Consequences of a Nazi defeat in Norway

[Derek Jackson]

It is reported that a major factor in the Nazi victory in the Norway campaign was a spy. Suppose events were otherwise and the Germans were clearly defeated in Norway.

What effect does this have on other areas. Does it prevent or alter the outcome of the May 10th invasion of the West?

How much does it weaken Hitler?

 

[Da Pwnzlord]

No Swedish ore so German industry is toast. There's also little chance of Germany using surface forces to interfere with Lend-Lease convoys to Russia. The war in Europe ends a year early.

 

[J.D.Ward]

Can Norway become the base for a Dieppe-scale raid on the German coast?

What is the effect on German morale?

Goebbels would cetrtainly spin it as "The Reich has successfully repulsed the invasion", but do Germans living on the coast see it as a reminder that at any time, without warning, enemy troops can arrive on their doorstep?

 

[von Adler]

No Swedish ore so German industry is toast. There's also little chance of Germany using surface forces to interfere with Lend-Lease convoys to Russia. The war in Europe ends a year early.

What? Sweden will continue to sell ore to any-one who can provide its needed 5,5 million tons of coal and coke yearly. And that is not Britain in May 1940.

 

[Dan]

If Norway is an Allied success but Hitler still invades France, I could see Barbarossa being either postponed or cancelled.
USSR would still invade Finland, but you'd have British and French troops going from Norway to support Finland.

If a Dieppe style raid took place on Germany in say 41 then I could see Hitler being deposed by the Army shortly afterwards. Bombing raids are one thing, but for the English to set foot on German soil is another thing entirely in the Prussian mind.

Then it gets sticky. If a de-nazified Germany then sues for peace with Britain and France, would Soviet Russia feel betrayed, and Given Stalin's five year Military plan would have seen the USSR at what he considered full strength by 1942, would the Soviets tried to invade western europe? (Britain, France, Germany and the USA(?) against the Soviet Union)?
Alternatively, there's nothing to stop the USSR going to the aid of their Communist bretheren in China and making war on Japan.
That would leave the British especially, and the French in an odd position - fighting each other in Finland, fighting a common enemy in the far east.

 

[Michael B]

It is reported that a major factor in the Nazi victory in the Norway campaign was a spy. Suppose events were otherwise and the Germans were clearly defeated in Norway.

You are going to need a bit more than a lack of a spy to stop a German victory. At very least Plan R 4 (Angle French invasion) is going to have to be launched first. Even then, that is only going to control Narvik.

In contrast the Germans are at very least going to occupy the Oslo area and from there if necessary they could launch a second operation to seize Narvik with more air support that the Anglo French forces could reply with. In fact on OTL they deployed 120,000 troops against 35,000 Allies (more than the 18,000 for Plan R 4) and 14,500 Norwegians.

It is going to take a major PoD to stop the Germans winning.

 

[Dan]

What? Sweden will continue to sell ore to any-one who can provide its needed 5,5 million tons of coal and coke yearly. And that is not Britain in May 1940.

The Royal Navy would have access to the Baltic and would be entitled to prevent Swedish shipping heading to Germany.
The British bought ball bearings from Sweden so would probably buy the Iron & Steel from them, Sweden would probably buy it's coal from the USA, in 1940, another neutral country.

 

[Just Leo]

It wasn't a spy. It was a quisling. I can't remember his name.

Sweden ships ore direct in the summer.

 

[Pappy]

If a Dieppe style raid took place on Germany in say 41 then I could see Hitler being deposed by the Army shortly afterwards. Bombing raids are one thing, but for the English to set foot on German soil is another thing entirely in the Prussian mind.

What would the government look like afterwords, would they reinstall the Hohenzollerns with a General as President or chancellor, I forget which one the Hohenzollerns would probably hold.

 

[chris456]

It wasn't a spy. It was a quisling. I can't remember his name.

Sweden ships ore direct in the summer.

his name was Quisling

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Sweden would be able to ship at least 80% of Germany's total needs south during the summer and I doubt the British can do much to stop this as sending the RN up against the Luftwaffe doesn't strike me as the wisest.

Now, around 1943 Sweden is liable to find itself squeezed...


This adds a burden to the British who must provide units and equipment to Norway but later probably leads to a Norwegian division with air support available elsewhere and a much easier run to Murmansk. Not to mention making shipping around Scotland safer and removing even the risk of a northern front when Hitler starts contemplating Sea Lion.

One wonders if any or all of the three demi-brigades of the French Foreign Legion sent to Norway might join De Gaulle.

 

[Da Pwnzlord]

What? Sweden will continue to sell ore to any-one who can provide its needed 5,5 million tons of coal and coke yearly. And that is not Britain in May 1940.

I believe most of the ore came out of Narvik, a Norwegean port. If that's in the hands of the British, the Germans won't be getting their ore through there. It might be possible to ship it via the Baltic, but now the Allies have bases in Norway to interdict them from. Plus, the German navy was trashed after winning the Norwegean campaign. Sealion will be an even more remote possibility in this time line, and Britian may be willing to commit to an outright invasion of Sweden. Or, Sweden may decide that since the Allies were able to protect Norway, they should be able to do the same for them and not feel obligated to sell the Germans ore to stay on their good side.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

If Norway is an Allied success but Hitler still invades France, I could see Barbarossa being either postponed or cancelled...

If a Dieppe style raid took place on Germany in say 41 then I could see Hitler being deposed by the Army shortly afterwards. Bombing raids are one thing, but for the English to set foot on German soil is another thing entirely in the Prussian mind.

Then it gets sticky. If a de-nazified Germany then sues for peace with Britain and France, would Soviet Russia feel betrayed, and Given Stalin's five year Military plan would have seen the USSR at what he considered full strength by 1942, would the Soviets tried to invade western europe? (Britain, France, Germany and the USA(?) against the Soviet Union)?
Alternatively, there's nothing to stop the USSR going to the aid of their Communist bretheren in China and making war on Japan.
That would leave the British especially, and the French in an odd position - fighting each other in Finland, fighting a common enemy in the far east.

This is what I imagined would happen as well.

(I took out a part -- I don't think the Allies are going to make peace with Hitler to switch enemies that quickly over Finland. Other than that... )

EDIT ADD: Oh, but there's still the question of Yugoslavia...

 

[Astrodragon]

Sweden would be able to ship at least 80% of Germany's total needs south during the summer and I doubt the British can do much to stop this as sending the RN up against the Luftwaffe doesn't strike me as the wisest.

Now, around 1943 Sweden is liable to find itself squeezed...


This adds a burden to the British who must provide units and equipment to Norway but later probably leads to a Norwegian division with air support available elsewhere and a much easier run to Murmansk. Not to mention making shipping around Scotland safer and removing even the risk of a northern front when Hitler starts contemplating Sea Lion.

One wonders if any or all of the three demi-brigades of the French Foreign Legion sent to Norway might join De Gaulle.

Thats true, but it does mean the summer iron ore route is now much easier to mine, and with a bit of effort attack by air from bases in southern Norway.
It wont stop the flow, but it would be quite practical to sink a fair bit of it. That wont have much impact on total steel production - Germany has the French ore fields, and IIRC they were limited by coal production at that point in time, but it would affect the high-quality steel production

In addition to making the Arctic convoys relatively safe, it might also make a UK-Norway A/S minefield practical. That wont help the new U-boats get into the Atlantic and to France.

There is also the effect on British imports - shorter route for things like ore from Norway, wood, a number of other items.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Some things to ponder

Only German winter ore shipments came through Norweigan territorial waters... all other seasons came from Lulea which is safely screened by the skaggerak and could easily come into Rostock and other eastern German ports

The allies committed nothing near the manpower to occupy all of Norway... they could hold Narvik... but the southern area would fall to the Germans

The Norweigans wouldn't exactly love British presence there either and would be hostile to their autonomy being usurped (their attitude about this was rather clear)

Even if the German invasion totally falls apart and the British and French somehow magically get 6 or 10 divisions into the country... sicklecut is 30 days away and those troops are sorely needed elsewhere. Supplying southern Norway (Bergen, Stavanger, Oslo etc) is going to suck... its going into an area where the British will have little or no air cover (fighters are short ranged in 1940) into an area infested with U-boats and German home defense aircraft (Keil and Aalborg both had big airfields with all weather hard metal runways)

When when the French surrenders it will become a serious problem for the British... after Dunkirk its not like they where loaded with available field divisions with nothing to do and carrying a full load of equipment

Norway tied down 12 valuable German field divisions which would be available else where, and losing 2 corps of allies divisions holding it down would be annoying

Oh and Deippe style raids from Oslo or Bergan would be more or less crazy in 1940 or 41...the allies would have a damn difficult time assembling the necessary air cover to ensure even a 50/50 chance of not getting torn up... plus it involves putting valuable RN ships into heavily mined, contested waters in the face of the LW... no thanx

 

[Astrodragon]

Some things to ponder
The Norweigans wouldn't exactly love British presence there either and would be hostile to their autonomy being usurped (their attitude about this was rather clear)

Given what happened and the way the Norwegians acted from the start of the invasion until 1945, I would say your theory is completely wrong.

 

[Astrodragon]

From what I've seen on the news, the spy affected the allied attacks on Narvik. But even if they took it earlier, it wouldnt make a huge amount of difference to the campaign. By that time the situation was in such a mess its unlikely it could have been recoverd, given that in a few weeks time the forces will be diverted to France.

The time to make a huge difference was just before the invasion (the allies were warned, they didnt use the warnings), the Norwegians actually taking notice and mobilising faster (they sent out the notices by POST!!), or the naval actions being a bit less lucky for the KM (with not much difference in timing, the Narvik destroyers would have been intercepted, and probably at least one of the southern troop convoys.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Given what happened and the way the Norwegians acted from the start of the invasion until 1945, I would say your theory is completely wrong.

They where willing to befriend the British AFTER the Germans where in town... they lodged serious diplomatic protests to British incursions into their territorial waters before April 9 and didn't want to be Greece from the last war (ie a soveriegn nation beholden to the British and occupied by their army with no recourse). There would be internal resistance to British presence there (at least to a degree)

If somehow magically the RN sinks all the German task forces before they land and the Norweigans themselves repulse the attacks on Oslo... their attitude would likely be something along the lines of thanks of for sinking the Germans, but don't intrude onto our territory or we will shoot at you too

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Astrodragon, except I'm not certain how wise attacks on Swedish shipping or in Swedish waters would be, especially after France falls.



What is still needed is for the Allies to actually deploy a credible fighting force to Norway, even after early victories intercepting the German forces headed for Narvik and Trondheim.

In all likelihood the Allies will need both to have a chance of winning and the odds still favor Germany.​

As it was the Allies took much longer to deploy a much smaller force, despite a vast edge in naval and merchant shipping, than Germany did and that does not bode well for their behavior in an altered situation.

On the other hand, destroying 14 of Germany's 20 destroyers, the Admiral Hipper(hard luck ship of the Kriegsmarine) and perhaps the twins will put paid to any Sea Lion schemes. Which does raise the worrying question of what else Hitler will try...

 

[Da Pwnzlord]

Who says that the British loose the support of the French? If the German invasion is repulsed, France may not give up and choose to fight on from Algeria. TTL Germany is not quite the all-conquering juggernaut it was OTL. The Royal Navy has demonstrated it has to protect Norway from aggression. Surely this must give the French more confidance that their overseas colonies won't be conquered. This means that the French divisions fighting in Norway won't be lost and the Allies are in an even better position than if they took Norway and that was the only change to the timeline.