Invasion of Norway fails in April 1940-what next?

What would the effects be of a failed German invasion of Norway? The POD being that the Royal Navy manages to sink or turn back enough transports, that the invasion fails within 2 days.

1. How realistic would this be? 2. what would the long term effects be? 3. would this effect the German attack in the west?

Two effects stand out at once too me, any Russian convoys are going too have a much better time, plus southern Norway could be a good place to base bombers to hit Germany.
 
1. The Norwegian government probably re-discover their testicles and fight back with ever decreasing confusion instead of doing nothing. This becomes a morale boost, "if a poor country like Norway can fight back, surely France will kick Germany's butt!"

2. Long term effects would be the intact Norwegian Merchant Marine at the WAllies disposal along with bases for airplanes and a MUCH easier task of shutting Germany out of the Atlantic.
In addition you would have a Norway on the Allied side with thousands of extra soldiers and this in turn will probably be enough to convince Sweden politely to seize selling resources with Germany.

3. Germany will still attack, as it is still commanded by the lunatic Adolf Hitler. Personally I think they still will defeat France, but at a much higher price(which is good for later in the war).
 
With Norway out of hand of Hitler. is very very very bad for the Nazi :D

the use of Norway airport by the allies, they can bomb easier North part of the Reich
means Hamburg and other major ports like Emden get more bomber-raids

but the worst problem is that the Reich's fleet, can't not move freely into Atlantic,
without be attack from Great Britain or Norway by torpedo bombers...
 
1. The Norwegian government probably re-discover their testicles and fight back with ever decreasing confusion instead of doing nothing. This becomes a morale boost, "if a poor country like Norway can fight back, surely France will kick Germany's butt!"

2. Long term effects would be the intact Norwegian Merchant Marine at the WAllies disposal along with bases for airplanes and a MUCH easier task of shutting Germany out of the Atlantic.
In addition you would have a Norway on the Allied side with thousands of extra soldiers and this in turn will probably be enough to convince Sweden politely to seize selling resources with Germany.

3. Germany will still attack, as it is still commanded by the lunatic Adolf Hitler. Personally I think they still will defeat France, but at a much higher price(which is good for later in the war).

Actually I think the attack on France would probably go as OTL as the allied forces commited to Norway probably wouldn't make any difference, however post Dunkirk with most of the German KM and merchant shipping sitting on the ocean floor, there should be less of an invasion panic.

One thing this would do is butterfly away Churchill coming to power when he did OTL, however after a debacle in France it might still happen in say July.
 
Norway would be invaded by Germany later, if the British/French did not intervene in april 1940. Russia had been a priority target and as soon as the Allies started to supply the Russians via Murmansk, Germany would act to that threat by invading Norway anyway. (There had been no real schedule for an invassion of Norway in Germany, but it was seen as a relatively easy thing to do, as long as the Luftwaffe ruled the skies over the targetted area. It is worthwhile to know that the number of forces used by Germany for the invasion of Norway was not that great, as the bulk of the Wehrmacht already was preparing for the invasion of the Low Countries and France. The Norway invasion was more likely a sort of expeditionary action by the German Army, using relatively small units.)
 
Western Allied policy towards Finland will be interesting, as the post-Winter War Finnish government is frantically trying to get support and help against Stalin from any source they can get. With Allies on Norway and the oceans secured, Finnish and Swedish governments have completely different diplomatical situation to deal with.
 
Norway would be invaded by Germany later, if the British/French did not intervene in april 1940. Russia had been a priority target and as soon as the Allies started to supply the Russians via Murmansk, Germany would act to that threat by invading Norway anyway. (There had been no real schedule for an invassion of Norway in Germany, but it was seen as a relatively easy thing to do, as long as the Luftwaffe ruled the skies over the targetted area. It is worthwhile to know that the number of forces used by Germany for the invasion of Norway was not that great, as the bulk of the Wehrmacht already was preparing for the invasion of the Low Countries and France. The Norway invasion was more likely a sort of expeditionary action by the German Army, using relatively small units.)

But how would they invade? They have already tried to go by sea once and its been defeated, presumably by the time they try again say late 1941/early 1942 the Norwegian armed forces would have been considerably built up and on alert not including any British units based there-which would include a decent amount of fighters.
 
Western Allied policy towards Finland will be interesting, as the post-Winter War Finnish government is frantically trying to get support and help against Stalin from any source they can get. With Allies on Norway and the oceans secured, Finnish and Swedish governments have completely different diplomatical situation to deal with.

If Germany still attacks the USSR , then the allies will back the USSR as in OTL, the defeat of Nazi Germany will be seen as the priority, i dont see Finland joining the Axis in the scenario however, how would this affect the eastern front?
 
If Germany still attacks the USSR , then the allies will back the USSR as in OTL, the defeat of Nazi Germany will be seen as the priority, i dont see Finland joining the Axis in the scenario however, how would this affect the eastern front?

unless the allies decide to help finland by sending troops when the ussr is still allied to the germans. It would mean a D.O.W. on the ussr.
When the germans then attack russia, things would get interesting politically speaking, either they become buddies with stalin all of a sudden (unlikely after DOW and fighting), or it becomes a 3-polar war with all complications of that.

makes me wonder how japan would respond to a DOW of the allies on the ussr. would they still go for the southern resource area, or would they try to suck up to the allies?
 

Cook

Banned
2. Long term effects would be the intact Norwegian Merchant Marine at the WAllies disposal...
As far as the Norwegian merchant marine is concerned, this represents little change; almost the entire M.M. (one of the largest merchant fleets in the world) sailed to Britain during the invasion and served the allies for the duration of the war, proving critically important during the Battle of the Atlantic when half the oil shipped to Britain was transported in Norwegian tankers.
 

Andre27

Banned
Norway would be invaded by Germany later, if the British/French did not intervene in april 1940. Russia had been a priority target and as soon as the Allies started to supply the Russians via Murmansk, Germany would act to that threat by invading Norway anyway. (There had been no real schedule for an invassion of Norway in Germany, but it was seen as a relatively easy thing to do, as long as the Luftwaffe ruled the skies over the targetted area. It is worthwhile to know that the number of forces used by Germany for the invasion of Norway was not that great, as the bulk of the Wehrmacht already was preparing for the invasion of the Low Countries and France. The Norway invasion was more likely a sort of expeditionary action by the German Army, using relatively small units.)

But how would they invade? They have already tried to go by sea once and its been defeated, presumably by the time they try again say late 1941/early 1942 the Norwegian armed forces would have been considerably built up and on alert not including any British units based there-which would include a decent amount of fighters.

Both good points. Aside from allied bases in Norway locking the Kriegsmarine in their ports, Germany needs Norway for for access to Swedish Iron ore.

Combine these two and it's inevitable that Germany would have another go at capturing Norway.

With Norway's military on alert and the inevitable French + British reinforcements it would become a difficult task. Such a difficult task that Germany may actually sue for peace early or has to delay Barbarossa.
 

Cook

Banned
But how would they invade? They have already tried to go by sea once and its been defeated...
Agreed, OperationWeserübung was a one off that worked because of the element of surprise; there wouldn’t have been a second attempt.
 
As someone else has said it butterflies Churchill coming to power in May 1940. OTOH Churchill looks good as First lord of the Admiralty and may come to power after France falls in June but it's by no means certain.

It also raises the possibility of Churchill pushing for offensive activity in the Baltic (a revived Operation Catherine) which would be a bad idea.

The strategic situation for Britain after the fall of France (which would be unaffected) would be better. During the BoB the RAF doesn't have to defend against attacks from Norway and parts of Scotland and the North are spared air raids.

The U Boats are denied bases which helps with the Battle of the Atlantic and ships like the Bismarck would probably get caught long before they left the North Sea.

The downside is that Britain has to supply Norway and keep troops there when North Africa is crying out for resources. OTOH it would be good for British morale to have a victory under its belt in addition to the BoB. Hitler would look less invincible and this helps his generals to stand up to him more successfully. Whether this would change Barbarossa I doubt since it was the whole point of everything Hitler wanted.
 
First, I'm not sure how you get to a complete failure of the German invasion. The naval part of the German invasion landed at five separate major points. Two of those (Narvik and Trondheim) were over a long enough distance they could reasonably have been intercepted by the Royal Navy. The one at Bergen would have been iffy to intercept because it was probably well within range of German land-based airpower recently shifted to Denmark. The other two landings would be very difficult to intercept because they crossed a narrow strait from Denmark that would be dominated by German air power. The Germans also landed via airborne assault a number of places.

Worst result for the Germans that doesn't involve them rolling a very unlikely number of snake-eyes: The Allies sink the expeditions to Narvik and Trondheim, and land forces in northern and central Norway, while the Germans establish themselves in the south, including Oslo.

Unless the German failures in north and central Norway butterfly away the successful German invasion of France a month later, the Allies would be forced to bring their forces home from Norway--France because of the surrender, Britain because they would need every trained soldier to stop the threatened German invasion. That would leave Norway on its own against the Germans at least through October 1940, when weather took Sea Lion completely off the table. The Norwegians were quite competent and very brave, and they would undoubtedly make the Germans pay a price, but Germany would almost certainly take the rest of the country in the summer of 1940.

Let's say the Germans do roll an unlikely series of snake-eyes and the invasion fails everywhere. If France still falls, the Germans would try again. They would have air superiority over southern Norway and only a narrow strait to cross from Denmark. Even given a lot more naval losses in the initial invasion of Norway and even given the loss of much of their airborne capacity in Holland, I suspect they could cobble together enough to take at least southern Norway in late summer of 1940, and then chew their way up the country in late 1940-early 1941. Great Britain would send token aid in the summer of 1940, and more substantial aid after October 1940 if Norway was still holding out.

That increase aid would come at the expense of North Africa, and might prevent the rout of the Italians there in late 1940. The arrival of more modern British planes and tanks in North Africa after October 1940 played a major role in that rout, especially the Matilda's, which weren't great tanks but were essentially impervious to anything the Italians had in the way of anti-tank guns. So the trade-off: help Norway or crush the Italians. I'm guessing the Brits would go for helping Norway. Where it goes from there, I don't know.
 
If the Germans fail in Norway it would be the end of large Kriegsmarine surface actions. This is what they commited:



  1. Battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as distant cover, plus 10 destroyers with 2,000 mountaineering troops under General Eduard Dietl to Narvik;
  2. Heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper and four destroyers with 1,700 troops to Trondheim;
  3. Light cruisers Köln and Königsberg, artillery training ship Bremse, transport Karl Peters, two torpedo boats and five motor torpedo boats with 1,900 troops to Bergen;
  4. Light cruiser Karlsruhe, three torpedo boats, seven motor torpedo boats and Schnellboot mothership (Schnellbootbegleitschiff) Tsingtau with 1,100 troops to Kristiansand;[14]
  5. Heavy cruiser Blücher, heavy cruiser (formerly pocket battleship) Lützow, light cruiser Emden, three torpedo boats and eight minesweepers with 2,000 troops to Oslo;
  6. Four minesweepers with 150 troops to Egersund.
That's most of their heavy suface ships. 1-3 stand a decent chance of being intercepted with the right POD. Karlsruhe had difficulty with a pesky shore battery and was shortly after sunk by a British sub. Blucher was sunk by the Norwegian Oscarsborg fortress and Lutzow nearly suffered the same fate.

Thus, if the Allies are lucky, the only german surface warship worthy of mention which would survive the operation would be the light cruiser Emden. Hardly enough to pull of Sealion.

The British will also be far less scared about Sealion, given that the RN just prooved it can easily beat a German landing attempt, sinking most of the Kriegsmarine in the process.

Finally, butterflies CAN affect the Battle of France. Lets say, for instance, the panzers that went to Norway are sent to the Ardennes, adding 1-2 days to the bottleneck, or that different decisions are taken with regards to Luftwaffe operations at Sedan, potentially leading to a failure of the initial crossing.

While there is a small chance this would butterfly into a German defeat, it can result in things like far, far greater German losses or a French government that decides to continue from North Africa. My personal favoritue though (on which I was once planning on doing a TL) is it delays a German brakethrough long enough for the Allies to launch Operation Pike.
 
But how would they invade? They have already tried to go by sea once and its been defeated, presumably by the time they try again say late 1941/early 1942 the Norwegian armed forces would have been considerably built up and on alert not including any British units based there-which would include a decent amount of fighters.

The invasion of the USSR had been scheduled for late spring 1941, so the invasion of Norway would always happen prior to that, simply to take control of the long coastline, mainly for the saveguarding of Iron Ore transport, but also to have acces to the Allied Supplyroutes to Arctic Russia, which was logically to be expected. The operation would happen as in 1940, with the exception the Allies would possibly fight a bit harder, but still not strong enough to counter the German advance. (especially in the air, where the Allies at the time lacked the needed airpower to harm the Germans too much. Not that the RAF was not going to station its best in oversea airbases yet, due to the mere threat of the Luftwaffe attacking from occupied France.)

Norway would not defend itself strongly, as that was in complete contradiction of the status of its armed forces and training, which both could not be expected to change raddically in a year time. Norway somply lacked the manpower to do that in the first place and the Allies were not welcome either, since that would counter Norway's wish to remain neutral. Besides that, Norway was more closely affliniated towards Germany, since it had made strong protests of Allied (=British) incursions of naval vessels in territorial waters in the years before. (Altmark Incident) Germany on the otehr hand had repsected the neutrality so far, more or less, except for a few incidents, besides being the biggest economical partner, due to the Iron Ore shipping.

You might expect that the german naval operations would be more cunning and less stretched, but still going on as planned. More Luftwaffe presence would be expected, especially from Paratroops being used to quickly capture strategic possitions. The areas out of range for the Para's would be taken by naval troops, as in the OTL, with Narvik as the biggest priority again. The Royal Navy would certainly intervene again, but now face a stronger U-Boote force, with torpedoes that now did what they had to do, resulting in either a British early retreat, or more Allied losses. Also that into account that the Bismarck would be available by then to support the invassion, with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau likely joining as well, since these would likely not have sortied into the Atlantic, due to lack of the foreward Norwegian base prior to that.
 
The Battle of France might happen per OTL but the Norway example might lead to France continuing the war in North Africa.

This could lead to some very interesting strategic shenanigns come 1944.
Liberate France of go in via Denmark?
 
Top