Denmark and Norway in World war 2

[Agentdark]

Is their a way that both Denmark and Norway could either remain Neutral during World War 2, or have them remain as allied states that are not occupied by Nazi Germany?

[Grimm Reaper]

Have Hitler decide not to invade Norway(as Denmark was simply added after the decision was made). Note that the Wehrmacht was very down on the whole invasion idea.

A bit of cheap shot but...what if the British intercept the two German battlecruisers during the raid where they sank no more than a single brave armed merchant ship in late 1939? Will Hitler consider an invasion certain to be eagerly contested by the British without a single capital ship of his own?

[Mark AH]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Have Hitler decide not to invade Norway(as Denmark was simply added after the decision was made). Note that the Wehrmacht was very down on the whole invasion idea.

True, if those countries would have stayed neutral Germany would had have a few options more to win the war. Because if the countries stayed neutral and not would have joined the other side, Germany had more countries in the neighbourhood to buy supplies from, like he did with Sweden. In the original timeline he didn’t have to use money to get something, but sometimes it’s better to buy than to have troops occupied in a country with no extraordinary advantages. As Germany would have more troops free to use elsewhere the war could have developed different.

But what if Norway and Denmark would have joined with Britain, than the already limited access to the North Sea would have been very difficult to reach.

[Redbeard]

Before WWII Denmark asked UK if she could expect help in case of German aggression, and the answer was no, after which the last intentions of a military defence were given up.

In WWI Denmark remained neutral but as a in effectu German vassal and with a relatively strong defence with which to keep the British out of the Baltic on behalf of the Germans.

Denmark on allied side in WWII would at least require the British promising substantail help and that probably requires a militarily much stronger UK before WWII.

I'm not sure a cancellation of the invasion of Norway would be enough to keep Germany out of Denmark. By WWII Denmark was practically disarmed and it would simply be too easy for the mid war much stronger allies to take possession of teritory dangerously close to the heart of Germany. But Denmark armed on level with WWI might go on like Sweden - ie unoccupied, but still an initially non-belligerent partner of Germany and later with the best intentions.

Norway is a different matter, being further away from German reach and still inside British. I could imagine an allied Norway if Germany for some reason stays out. Norway depended much on trade with UK and had a huge merchant fleet dependent on British protection.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[esl]

Norway was seen as security for Swedish Ore shipments since the Baltic frooze over 1/2 the year. Prewar Swedish ore accounted for much more of German resource than British, so it was a strategic asset from their POV. Admiral Raeder strategy envisaged possession of Norway as another avenue to break out into Altantic and ended RN blocade. No way they could have tolerated Allied occupied Scandinavia.

[ljofa]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Have Hitler decide not to invade Norway(as Denmark was simply added after the decision was made). Note that the Wehrmacht was very down on the whole invasion idea.

A bit of cheap shot but...what if the British intercept the two German battlecruisers during the raid where they sank no more than a single brave armed merchant ship in late 1939? Will Hitler consider an invasion certain to be eagerly contested by the British without a single capital ship of his own?

Have Britain and France invade Germany on day one - troops would have had to have been rushed away from Poland. Russia turns around and refuses to sell Germany fuel, Romania are pressured into making a similar deal. Germany's Panzers grind to a halt and an armistice is sought.

[Grimm Reaper]

The decision to invade Denmark was a result of the original decision to invade Norway. If Norway won't be invaded(or can't be), invading Denmark alone makes Germany look incredibly bad without any clear gains to be had.

[Mark AH]

But even a well armed Denmark would likely be weaker than the German forces. But another problem for Germany was that a neutral Denmark could have been a springboard for Britain to Invade Germany more easily.

So I think that in any scenario Denmark never would stay neutral during WWII.

[Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Mark AH

But even a well armed Denmark would likely be weaker than the German forces. But another problem for Germany was that a neutral Denmark could have been a springboard for Britain to Invade Germany more easily.

So I think that in any scenario Denmark never would stay neutral during WWII.

Denmark will indeed never be capable of alone defending herself against a determined Germany, but the point is that a well armed Denmark can keep her neutrality by letting her arms keep the British away - on behalf of Germany - exactly like it happened in WWI.

During WWI the Danish Army was about 5 Infantry Divisions (+ support troops) and extensive fortifications around Copenhagen and the Baltic Straits heavily mined (on German request). The navy was a coastal navy, focussed on defending the minefields and including both coastal, battleships (4), torpedoboats (15-20) and subs (15-20). The fortifications at Copenhagen and Oeresund were both strong and modern and included 14" guns. This force alone would have had Dardanelles be kindergarten compared to a Baltic operation, also because the Germans from behind the minefields relatively easy could reinforce and supply the Danish defences, and contribute in defending the minefields.

In WWII air power would make it possible for the allies to interfere with German traffic behind the minefields, but it would also be extremely costly being so close to German heartland.

In OTL the allies did not choose Denmark as the object of D-day, and I don't see why that should change in a "armed neutral Denmark" TL. But what if the allies as in OTL have landed in France and advanced to the Rhine, would it be possible to have Denmark do a Bavaria 1813? That would make it possible to finsih the war early and before the Soviets reach Berlin.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[esl]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Have Hitler decide not to invade Norway(as Denmark was simply added after the decision was made). Note that the Wehrmacht was very down on the whole invasion idea.

A bit of cheap shot but...what if the British intercept the two German battlecruisers during the raid where they sank no more than a single brave armed merchant ship in late 1939? Will Hitler consider an invasion certain to be eagerly contested by the British without a single capital ship of his own?

Any interception of the Twins would have occured after the fact since the troops were mostly already there in merchant ships, although some steamed north in destroyers with the twins. The twins diverted east to draw the RN away so any interception would not have changed the invasion. If sinking half the German Destroyer fleet at Narvik didn't turn Narvik over to the allies , then nothing else short of direct troop to troop clash would have altered the out come.

What if Hitler had spent less money building useless fortifications like the West Wall and barracks for millions of millions of troops they could not afford, and instead diverted enough money to complete the 1936 naval building programme on time rather tnan 1-2 years behind schedule? Aside from having all 1941 warships completed in 1940, they would have had enough money to properly test the magnetic torps trigger device. That failure cost the Germans alot at Narvik and Norway. Reportedly only 4 out of 38 torpedo attacks worked and the magnetic trigger accounted for 65% of the failures. Remove that and you have 22 more Allied ships sunk/crippled including the battleship HMS Warship before it went into Narvik?

[Permanganate]

Originally Posted by esl

What if Hitler had spent less money building useless fortifications like the West Wall and barracks for millions of millions of troops they could not afford...

The West Wall was useful propaganda; it was an important reason for Allied inaction at all levels from 1938-mid 1940. The thing about not building barracks is that you will eventually need them, because the USSR is Germany's main threat and is not going away.

Originally Posted by esl

...and instead diverted enough money to complete the 1936 naval building programme on time rather tnan 1-2 years behind schedule? Aside from having all 1941 warships completed in 1940...

In hindsight, having the whole historical KM ready to support Weserubung and Sealion would have at least helped. How much, I don't know - probably not a lot - but it definitely increases the chances of it being launched. Whether they win and have secured Europe, or lose and go to full war production, it's a net win for the Germans since the UK isn't their main enemy anyway.

Originally Posted by esl

...they would have had enough money to properly test the magnetic torps trigger device.

It wasn't that they didn't have money for testing the torpedoes, it was that the officer in charge of doing it was incompetent and kept insisting there were no problems. It wasn't until after Norway that other German officers realized their torpedoes had hardly been tested at all.

Originally Posted by esl

the battleship HMS Warship...

ROFL!

[esl]

Originally Posted by Permanganate

The West Wall was useful propaganda; it was an important reason for Allied inaction at all levels from 1938-mid 1940. The thing about not building barracks is that you will eventually need them, because the USSR is Germany's main threat and is not going away.



In hindsight, having the whole historical KM ready to support Weserubung and Sealion would have at least helped. How much, I don't know - probably not a lot - but it definitely increases the chances of it being launched. Whether they win and have secured Europe, or lose and go to full war production, it's a net win for the Germans since the UK isn't their main enemy anyway.



It wasn't that they didn't have money for testing the torpedoes, it was that the officer in charge of doing it was incompetent and kept insisting there were no problems. It wasn't until after Norway that other German officers realized their torpedoes had hardly been tested at all.



ROFL!

Yes thats what I get for posting at coffee time

Thing is that Maginot line molded allied thinking , they relied on it to keep the huns out, there was never going to be any attack. UK/French strategy envisaged using the wall as a barrier to allow them two years to build up forces they thought needed to mount offensive against Germany. There never was any threat that the westwall filled except for Hitlers fevered mind and all those he infected

The amount of money labor and resources invested in the WestWall could have funded the 'Karin Hall fuel expansion plan' and was sited by Major General Leise as just another example of pathetic waste within the government, that was choking up the rearmament programe.Like wise the massive growth of the Heer to 4 million men was about 1 million more than what was needed. Even in WW-I they only started with 2.5 million troops. In those years more money was being spent building barracks for troops -they didn't need , than was being spent on armaments to equip the troops they raised. Problems with armaments industry was first in formost effected by the negative drain of skilled personnel to the army.

I thought that even after Norway it took until mid war for something to be done about the torpedo problem. The point is that Raeder had pleaded with Hitler from 1934 they needed navy to fight RN. But Hitler dismissed the entire navy effort since there was just not going to be any war with the UK so no need of RM to be anything other than coastal defense force. From that Point on Raeder played an difficult game of pushing the KM and fitting it into Hitler strategy [IE naval expansion to meet French fleet not RN]... even Norway was attempt to prove the need of the KM to Hitler. Rather than spending the 1930s preparing for war the KM was always fighting to justify itself. But yes you are right about the incompetance. On the other hand if we were planning a strategy to defeat the RN, would you leave such a critical technology in the hands of incompetants...


OK if your Hitlers nazis you do , but one of the things that always makes me wonder is ...This was one of the most important events in history , and it was shaped and molded more by the incompetance of a small group of enemy leadership personnel, and had little do do with our competance as defenders. Under another leadership with just a few personnel changes , the entire character of the war changes and not for the better.

[Max Sinister]

But if Hitler hadn't built the Westwall, even the Allies should've seen that it would be perfectly possible to march into Germany. It was a bluff, but they bought it. Unfortunately.

[Umbral]

How does Britain do without the Norwegian merchant marine and sailors?

[Mark AH]

Originally Posted by Umbral

How does Britain do without the Norwegian merchant marine and sailors?

Britain might would have missed them but the Germans didn’t had the airport and harbours to use, so Britain would have less enemy coast and more enemy free areas at their island. Conclusion they needed less ships to look out for enemies.

[Jomazi]

Didn't GB plan to aid Finland during their first war with the SU? By the narvik-kiruna route....But was denied by the Swedes? Would be interesting to see what would've happened if that was allowed implemented.

That would've cut of the ore-flow from Sweden to Hitler, and also cause war between SU and GB-US. Or did the western allies lie about their intentions and stay out of Finland once kirunavaara was seized?

[Grimm Reaper]

No German invasion of Norway dramatically eases the pressure on the British at sea. U-boats will be much less effective against ships around Scotland and the northern portion of Irish Sea, having to travel much farther.

Also convoys to the USSR are virtually certain to make it with few, if any, losses.


Actually seizing Narvik would not have cut the Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany. At least 60% would continue in good weather and an effort could have increased that to 80% or more.

[FletcherofSaltoun]

Clydebank would probably still be standing in the same manner that it was, and my Grandads next door neighbours family would still be alive(I assume, well the younger ones).

British Industry moves north to avoid the Luftwaffe, and, in additition to the stronger position of the convoys, Britain is better off than in OTL.

[esl]

Originally Posted by Mark AH

Britain might would have missed them but the Germans didn’t had the airport and harbours to use, so Britain would have less enemy coast and more enemy free areas at their island. Conclusion they needed less ships to look out for enemies.

Each side used neutral merchants to ship cargo. The Germans used Swedish merchants which were otherwise unused during the war. Its possible the Uk would still have cargo shipped by Norwegian merchants. In practice since the RN fleet was ~ 7000 vessels and with the common wealth fleet ~ 12000 , they would have gotten by without them.

[Max Sinister]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Actually seizing Narvik would not have cut the Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany. At least 60% would continue in good weather and an effort could have increased that to 80% or more.

During good weather, yes. The point about Narvik is: It's a warm-water harbor, thanks to the gulf stream. The alternative, the Swedish harbor Lulea, is blocked by ice for several months every winter.