogated, and military readiness was increased nationwide. When Soviet naval units maneuvered nearby and appeared ready to violate Swedish waters to retrieve the sub, Prime Minister Thorbjörn Fälldin issued the famous order “håll gränsen” (“hold the border”). The message was unmistakable: Swedish neutrality had hard, enforceable boundaries, and crossing them would be met with force, even against a superpower.

That’s why the line in the film works so well. Not firing on fleeing ships isn’t weakness or pacifism. It’s restraint backed by the understanding that force will be used if neutrality is violated. Neutrality isn’t about avoiding conflict at all costs; it’s about being prepared for it so that no one is tempted to start one.


EDIT: Since people keep leaving comments here, I’m copying another comment I previously made to clarify.

"..... Quick side note on tone and the AI thing. English is not my first language, but I study English at university, so I am used to writing in a more essay like, explanatory way. That is just how I argue when I am trying to be precise. I can see how that comes off as stiff or overdone in a comment section, and that is on me. Sorry about the tone and style. ....."

"..... And lastly, this is still a movie. It simplifies things and uses dialogue to signal ideas, not to give a perfect naval briefing. I enjoyed the line for what it was trying to convey. The real event was way messier than any single sentence can capture, which is exactly why it is still interesting to argue about. ....."

P.S.

A clarification on Switzerland, since it keeps coming up. I’m fully aware that Swiss neutrality during World War II was actively enforced rather than passively observed. Switzerland defended its airspace against violations by both Axis and Allied aircraft, shot down intruders from both sides, and interned pilots who landed on Swiss territory regardless of nationality. This was consistent with its understanding of neutrality as strict, impartial enforcement of sovereignty. The country was willing to use force when its borders were crossed, and it applied that force evenly, which is precisely why its neutrality was taken seriously.

I’m also aware that neutrality can backfire when the deterrence side is insufficient, and the Netherlands is a good example of that failure. While officially neutral, it lacked the military capacity to make a violation costly enough to discourage aggression, and neutrality collapsed as a result. That doesn’t undermine the argument being made here; it reinforces it. Neutrality only functions as a policy when a state is capable of defending itself alone. Without that capacity, neutrality becomes a declaration without leverage rather than a stable position in a conflict.

Lastly, thanks to everyone who took the time to reply and share their perspectives. I genuinely enjoyed reading the different interpretations and the historical back-and-forth in the comments. Even where people disagreed, the discussion itself was interesting and thoughtful, which is exactly why this topic is still worth talking about.

I didn't think I needed a second bite at this scene, but it turns out I did.
Very well done.

7:03 the sound design from here on is absolutely incredible, the ferocity of the coastal guns, the explosions, the return fire, the sound of the torpedo impacts. I think I need a minute....

So glad to see more films being made about the Nordic campaign. The Danish film April 9th is also fantastic and historically succinct if anyone is interested in more.

We won't be firing at fleeing ships. Wr have demonstrated oir neutrality. A beautiful quote. [11:35]