WI: Failed German invasion of Norway

[Mirza Khan]

Browsing the recent Sealion thread, I noticed the following set of posts concerning Germany's invasion of Norway:

How Germans managed [Norway] with the RN still intAct still bugles my mind.

Weather, basically - and luck. It's notable that despite all that luck, about half the Kriegsmarine was sunk or rendered combat ineffective for months.

Norwegian disunity and last minute fumfumerring didn't help either (and thank you Quisling)



The Germans DID have the advantage of a short jump into Oslo, facing defenses that mostly hadn't been updated since 1895! Even then, the Germans got slaughtered there and would have lost the battle were it not for the paratroopers seizing vital airfields to the north.


Hitler fully planned to invade Norway anyway, and the damage the Kriegsmarine took to its blue water navy it never truly recovered from. Not at least in terms of its light units.

So, this got me thinking...in the opinion of the board, is there any chance Hitler's invasion of Norway could have failed? What POD(s) would do it, and what might some of the effects be? If memory serves, Norway was an important source of iron ore for Germany during the war. Also, if Norway doesn't fall, Denmark (especially Jutland) seems much more vulnerable, and that in turn could give the Allies an opportunity to open a northern front (or at least force Germany to sink a lot of resources into Denmark to prevent this)

Thoughts?

 

[Zheng He]

Obviously others will need to chime in but this can go in a lot of directions.

Does the entire German operation fail or do the Germans manage to hold southern Norway, say from Trondheim or even Bergen south while the Allies manage to hold northern Norway (They recaptured Narvik in June 1940 I believe)?

If the Allies manage to defeat the whole invasion, do the Germans try again after the fall of France with the French Army gone and the British Army in disarray?

Can winning Norway become a be careful what you wish for situation for the British? Can the Germans back a Quisling type of resistance movement against the British and can German submarines interdict the SLOCs between Great Britain and Norway?

I am interested in what others think. I do believe that the Allies winning this campaign is a tough one. Even in the Whale has Wings which is a pretty big Britwank, the Allies lose this campaign although the Germans pay a much stiffer price.

 

[Drunkrobot]

Quisling slipping on some ice and braining himself on the side of a rock might do some good. No puppet figurehead = more united government = better response.

The Fallschirmjäger failing to capture the airports - better response by the Norwegian Airforce, a Royal Navy carrier spotting and downing a few planes, random mechanical failure, anything - would make the invasion stumble and quite possibly fail beyond salvation for the Germans. The Norwegian Campaign relied heavily on surprise. If the Germans, to put it mildly, fucked up the first try, Norway would be mobilised and ready for the next attempt by the time another invasion could be organised, plus have Royal Navy and RAF units to defend itself.

The main effect is, basically, an easier war in general. No Swedish Iron for Germany, no U-boat bases for Germany, no aura of invincibility for Germany. Norway would, as I said, mobilise update its military to face the country that just tried to invade it, raising new divisions and buying weapons either from Britain or America. The Baltic is effectively shut closed, though if Germany still takes France, the U-boats will still have an easy passage into the Atlantic, though any German ship or boat leaving the Baltic would be dancing with Death in an Allies-held North Sea.

 

[Orko]

I started another thread that asked essentially this a couple of years back. Most posters seemed to think that Norway could have really easily resisted the large part of the German invasion if they had only made the decision, while IOTL they hesitated to react until it was too late because they feared fierce resistance would lead to German reprisals against Norwegian civilian population in cities already occupied. Apparently, the German invasion wasn't actually large enough or well planned enough to succeed if the Norwegians fully mobilized on time and weren't afraid of taking the initiative. Otherwise, airborne assaults and amphibious invasions can be easily thwarted without the Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine able to help much, and even if Norwegian cities are eventually overrun a decision could be made to continue resisting from the virtually unconquerable (with German logistics and war aims, of course) mountains of Norway. The Norwegians wouldn't need much supplies, they have a friendly population around them, and are familiar with the terrain and thus could give hell to the Germans occupying Norwegian cities. Eventually, with British help, all of Norway could be recaptured.

 

[Driftless]

It could have gone worse for the Kriegsmarine... Elsewhere, pretty tough for the Norwegians to repel a determined German assault

* The Norwegians did sink the Blucher in Oslofjord, which did delay the assault forces coming by sea long enough for the government and gold reserves to get out of town. If the Lutzow & company had pressed on, they too would likely have been damaged, either by gun fire from Oscarborg, or by shore based torpedos. (one of those shore based torpedos provided the coup-de-gras for the Blucher). My own pet POD, would have been for the Norwegians to have bartered for a few MAS boats from Italy, instead of the useless Caproni bombers that they got OTL. Even older models of the Italian torpedo boats could have been very effective in the narrow island dotted fjords of the south.

*At Bergen and Trondheim, the German ships slipped past the shore defenses with little response. That could easily have gone worse for the Kriegsmarine.

*At Narvik the Germans signalled the Norwegians for a parley, and torpedoed the ancient coastal defense cruisier KNoMS Eidsvold. The nearby sister ship of the Eidsvold, the Norge, got the same treatment. Both were sunk before they could effectively fire. If the Norwegians had opened up on the Germans with their 21cm guns and made a hit or two on the German Destroyers, that would have altered the landings at Narvik. It would have been more difficult for the German forces to land and seize the port and rail facilities. The British did clean house on the German Destroyers over the next days, but the German mountain troops were already ashore by then.

* However, the Norwegian Luftforsvaret wasn't going to be able to stop, or barely even slow the Luftwaffe down much. Their best fighters were a handful of Gladiators. (There were partially assembled or crated Curtis Hawk 75's that would have been real helpful had they been ready to go). The only help there might have been if the Danes had been able to hold out a day or two longer, and deny the Germans the use of the airfields at Aalborg on northern Jutland. But by the time the Germans got that far into Denmark, there didn't appear to be much point for the Danes to continue the fight. The Germans were going to have air supremacy in short order and they could have ferried troops in volume where they needed, under those circumstances.

 

[Drunkrobot]

Another effect I've realised - Neville Chamberlain would stay as Prime Minister, or at least is likely to be, in the wake of a victorius Norway. It might be him that breaks the news of France's defeat to the British People, and that Britain would fight on regardless. IOTL, he died of Cancer in November 1940, and he'll either step down as his health deteriorates or dies in office. Even then, it is possible him being PM for the next few months has effects on the rest of the war.

He at least had a working relationship with members of the French government, and might just be able to convince at least some to keep fighting. I know he didn't have the personality, the 'spunk' of Churchill, but the man was intelligent, he knew the state of British industry inside-out, and he was a better team player than Churchill ever was.

Besides, his impact on British domestic policy owed him at least some redemption from the eternal link with appeasement.

 

[Driftless]

I started another thread that asked essentially this a couple of years back. Most posters seemed to think that Norway could have really easily resisted the large part of the German invasion if they had only made the decision, while IOTL they hesitated to react until it was too late because they feared fierce resistance would lead to German reprisals against Norwegian civilian population in cities already occupied. Apparently, the German invasion wasn't actually large enough or well planned enough to succeed if the Norwegians fully mobilized on time and weren't afraid of taking the initiative. Otherwise, airborne assaults and amphibious invasions can be easily thwarted without the Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine able to help much, and even if Norwegian cities are eventually overrun a decision could be made to continue resisting from the virtually unconquerable (with German logistics and war aims, of course) mountains of Norway. The Norwegians wouldn't need much supplies, they have a friendly population around them, and are familiar with the terrain and thus could give hell to the Germans occupying Norwegian cities. Eventually, with British help, all of Norway could be recaptured.

I don't think the Norwegians (by themselves) could have stopped the Luftwaffe, if the Germans pushed the issue. That is even if the Curtis Hawk 75's were combat ready, with trained pilots as well. The Norwegians had stepped up in buying some potentially useful planes from the US, but unfortunately too late.

* 24 Curtis Hawk 75A-6 ordered
* 36 Northrop 8A-5N Dive Bombers ordered (A-17 in US use)
* 24 Northrop N-3PB Nomad Floatplanes (could have served as torpedo bombers)

Some decent planes, but not enough, I think to really hold off the Luftwaffe ME-110's for long.

 

[Simon]

Another effect I've realised - Neville Chamberlain would stay as Prime Minister, or at least is likely to be, in the wake of a victorius Norway.

If the Norwegian invasion is a failure with most of the Kriegsmarine sunk then Churchill at the Admiralty is, rightly or wrongly, likely to receive a fair bit of credit. What was Chamberlain's attitude to Churchill? Since he's still terminally ill he's going to be retiring fairly soon, plus stress and strain of the position of wartime Prime Minister could make his condition even worse than our timeline, and his opinion on potential successors could carry some weight.

 

[Zheng He]

I don't think the Norwegians (by themselves) could have stopped the Luftwaffe, if the Germans pushed the issue. That is even if the Curtis Hawk 75's were combat ready, with trained pilots as well. The Norwegians had stepped up in buying some potentially useful planes from the US, but unfortunately too late.

* 24 Curtis Hawk 75A-6 ordered
* 36 Northrop 8A-5N Dive Bombers ordered (A-17 in US use)
* 24 Northrop N-3PB Nomad Floatplanes (could have served as torpedo bombers)

Some decent planes, but not enough, I think to really hold off the Luftwaffe ME-110's for long.

Your points (in both of your recent posts) gets back to one of my original questions. Is a divided Norway a possibility? I concur that German air bases in Denmark and defensible SLOCs in the Skagerrak and Kattegat will make it hard for the Norwegians and British to defeat the Germans in the south but I can envision some realistic PODs that enable the Allies to hold on north of Trondheim and maybe even north of Bergen.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

The invasion of Norway could have failed quite easily with some better luck for the Allies and had they reacted more aggressively. The irony though is that the Germans launched the invasion to secure the supply of iron ore and to gain clear access to the North Atlantic but they secured all that a few weeks later with the Fall of France. An Allied victory in Norway won't overcome the 20 years of ossified military thinking needed to stop Case Yellow.

As for the long term impacts, mainly psychological, Britain won't be fighting on alone, assuming Barbarossa goes ahead as per OTL then the Arctic Convoys will have a clear run and Finland may opt for neutrality, might Atlantic convoys be able to take a more northerly route passing North of Iceland and approaching Britain from the north west?

In previous discussions on this topic some posters state that Britain would have had to garrison a large force in Norway in case of another German Invasion, I don't think so. Weserubung was a highly risky plan that largely succeeded because it caught the Allies off guard, if it fails then the KM has likely received an even more brutal buttkucking than IOTL and the Fallschrimjager will have lost a lot of men. The Norwegians will likely build up their defences with British help and will be ready for a second attempt, they'll probably get a few squadrons of Hurricanes or Spitfires to deal with an airborne attack as well as laying minefields and bolstering the coastal defences to deter a seaborne assault.

 

[Driftless]

Your points (in both of your recent posts) gets back to one of my original questions. Is a divided Norway a possibility? I concur that German air bases in Denmark and defensible SLOCs in the Skagerrak and Kattegat will make it hard for the Norwegians and British to defeat the Germans in the south but I can envision some realistic PODs that enable the Allies to hold on north of Trondheim and maybe even north of Bergen.

There's another timeline (Blunted Sickle) that makes a plausible case for a split Norway, with the hot zone being about half way between Trondheim & Narvik (around Mo i Rana). IF the Norwegians had greater initial success against the Germans, then with French and British help, they could have held on for a longer time in the South. IF the Norge & Eidsvold sink/damage some of the German Destroyers at Narvik, delaying the landings, that probably causes the Norwegian commander at Narvik to fight. That in turn probably would have allowed enough time for the British & French to really swing the battle up north in their favor.

However,.... The German Army for Weserubrung was only allotted about five divisions, I think. Even if the Norwegians hold on in the south past the start of the Battle of France, then the British & French still likely pull up stakes and leave the Norwegians to fight on alone. All of Norway is mountainous, but the heartland of Gudbransdahl and the area from Lillehammer down to Oslo is more valley floor. I think there the German Infantry has an advantage. Also, the weight of the Luftwaffe, would make it tough on the undermanned and undergunned Norwegians, especially without, or with limited support from the British & French.

The Norwegians may have had a better chance up North, if they had been able to defeat the initial landings at Narvik.

If the battle doesn't go well, Raeder almost assuredly gets the sack(or worse), and the blame for anything less than the full OTL success. Falkenhorst goes as well.

Post Battle of Britain, do the Germans pick up the fight again to complete the conquest?

 

[Rich Rostrom]

So, this got me thinking...in the opinion of the board, is there any chance Hitler's invasion of Norway could have failed?

Yes.

What POD(s) would do it

Here's two.

1) A British reconnaisance plane spotted the Bergen invasion group several hours before the attack. This group had reached the area well before H-Hour, and was steaming in circles until the balloon went up. The British plane sighted the group when it was steaming west.

The Admiralty concluded that the the German ships were trying to break out into the Atlantic to attack Allied shipping, and pulled their North Sea/Norwegian Sea patrols west to cover the gaps between the Shetland, Orkney, and Faeroe Islands.

Had the Germans been sighted while steaming east...

2) The Poles had broken the German Enigma ciphersystem in the 1930s, but as of 1939 had been blocked by some German tweaks. The Poles (and the British and French, after the Poles clued them in) could see how to defeat these tweaks, but it was going to take resources the Poles didn't have and several months. The re-break was achieved in early 1940 - just before the Norway operation, and too late to give the Allies any warning.

If the re-break had been even a month earlier - maybe as little as two weeks...

... and what might some of the effects be?

1. A serious bloody nose for Germany takes some of the luster off Hitler. OTL, until the Stalingrad debacle Hitler had been right every time. Every ridiculous chance he took paid off. That made him politically untouchable. If Weserübung fails, he's not infallible. However, it probably does not affect the outcome of the Battle of France. So France still falls as OTL. After that...
2. German invasion of Britain is obviously not on. The German navy is even more disembowelled, and Germany's one previous attempt was a fiasco.
3. The U-boat campaign (and the surface raider campaign) become a lot harder for Germany. Britain's blockade of Germany is now anchored on both sides of the North Sea.
4. Mussolini may not declare war on Britain. OTL, he hung back until it looked like the war was over, and even then some of his most important advisors (Ciano) were against it.
5. Because of 2 and 4, Britain may not consider it necessary to neutralize the French battle fleet, eliminating the Mers-el-Kébir action. This greatly reduces French hostility to Britain in the Vichy period.
6. 4 and 5 may allow more French colonies to declare for Free France.
7. With Norway in Allied hands, Finland is very unlikely to join the German invasion of the USSR (which they called the Continuation War).

If memory serves, Norway was an important source of iron ore for Germany during the war.

No, Sweden was a source of iron ore. Norway was a conduit for delivery of the ore to Germany in winter months, when the Baltic Sea freezes over.

This was considered critical at the time of the German invasion; one British cartoon alluded to the possible starvation of German war industry.

However, it didn't matter after the fall of France, which has some big iron ore fields.

Also, if Norway doesn't fall, Denmark (especially Jutland) seems much more vulnerable, and that in turn could give the Allies an opportunity to open a northern front (or at least force Germany to sink a lot of resources into Denmark to prevent this)

Denmark certainly becomes a possible invasion site, and the Germans have to defend it.

Thoughts?

One last thought. If Italy remains neutral, there are no campaigns in Yugoslavia, Greece, and North Africa. The German army is apparently idle. If it is not visibly demobilized, there is (IMO) a good chance that Stalin recognizes the threat to the USSR in 1941. In which case, Soviet forces will be on full alert and deployed for proper defense. They'll still get beat up by the Axis, but they'll inflict a lot more damage and stop the Axis west of the OTL 1941 line.

 

[Gudestein]

Security breach

A simple matter of a reliable notice could see the Norwegians mobilize, and to protect their airfields. This would not defeat the Luftwaffe, buy allowing british planes to use the field might.

The notice could be used to set a trap for the German fleet. Goodbye Scharnhorst & Gneisenau.

And yes Neville Chamberlain would be PM.

 

[DrakonFin]

With Norway in Allied hands, Finland is very unlikely to join the German invasion of the USSR (which they called the Continuation War).

I wouldn't say very unlikely, just more unlikely. I think there still would be a fair chance that Finland allies with the Germans during 1940, even if with more scepticism than IOTL. I think the Swedish, Norwegian and Allied attitude towards allowing and facilitating Finnish trade through Norway might be crucial. If the Nordics and the Allies seem to give a cold shoulder to Finland in things Finland absolutely needs to survive and potentially to protect itself when Germany is de facto blocking the Baltic Sea from Finland, the Finnish government would be tempted to jump to Berlin's boat after all. There would be a lot more internal discussion and disagreement about this, though, but if the Soviets act in a similarly hostile way towards Finland as they did during the OTL "interim peace", the Finns will feel very threatened.

I don't think the decision to go to the Continuation War was entirely rational, anyway. The Winter War gave birth to such an existential fear among the Finnish people ("the Bolsheviks are coming to rape your wifes and eat your children") and also the leaders and the loss of land in Karelia created a great measure of "righteous wrath" and revanchism among many in the political right and centre especially, that the chance of "taking the battle back to the Soviets" might still be grabbed. There would also be a lot of resentment towards the Swedish for "forsaking" Finland, and if the Swedish seem to keep up such "cold" approach, it might push the Finns towards the "warmer" German embrace.

I'd very roughly estimate that if IOTL the chance of joining hands with Germany was something like 80-85% against 15-20% of staying neutral, ITTL it would be 30-40% against 60-70% or so - and the ultimate decision depends heavily on foreign (Nordic and Allied) decisions on how to treat with Finland in 1940-41.

 

[MattII]

Come 1941 this will mean much fewer losses for the Arctic Convoys, also the Soviets have a shorter front to fight the Germans over.

 

[Zheng He]

The wiki page about the Battle of Narvik talks about how the Norwegians were surprised and not very happy when the Allies told them they planned to withdraw from Narvik in early June 1940 and that the Norwegians briefly considered trying to setup a "Free Norway" in northern Norway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Narvik

I think there is an interesting TL to be written here that probably doesn't require any massive PODs. Have the battle for most of Norway still go to the Germans albeit at higher cost and in turn have the British (not the French) elect to keep an expeditionary force of British and Polish troops to help the Norwegians hold Narvik to XX degrees of latitude south. Heck, maybe even the French troops stay since I believe most of them were Foreign Legion troops.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Browsing the recent Sealion thread, I noticed the following set of posts concerning Germany's invasion of Norway:







So, this got me thinking...in the opinion of the board, is there any chance Hitler's invasion of Norway could have failed? What POD(s) would do it, and what might some of the effects be? If memory serves, Norway was an important source of iron ore for Germany during the war. Also, if Norway doesn't fall, Denmark (especially Jutland) seems much more vulnerable, and that in turn could give the Allies an opportunity to open a northern front (or at least force Germany to sink a lot of resources into Denmark to prevent this)

Thoughts?

Had the King and Prime Minister gone onto the radio and given a "call to arms" - I know that not every house had a radio in 1940 but enough would have and this + word of mouth in the various communities would have alerted enough soldiers for a general call up and alert those already in positions of importance (Fortresses and Airfields etc) to go to a war time footing.

Certainly much more effective than waiting for the post man to deliver the call up papers.

There was a lot of confusion regarding the Norwegian response with some units laying down arms and others waiting for orders instead of marching to the sound of the guns.

This to me would be the greatest POD

The 2nd greatest POD would be to stop Churchill from interfering with an already complex plan.

I don't mind him becoming Prime Minister - Just please stop him buggering about with the movement of individual ships

 

[Cryhavoc101]

If the Norwegian invasion is a failure with most of the Kriegsmarine sunk then Churchill at the Admiralty is, rightly or wrongly, likely to receive a fair bit of credit. What was Chamberlain's attitude to Churchill? Since he's still terminally ill he's going to be retiring fairly soon, plus stress and strain of the position of wartime Prime Minister could make his condition even worse than our timeline, and his opinion on potential successors could carry some weight.

Churchill does seem to be bullet proof doesn't he lol

As it is he is probably the only person that the Labour Coalition partners will support as Chamberlains successor

When does Chamberlain discover that he is ill?

If about this time this could be a much 'fairer' way of replacing him - ie standing down due to ill health.

 

[Some Bloke]

Norway was Churchill's idea.
IOTL he became PM inspite of the defeat there.
In this scenrio he will become PM because
of the victory there.

If Norway fights on, so will France.
France and Britain signed an agreement not
to seek a seperate peace, if Norway can be
persuaded to make a similar agreement,
Churchill will play the Norway card
when things in Metropolitan France
go pear shaped.

 

[Saphroneth]

Norway was Churchill's idea.
IOTL he became PM inspite of the defeat there.
In this scenrio he will become PM because
of the victory there.

If Norway fights on, so will France.
France and Britain signed an agreement not
to seek a seperate peace, if Norway can be
persuaded to make a similar agreement,
Churchill will play the Norway card
when things in Metropolitan France
go pear shaped.

Could this be the route to the Franco-British Union? That would be a neat knock-on.