WI: Failed invasion of Norway

[Marko]

Today at work I was reading some WWII related material and it got me wondering how the WW II would have developed had the BHF ships stationed on Shetland Islands reacted more promptly and intercepted German Assault Groups I and II going for Trondheim and Narvik. So as a result Germans manage to secure just to the line runing from Andalsnes to lake Femunden while Allies control the north.

Would that result in a more intense Air and Naval war in the North Sea and eventually delay significantly or permanently the Assault on France?

 

[Blackfox5]

It shouldn't impact the Battle of France at all. More likely the Germans would consider Norway a loss and move on. French troops in Norway might declare for DeGaulle after France falls.

Norway in the Allied camp means it is unlikely Finland will join Hitler during Barbarossa as the Allies combined with Sweden means Finland is not potentially as threatened. It could even mean Finland might be able to convince Stalin to cede back the territory lost in the Winter War for a declaration of war against Germany (if nothing else, to prevent Germany from getting their nickel supplies).

Allied Norway also restricts the U-Boat campaign as you don't have all those nice fjords to hide subs and ships.

Allied Norway also provides some nice airbases for bombing raids into the Reich. This also allows some additional capaibilities - could the Western Allies support a Polish uprising by air?

Ont he plus side for the Germans, they don't need to waste so many troops garrisoning Norway. They can be placed in more useful places. Combined with the failed attempt to strategically use Finland against the Soviet Union (Axis never took Murmansk or Leningrad despite help from the Finns), then Germany might have even more success in the Soviet Union initially.

In short, I don't think it changes the war much from 1939-1941. Starting in 1942 and later, the Allies have a lot more advantages and Norway can be very useful as a staging base. In such a scenario, we might see the war in Europe end in 1944 rather than last until 1945.

 

[Astrodragon]

Just holding the north before the BoF doesnt help the allies.
Once France falls, the Germans can easily reinforce in overwhelming force using reasonably secure short sea routes.

The key to holding Norway is in the south, early on. The Norwegians were their own worst enemies in OTL. You need a change, preferably in govenment, but something that allows the Norwegians to fight and at least hold the initial southern invasion until allied reinforcements can arrive and (hopefully) defeat the invasion.

 

[Snake Featherston]

It doesn't alter the outcome of 1940, which worked on unrelated principles. It does offer some strategic advantages to the Allies, but it equally frees up that 300,000 German forces that spent the war occupying Norway instead of being used elsewhere for other employment (either North Africa or the Soviet Union), while giving Germany actually a *better* overall deployment for its U-Boat War, as instead of useless white elephants on the Norwegian coast they have *all* their bases on the French Atlantic Coast.

Not that another 300,000 German troops dying on the Eastern Front alters the outcome of *that* war.

 

[sharlin]

The biggest change would be that there would be a significant cockblock for the Germans in the form of Swedish iron ore not getting into Germany, they used Narvik as a year round port to send the ore south and that could put a serious dent in the german manufacturing base, but then again once France falls the Germans could turn their full attention to rubbing out the Norwegian problem.

 

[Hörnla]

but then again once France falls the Germans could turn their full attention to rubbing out the Norwegian problem.

Iron Ore was my first thought, too. And after I read the last reply, my spontaneous thought was: after the fall of France - why not have another go and invade Sweden directly to conquer the whole of Scandinavia?

 

[Serenissima]

Sweden's actually a significantly tougher target than Norway, with more military capability which would also have to be invaded amphibiously. Some neutral countries are also essential to have around for both sides, anyway, hence why Sweden and Switzerland in particular were left alone.

 

[Uff Da the optimist]

Not to mention that Sweden had a bigger population.
They had a pretty decent industry of making weapons that the germans would not like to be at the sharp end of and could muster way more men than Norway.

Although terrain-wise it would be easier conquering Sweden, it is also a wide, long country that has a history of roundhouse kicking foreign intruders.

But let's say the Norwegian and Danish government decides to fight for it's life, what then? Denmark surely falls after a day or two, they are right beside Germany, completely flat country with a fraction of the army.
A mass exodus of danish troops to Norway and Sweden, so when the germans land in Norwegian towns there are royally pissed of danes with their norwegian bro's waiting for them.

Again, the Scandinavians are as usual outgunned, but the germans are outnumbered in a hostile, foreign enviroment.
Norway could've foiled the German invasion easily had they just fought back. If they had defeated the invasion some places and bogged it down in other towns, the British navy could block the straits and assist in Southern Norway as well.

With fighter and bomber bases in Southern Norway, would the BoB maybe be more spread out and targeted Norway as well due to it's convenient location?

 

[Doctor Imperialism]

Not to mention that Sweden had a bigger population.
They had a pretty decent industry of making weapons that the germans would not like to be at the sharp end of and could muster way more men than Norway.

Although terrain-wise it would be easier conquering Sweden, it is also a wide, long country that has a history of roundhouse kicking foreign intruders.

But let's say the Norwegian and Danish government decides to fight for it's life, what then? Denmark surely falls after a day or two, they are right beside Germany, completely flat country with a fraction of the army.
A mass exodus of danish troops to Norway and Sweden, so when the germans land in Norwegian towns there are royally pissed of danes with their norwegian bro's waiting for them.

Again, the Scandinavians are as usual outgunned, but the germans are outnumbered in a hostile, foreign enviroment.
Norway could've foiled the German invasion easily had they just fought back. If they had defeated the invasion some places and bogged it down in other towns, the British navy could block the straits and assist in Southern Norway as well.

With fighter and bomber bases in Southern Norway, would the BoB maybe be more spread out and targeted Norway as well due to it's convenient location?

I like this. Perhaps an Overlord in Kiel?

 

[sharlin]

If somehow Norway was held and Sweden got involved i'd not invade from their, i'd turn the Baltic into a much colder meditteranian, lots of strike aircraft and small boats attacking and counter attacking.

 

[Cook]

The biggest change would be that there would be a significant cockblock for the Germans in the form of Swedish iron ore not getting into Germany, they used Narvik as a year round port to send the ore south and that could put a serious dent in the german manufacturing base...

The 'vital importance' of Narvik and the Swedish Iron Ore existed more in the delusions of Allied planners than in the German economy. In 1939-40, 40% of Germany’s Steel production was allocated to civilian use, coming from Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. By the end of 1941 Germany was producing 30 million tonnes of steel, but only 8 million tonnes went to the war effort, the rest going to the civilian economy. Meanwhile in the latter half of 1940 the British started collecting steel picket fences for use in the war effort.

 

[usertron2020]

The Narvik issue only applied in winter. For most of the year, the Baltic Sea was ice-free enough to allow iron ore shipments by other means.

Certainly if Norway had been properly mobilized and deployed (including being ready for defending against paratroop drops) they could have defeated the Germans almost on their own.

Also, the German Navy didn't have the assets to make up for a Norway Invasion 2.0. It was a one shot shoestring operation. Following France, Norway would be outside Me-109 air range. The Germans would have faced the same difficulty they faced OTL in the BoB when they tried to bomb Northern England from Norway.

Of course, having a strategic bomber base in Oslo later in the war would mean a whole new dimension for the Luftwaffe to face. No "Northern Front" though. Invading through Denmark or Northwest Germany presents impossible logistical and military difficulties for the Allies.

Sweden would NEVER be invaded by Germany. The iron ore mines (the only worthwhile reason for invading) are in the very far north and would be totally blitzed by the time the German Army got there. So blitzed they'd never get them running in a reasonable time frame before the war was over. The only way I see Sweden being invaded is if Himmler takes over and does it solely to get his hands on Sweden's Jews. But then, I guess he'd be invading Switzerland too.

 

[Hörnla]

Oh, I didn't say that it was a particularly wise plan to attack Sweden in such a scenario. But, we're not talking about wisdom, but about German WW-2-strategical thinking. This is Adolf Hitler...

"Arrr, this stalemate in Norway is getting up my nerves, General Baldrich. The Wehrmacht could do miracles in France, but doesn't move any faster to Narvik than my mustache grows! Even the French up there just don't lay down arms. Calling themselves Freifranzosen now. Pah! And all the while the Swedes, which are supposed to be our Germanic brothers sit gleefully at the side, selling Iron Ore to Churchill!" Hitler interrupts his monologue in front of the high-ranking, but equally short and dark general staff planner.
"I daresay we should do the unthinkable, like a modern day Alexander venturing into India!"

"India? Mein Führer, shall we produce plans for a Mediterranean strategy to sieze control of the Middle East and go from there?"

"No, no, no, Baldrich you are not listening."Hitler gets into shouting, staring at the man he composes himself again. "No, like a sea mammal we should swim across the Kanal and march into London. That would be the end of it.

Baldrich pales like chalk. He knows he has to react quickly to prevent this madness. "Do not despair, mein Führer, for I have a cunning plan. The strategical problem in Norway could be solved right next door..."

 

[Serenissima]

It's only tangentially related, but an invasion of Switzerland would be a fun one... given the whole male population from age 16 to 50 would disappear into the mountains with their rifles, all bridges and tunnels would be blown, and they'd harass the invaders constantly until they gave up and left.

 

[usertron2020]

It's only tangentially related, but an invasion of Switzerland would be a fun one... given the whole male population from age 16 to 50 would disappear into the mountains with their rifles, all bridges and tunnels would be blown, and they'd harass the invaders constantly until they gave up and left.

Or until the Swiss Army starved. Or the SS took out their frustrations on the women, children, and aged. Starting with 300,000 Swiss Jews.

 

[Marko]

About the situation in France. Would the French be inclined to stop fighting as they were in OTL if they knew Germans were stoppable, just that it took effort to do it. Could we see Germans bogged down in the battle for Paris?

 

[usertron2020]

About the situation in France. Would the French be inclined to stop fighting as they were in OTL if they knew Germans were stoppable, just that it took effort to do it. Could we see Germans bogged down in the battle for Paris?

The French fought like Hell on Earth AFTER the cream of their army had been lost in Belgium. You can blame that disaster on their senior military leadership. It was simply, in France itself, a matter of defending in relatively clear terrain.
Plus facing air superiority, better training, blitzkrieg warfare, better tanks (French tanks were tougher but had practicality issues), and facing internal political dissension.

Read Will Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Republic".

Oh, and after the Commune, no way do the French allow a battle in Paris.

 

[BlairWitch749]

The Narvik issue only applied in winter. For most of the year, the Baltic Sea was ice-free enough to allow iron ore shipments by other means.

Certainly if Norway had been properly mobilized and deployed (including being ready for defending against paratroop drops) they could have defeated the Germans almost on their own.

Also, the German Navy didn't have the assets to make up for a Norway Invasion 2.0. It was a one shot shoestring operation. Following France, Norway would be outside Me-109 air range. The Germans would have faced the same difficulty they faced OTL in the BoB when they tried to bomb Northern England from Norway.

Of course, having a strategic bomber base in Oslo later in the war would mean a whole new dimension for the Luftwaffe to face. No "Northern Front" though. Invading through Denmark or Northwest Germany presents impossible logistical and military difficulties for the Allies.

Sweden would NEVER be invaded by Germany. The iron ore mines (the only worthwhile reason for invading) are in the very far north and would be totally blitzed by the time the German Army got there. So blitzed they'd never get them running in a reasonable time frame before the war was over. The only way I see Sweden being invaded is if Himmler takes over and does it solely to get his hands on Sweden's Jews. But then, I guess he'd be invading Switzerland too.

task force 5 being successful makes the campaign essentially over; the allies reinforcing once the germans hold oslo is only putting more men in harms way; germany has a safe secure reinforcement path; the allies have a long one outside the range of fighter cover which will be harassed by uboats and bombers going into small remote ports

 

[seyak]

Norway in the Allied camp means it is unlikely Finland will join Hitler during Barbarossa as the Allies combined with Sweden means Finland is not potentially as threatened. It could even mean Finland might be able to convince Stalin to cede back the territory lost in the Winter War for a declaration of war against Germany (if nothing else, to prevent Germany from getting their nickel supplies).

This would indeed be quite interesting situation for Finland, as after losing the Karelian isthmus and its fortifications the new border was quite difficult to defend, pressure from Soviet Union was felt throughout the society and Germany was playing friends with Stalin. Finland also overestimated military capability of the western allies (as did the SU), so there would be quite strong motivation for closer ties with UK and France.

I could see western allies reinforcing finnish army from Petsamo and Norway just to make things more complex for Stalin and Hitler, but I am not so sure if the finns would actually join the war for it. Being enemy of both SU and Germany would have been just too risky...

 

[Snake Featherston]

About the situation in France. Would the French be inclined to stop fighting as they were in OTL if they knew Germans were stoppable, just that it took effort to do it. Could we see Germans bogged down in the battle for Paris?

Their defeat was not one of lack of will to fight, it was one of being completely and totally outgeneraled in the process of fighting. No amount of will to keep on going can save the Allies from Sickle-Slice, nor is it clear that France *can* fight given the very risky idea of moving its reserve into the Belgian region. If that had succeeded it would have been one of the great examples of military audacity in warfare, but in reality it was a flop and so shows French incompetence.