WI The Allies invaded Norway in 1940

[wemayberry]

I recently started reading "Hitler's Pre-emptive War" by Henrik O. Lunde. Early in the book it mentions that Churchill wanted to invade Norway or at least Narvik both to cut off the iron ore supplies that move through and to provoke a German response/invasion that would allow the Allies to use their abundant sea power.

After getting support of both Chamberlain & the French, the plan boiled down to 2 segments :
1.Operation Wilfred - laying of several minefields in Norwegian waters in violation of Norwegian neutrality.
2.Plan R4 - A landing by Allied ground troops at Narvik, Trondheim, Bergan & Stavanger. The troops landing at Narvik , after securing the port, were to follow along the rail line from Narvik into Sweden and secure the iron mines from which the ore was extracted.

For various reasons these plans were delayed/put off until finally on April 8, 1940 Operation Wilfred was carried out. Plan R4 got throw out thanks to the German invasion taking place the same day.

What if instead of delaying the operations until April 8th, the Allies had gone ahead on the last date they had planned to, April 5th?

How does this effect Germany's standing in Scandinavia? Especially with Denmark ? How might this effect the naval losses that happened historically?

What effects might this have on Barbarossa? US relations with both sides?

Possible fallout/outcomes on Greenland, Iceland & the Faroes (depending on Denmark's stance?)

 

[The Kiat]

Yeah, that might push Norway actively into the German camp.

 

[Varangian]

Swedens response would also be interesting.

 

[Jay]

^ That. And the fighting there will prolong the invansion of France and the Low Countries, giving them more time to prepare, thus giving the Soviet Union more time to prepare (for anything I assume, attacking, defending).

America might not be liking an invasion by a country that wants them to join to stop an expansionist state.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, that might push Norway actively into the German camp.

Nope, it would not.

I even doubt there will be any active military oposition.

The Norwegian government would just make a little fuzz international, and then they would accept a British millitary or civil advisor in the Norwegian government.

 

[vitemajoren]

I would have liked to see how the British would have fared in
the far North trying to push on to the mines constantly harried
by Norrlandsjägare and with more or less no air support and in
extreme cold. It is also possible that Per-Albin would have requested
German aid lets say 1 or 2 German gebirgsjäger divisions.

 

[Bill Cameron]

I would have liked to see how the British would have fared in the far North trying to push on to the mines constantly harried
by Norrlandsjägare and with more or less no air support and in
extreme cold.

Vitemajoren,

Taking the mines was never part of the plan. All the Allies needed to do with control the piers from which the ore was loaded aboard ships.


Bill

 

[HMS Warspite]

An Allied Invasion of Norway would most likely have not had any long term effects in WW2, appart from alienating the Norwegian People from the Allied Cause. Germany still would and could throw out the Allies in april - may 1940, simply by having a more experienced groundforce, who were better equipped and better supported, than the Allied troops, who would have been occupying Norway. The Navalwar would have possibly resulted in a slightly higher loss of German warships, but the end would basically have been the same, with the Allied withdrawal from Norway.

 

[BlairWitch749]

the norweigans would be pissed... one could look at their protest of the altmark incident and the British encoursion into their territorial waters. this could create dissent in an allready divided war cabinet and force chamberlin out.

keep in mind that that the deployment of allied troops to norway robbed the allies of valuable troops that were needed to defend france (ie polish troops who had combat experience and french alpine troops)

 

[Grimm Reaper]

BlairWitch749, the forces intended for the British invasion of Norway couldn't possibly have made a difference in France and would certainly have been destroyed by the Germans. The British didn't seem to understand that sending a brigade here and a few battalions there when the Germans were sending the equivalent of two or more corps wasn't going to work.


There's also some serious question as to whether the whole point of the proposed British invasion, blocking the iron ore shipments, could even work. By pushing more ore during the summer months through Sweden most of what went via Narvik could still have been sent to Germany.

 

[wemayberry]

There's also some serious question as to whether the whole point of the proposed British invasion, blocking the iron ore shipments, could even work. By pushing more ore during the summer months through Sweden most of what went via Narvik could still have been sent to Germany.

This was one of the reasons the Brits intended to follow up the capture of Narvik with a march down the railway into Sweden. Of course it appears they greatly underestimated the force necessary to accomplish this task and overestimated the willingness of both Norway & Sweden to allow such an assault on their nations. Fortunately Plan R4 never took place as intended.

 

[Neala]

we did invade Norway, it's just we made such a bad job of it that the Germans invaded first so we could claim that we were going to the Norwegians aid, but make no mistake, we were invading

 

[Oddball]

You people are mixing up two different plans for this theater:

First there were the British and French plan for an intervention in the Winter War. This plan envisioned a move from Narvik into Sweden to reach Finland. The plan initialy was planed to be executed with Norwegian and Swedish blessings, but IIRC France later wanted to excecute it regardles.

Later, after the Winter War had ended, a "invasion plan" for Norway exclusively was developed. It had two parts:

1: Operation Wilfred, the mining of Norwegian terriotorial waters. This part was excecuted OTL

2: Plan R4 was supposed to be a following up plan after German reactions to operation Wilfred. It consisted of the occupation of Narvik, Trondheim and Bergen. There was at no time a part of the plan to invade Sweden!

 

[BlairWitch749]

BlairWitch749, the forces intended for the British invasion of Norway couldn't possibly have made a difference in France and would certainly have been destroyed by the Germans. The British didn't seem to understand that sending a brigade here and a few battalions there when the Germans were sending the equivalent of two or more corps wasn't going to work.


There's also some serious question as to whether the whole point of the proposed British invasion, blocking the iron ore shipments, could even work. By pushing more ore during the summer months through Sweden most of what went via Narvik could still have been sent to Germany.

I agree they would still get chopped up but having the equivlent of 2 first class divisions (poles and french alpine) might slow the Germans up a little bit more than otl depending on how they were employed

also bear in mind that once the Germans occupy France they have more ore than they could ever use

 

[vitemajoren]

I agree they would still get chopped up but having the equivlent of 2 first class divisions (poles and french alpine) might slow the Germans up a little bit more than otl depending on how they were employed

also bear in mind that once the Germans occupy France they have more ore than they could ever use

that is not quite true, I assume that you are referring to the mines
in Alsace-Lorraine, the problem with that is that that ore is of very
poor quality, Germany did after all imported ore from Sverige most of the
war and gave back coal and other things that we lacked.

 

[arctic warrior]

What if instead of delaying the operations until April 8th, the Allies had gone ahead on the last date they had planned to, April 5th?

How does this effect Germany's standing in Scandinavia? Especially with Denmark ?

Possible fallout/outcomes on Greenland, Iceland & the Faroes (depending on Denmark's stance?)

Not much probably - the German plan decided upon February 29. 1940 included the occupation of all of Denmark.

What could disturb it was the possible presence of the armed ice-breaker Isbjoern at Copenhagen when German ships, ice-breaker Stettin and minelayer/troop transport Hansestad Danzig arrive.
The Danish Admiral when asked post April 9 were convinced that the Isbjoern could have prevented the arrival of the German infantry battalion carried by the Hansestad Danzig in attaining its objective.
At best it would give the Danish Government some hours before German troops of 198. Division would arrive by road from Korsoer; making for prolonged time of fighting making for some more Danish casualties.

But generally it wouldn't alter much and not the position of Danish Minister Kaufmann in Washington who would go on with making a treaty with the USA allowing it bases in Greenland in return of protection.
Iceland and the Faeroe Islands would still get occupied/protected by the British.

 

[solidpontus]

The swedes

This is a very interesting scenario, which maybe should become a full story in the future...

However, when I´ve been thinking about this scenario I wonder what the swedish respone would be. If the allied had moved against the iron fields, Sweden would most likely join Germany.

If Sweden became an axis-member I think their role would be to reinforce the Finns on Barbarossa. I don´t think their presence would motivate a stronger Soviet effort to conquer Finland, they can´t match the Red Army 1944 anyway. Sweden have no bombing capabilities to disturb Soviet advance into central Europe, so they would likely be left alone on their side of the Baltic. The question is how they are handled after Germany surrender? Forced disarmament, enforced by who - Montgomery?

/Solidpontus

 

[Markus]

Nope, it would not.

I even doubt there will be any active military oposition.

Let´s hope so for the sake of the so-called invasion force. Because that was nothing but a handful of infantry battalions with no armour, no triple-A and next to no artillery as their "mission" was to support the Norwegians against the Germans after getting a friendly welcome, not a "warm" one.


An actual invasion was never planned, the plan was to give Germany the impression an allied invasion was imminent, make Germany invade first and than come to the rescue.

 

[HMS Warspite]

There is a good piece of literature about this subject, just published last year:

The German Invasion of Norway
April 1940

Geirr H Haarr
Found in: General Seaforth
All Seaforth Books
Hardback 446 pages
ISBN: 9781848320321

Published: 15 July 2009


This new book documents the German invasion of Norway, focussing on the events at sea. More than most other campaigns of WWII, Operation Weserübung has been shrouded in mystery, legend and flawed knowledge. Strategic, political and legal issues were at best unclear, while military issues were dominated by risk; the German success was the result of improvisation and the application of available forces far beyond the comprehension of British and Norwegian military and civilian authorities

Weserübung was the first combined operation ever where air force, army and navy operated closely together. Troops were transported directly into battle simultaneously by warship and aircraft, and success required co-operation between normally fiercely competing services. It was also the first time that paratroopers were used. The following days were to witness the first dive bomber attack to sink a major warship and the first carrier task-force operations.

The narrative is based on primary sources from British, German and Norwegian archives, and it gives a balanced account of the reasons behind the invasion. With its unrivalled collection of photographs, many of which have never before appeared in print, this is a major new WWII history and a definitive account of Germany's first and last major seaborne invasion.
Product Reviews

Haar has done an outstanding job.....Haars book is unlikely to be surpassed, it is the most comprehensive account of that first week of battle at sea. It is copiously and excellently illustrated.

Navy News - Sept 09

This has to be the definitive history of the the early stages of the German invasion of Norway and especially of the Naval campaign around Norway. A very impressive piece of work that comes highly recommended.

historyofwar.org - Sept 09

First-time author Geirr Haarr has expertly trawled through original documents in the archives of three countries to produce a book which is a model of clarity, well-written and lavishly illustrated. He has presented the political background to the invasion in a style that can be easily followed and his attention to detail in his account of the military and naval actions is to be praised. There can be little doubt that this work places the German invasion of Norway in its rightful place in the story of the Second World War and I can thoroughly commend it to anyone with an interest in the period.

W.Alister Williams, Historian and author

I have read Geir Haarr's book and am extremely impressed. In my opinion it is now the most authoritative account of the naval aspect of the German invasion of Norway. I found myself gripped by the narrative and by the human as well as the technical aspects of the war at sea. This was the first major campaign of the Second World War, and it is clear that all sides were faced with unprecedented challenges, in the face of which improvisation, good and bad judgement and heroism all played their part. Using an impressive range of primary sources and an outstanding selection of photographs, the author has mastered both the broader strategic context and the innumerable engagements, large and small, that took place. He gives equal weight to the German, Norwegian and British sides and does not shrink from severe judgements on poor decision-making where appropriate. Long as the book is, I found myself wishing that he had been able to take to the story up to the end of the Norwegian campaign in June 1940 - but perhaps that is for a later project.

Professor Patrick Salmon, Chief Historian for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office