April-June 1940 Can Allies lose in France but win in Norway?

Despite all the logistical difficulties for the Germans, I'm not convinced that the British and Allies could hold onto parts of Norway from June 40 through June 41.

After the fall of France, Britain needs to be partially concerned with home defense, and the Germans have a relatively large amount of unemployed ground and air power. The latter can pound Allied and Norwegian forces.

A German effort conquering northern or central Norway is an effort, but not sure why it would be harder to expel the British from Norway than it was to expel them from Greece and Crete by spring 1941.

If the mobility corridors are all blocked in Norway, Germans could invade Sweden to broaden their avenues of approach. On a combined Norwegian-Swedish front, I would expect that the Germans would have an operational advantage over Norwegian, Swedish, WAllied troops as long as Germany is not simultaneously fighting with Russia or France (which I presume is conquered in this WI).

So, it seems to me that only if the Wallies have pretty much wiped out the German bridgeheads in all of Norway, including the south, and if Sweden has mobilized effectively against a cross-Baltic, cross-straits invasion, could we be confident that the Germans would be blocked out of the Scandinavian peninsula.

Agreed

Basically the way I see it the only way for a successful defence of Norway - is for the Norwegian Military to have mobilised, the Norwegian Leadership to have issued 'robust' orders to defend the country from invasion and for the British and French to be invited in.

So mine fields would be laid - no half or even non - measures at the coastal Fortresses

Even the Oscarsborg Fortresses commander who sank the Blucher was acting under very poor ROE and virtually no orders from the chain of command -hence his famous quote after his first order to engage was questioned

"Either I will be decorated or I will be court martialled, Fire!"

- and so despite their success this action could also be considered a half measure as their was still some reluctance to fire upon other ships.

Cities ports and airfields garrisoned and units with no orders having the confidence to 'march to the sound of the guns'.

Post a failed German invasion the Norwegian Military would need to be expanded and modernised - so more fighter Squadrons (possibly more US Aircraft?) potential Norwegian pilots enrolled in the empire pilot training scheme, improvements to the airfield defences - revetments armoured bunkers for stores and equipment and given the threat of future Fallshirmjagers style assaults an 'RAF Regiment' style defensive force including fixed and mobile elements (Bunkers and armoured cars).
 
RN's answer to BoB?

I don't know enough about the topic, so maybe someone can work it with me, but could have the RN pushed for a Norway campaign as a counterweight to the RAF ambitions? To be seen as doing something?

The RAF was always screaming for more time, more time to build fighters, more time to train pilots, what have you. The RN could respond that by using FAA assets and a couple of the older BBs for fire support, Germany would have to commit substantial resources to evict an Allied presence in Norway, resources that they can't use against the Britain, giving the RAF more time. And if things go bad, the RN could claim to be able to pull off another Dunkirk to pull out the remaining troops.

I don't know, I just see the RN seeing Norway/Narvik as a conflict they could fight and win, without unnecessarily drawing down their resources in the convoys and on homeland defense.

But I don't have the numbers to back me up here. I am not expecting a real win here, with them evicting the Germans, but I could see a several month long campaign or stalemate, at least until winter came and the invasion threat ended.
 
The British aren't the Japanese, sure there was always a bit of friction (mostly over the FAA), but they worked pretty damned well together overall, unlike the IJA and IJN.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In general, I think that in the period between the fall of France and the start of Barbarossa, the British position in northern or central Norway would be one that is losing ground under Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe pressure, or at best, static and going nowhere fast. (in the extreme case of the WAllies running the table and repelling the Germans even from southern Norway, well then the two sides just make faces at each other from Danish and Norwegian shores.)

However, once the the Soviets and Americans are in the war, the Scandinavian front would become increasingly dangerous for Germany. By the second half of 1942, growing Anglo-American forces could begin making it a real drain for Germany. The Germans will need to worry about an eventual WAllied advance south to Denmark and the straits into the Baltic.

As a shorter term side effect of a persistent WAllied position in Norway-

Does Finland even start the continuation war against the Soviets?

It's more dangerous and foolish for Finland to do so with WAllied/British occupied Norway to their north. Sure the Finns want their territory back, and the Finns are exposed to a degree to German power in the Baltic, but things are different than OTL.

For example, in OTL during the continuation war the Germans under Falkenhorst commanded the northern, Arctic, portion of the front, but in any of these ATLs, the Germans don't have the Norwegian land connection to work with.

Any thoughts on the implications for Finland of this scenario.
 
Any thoughts on the implications for Finland of this scenario.

Just one thought, which I have pointed out about a similar scenario before, namely that Finland did not ally with the Germans primarily to get back the lost territories, it allied with them to avoid getting outright attacked again by the USSR and annexed like the Baltic states in the near future. Sure, getting back the lost areas and possibly some of Eastern Karelia was a nice bonus, but the main reason to find a strong ally for Finland was defence against a clear and present Soviet danger.

The Allies in Norway don't remove the Soviet threat in 1940. It changes a lot in the power dynamic in the Nordic area and around the Baltic Sea, but it still will not remove the fact that the Finns are existentially afraid of a renewed Red Army attack and quite sure that it is coming - partly because all OTL Soviet actions after the Winter War in 1940 pointed this way.

Now, does the Allied presence in Norway somehow lead to Britain being in a position to offer (and deliver) strong, concrete support to Finland against Stalin in mid-late 1940 or early 1941, in the form of troops or at the very least various armaments? Will Britain commit itself to guaranteeing Finnish independence? If the answer to both is no, Finland might still have no real option besides turning to Hitler for help. Of course the British are now in a position to punish the Finns more decisively for allying with the Germans. But beggars can't be choosers and in 1940 it very much seems like anything is better than Soviet occupation. Even war with Britain and British occupation, if that could be somehow arranged.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
...a reference map...

sort of has what was in my mind's eye in terms of the regions of Norway.

Norway-map.jpg
 
...a reference map...

sort of has what was in my mind's eye in terms of the regions of Norway.

The Red Region is the Prize - that's were most of the Cities, Population and Ports are.

That's pretty much what the Germans Grabbed in the first few days

Stop that from happening and the Norwegians and Allies win!!!
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Just one thought, which I have pointed out about a similar scenario before, namely that Finland did not ally with the Germans primarily to get back the lost territories, it allied with them to avoid getting outright attacked again by the USSR and annexed like the Baltic states in the near future. Sure, getting back the lost areas and possibly some of Eastern Karelia was a nice bonus, but the main reason to find a strong ally for Finland was defence against a clear and present Soviet danger.

The Allies in Norway don't remove the Soviet threat in 1940. It changes a lot in the power dynamic in the Nordic area and around the Baltic Sea, but it still will not remove the fact that the Finns are existentially afraid of a renewed Red Army attack and quite sure that it is coming - partly because all OTL Soviet actions after the Winter War in 1940 pointed this way.

Good points
Now, does the Allied presence in Norway somehow lead to Britain being in a position to offer (and deliver) strong, concrete support to Finland against Stalin in mid-late 1940 or early 1941, in the form of troops or at the very least various armaments? Will Britain commit itself to guaranteeing Finnish independence? If the answer to both is no, Finland might still have no real option besides turning to Hitler for help.

A fascinating question and quite a dilemma for the British.

The British will initially be emotionally inclined to guarantee the Finns, up until the fall of France many in Britain took even the prospect of war with the USSR with equanimity.

However, after the fall of France, and with the demands of fighting to keep the Norwegian bridgehead mounting, the British will worry about provoking the USSR more, and the British ability to deliver arms beyond their immediate requirements for Norway will be very tough to impossible.

Meanwhile, how is Soviet foreign policy comparing with OTL from summer 1940 onward?

Stalin will probably feel conflicting impulses. He'll perceive the British as a threatening presence to be countered. But even despite the British loss in the decisive West European theater, he would also see them as a global power not to be trifled with or provoked. On balance I think Stalin would react by being a bit more cautious and less demanding towards Finland, if he does anything at all different from OTL. Of course he'll still at least ask for everything he was asking for.

Of course the British are now in a position to punish the Finns more decisively for allying with the Germans. But beggars can't be choosers and in 1940 it very much seems like anything is better than Soviet occupation. Even war with Britain and British occupation, if that could be somehow arranged.

Well that's sounds like a nice tangled mess.

I guess the one thing we can say with high confidence is that Finland will not be divided into a German northern sector and a Finnish southern sector, because the Germans will not have territorial continuity with northern Finland. Rather the Germans will have an advisory/augmenting presence throughout all Finland, or will have a sector in the south.

But, I suppose even with that, Finland could still import arms from the Germans, have staff talks and still be at war with the USSR within days of Barbarossa. The British response then becomes a nasty little test of Anglo-Soviet solidarity in the early weeks of Barbarossa.

......and now, for something completely different.........

What does a surviving Norwegian position in 1940 do to the U-Boat war?
 

Driftless

Donor
What does a surviving Norwegian position in 1940 do to the U-Boat war?

The OTL Germans based Uboats at: Bergen, Trondheim, Narvik, Kirkenes, & Hammerfest; with Bergen & Trondheim having the bomb-proof sub pens.

IF the Norwegians/Allies hung on to a portion of the north, that might limit the Uboat bases to Bergen and/or Trondheim, depending on the strength or weakness of allied air power up north. That may have a limited impact on the Uboats, but a larger impact on any German anti-convoy bombers

*edit* The sub pens in Bergen and Trondheim were immense reinforced concrete structures. "Dora 1" in Trondheim had a roof 3.5m thick and similar walls. Again if the allies held any part of northern Norway that could serve as an airbase, that would really limit any extensive repairs or refits to Bergen & Trondheim only.

norway_sm00.jpg
 
Last edited:
One of the TLs on this board (??Whale has wings??? ??Blunted Sickle??) has the Allies holding northern Norway, north of Mo í Ran. That is only a tiny portion of the population, but it allows connectivity with Sweden (so shipping Iron Ore out through Narvik, instead of the Swedes being forced to sell to the Nazis, for instance).

As someone else pointed out, this also severely impacts the ability of the Nazis to impede Allied operations up North, like convoys to Russia.
 
Top