Consequences of a Nazi defeat in Norway

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...

Sorry, I wasnt suggesting that Britain did anything in Swedish waters, I was thnking outside of them. Having bases in southern Norway means you can get further into the Baltic with heavier loads of mines or torpedoes

Given that the KM was virtually destroyed as a fighting force anyway, additional sinkings wont make much difference (the ships are sunk rather than just damaged beyond immediate use). Despite the losses they suffered, the KM was actually lucky in the Norwegian campaign (aided, it must be admitted, by intelligence failures on the British part) - it would only take a bit less luck, or better weather early on, to turn it into the Death Ride of the KM...
 
Sorry, I wasnt suggesting that Britain did anything in Swedish waters, I was thnking outside of them. Having bases in southern Norway means you can get further into the Baltic with heavier loads of mines or torpedoes

Given that the KM was virtually destroyed as a fighting force anyway, additional sinkings wont make much difference (the ships are sunk rather than just damaged beyond immediate use). Despite the losses they suffered, the KM was actually lucky in the Norwegian campaign (aided, it must be admitted, by intelligence failures on the British part) - it would only take a bit less luck, or better weather early on, to turn it into the Death Ride of the KM...

It would be extremely difficult to set up serious air assets in Norway... given the long and dangerous supply line they would be reliant on and the primative nature of the terrain. Plus who says Swedes would just stand by and let the British attack their flagged ships... they where awfully chummy with the Nazi's and the British wouldn't have many ground troops to defend their new territory... plus in 1940 how many aircraft can they spare from home defense to sit in Norway and not risk the Luftwaffe gaining air control over southern England

And 0 British ships are going through the skaggerak which even if they controlled norway would still be heavily patrolled and contested by the Luftwaffe, and also heavily mined
 

Graehame

Banned
1st, Sweden unofficially was strongly pro-Axis. According to PM Hansson King Gustav V "threatened to abdicate if the Government did not approve of the German request for permission to transfer one armed division...through Swedish territory from northern Norway to northern Finland in June 1941. ...confirmation of the King's action is contained in German Foreign Policy documents captured at the end of the war." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_V_of_Sweden#Nazi_sympathies

2d, the RN was perfectly capable in the spring of 1940 of preventing the German troop convoys from reaching Norway-- at least, from reaching any farther N than they could be protected by the Luftwaffe. From Flensburg to the sea approaches to Oslo is about 300mi (600mi round-trip). In 1940 the Do-17 had a range of about 622mi, the He-111 around 758mi, & the Ju-88 wasn't yet available in quantity, so the German troop convoys could have basically reached from Flekkefjord to Oslo. Even Stavanger would have been out of reach. (And historically Oslo was taken by the 7th Fliegerdiv. Paratroopers.) Also, Da Pwnzlordd's point about the Kriegsmarine being trashed after winning the Norwegian campaign is perfectly valid. What it might have looked like after losing is anyone's guess, but worse than in OTL. On the other hand, his points about an invasion of Sweden, or Sweden feeling obligated to stay on Germany's good side, are flawed. See below for the former, above for the latter.

But 3d, the Brits simply didn't have the troops in the spring of 1940 to garrison Norway. They were entirely committed to the BEF, which is a large part of the reason why they were too late in trying to beat the Germans to Norway.

4th, if we concede Oslo to the Germans & N Norway garrisoned by inadequate Brit forces, then with airbases in the Oslo area the Germans can take N Norway in an air-supported land campaign.

5th, how in the world does temporary Brit control of N Norway give them access to the Baltic?! The Germans still would have conquered Denmark in a ground campaign the Brits were unable to interfere with, which gave them Copenhagen, which closed the Baltic to Brit ships.

6th, the Hohenzollern next in line was Kronprinz Friedrich Wilhelm, who would have been Wilhelm III; but the kronprinz had signed the abdication documents at the end of WW1 along with his father. If that holds, then next after him would have been Prinz Eitel Friedrich, but their younger brother August Wilhelm was a confirmed Nazi & might also have been considered. Although Hitler never would have contemplated a Hohenzollern restoration, in the event of an Army coup I suppose it might have been possible.
 

Markus

Banned
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?

There was no spy, quisling and so on involved. Just good preparation and leadership on the German side, none on the Norwegian and very little on the British/French.

Semi-decent Norwegian readyness could have easily stopped the invasion cold but it would not have had an effect on the offensive in the west. Norway was a secondary operation for the Germans.

Interestingly iron ore would not be of any interest any more after the Fall of France. Germany now controls the huge deposits in France, Belgium and Luxembourg and can get ore directly from Sweden almost all of the year. Even IOTL Narvik was not an importan ore port any more. The withdrawing allies had wrecked it and the Germans never rebuild it. They got less ore via Narvik in four years than they got in one year before the war.
 

Da Pwnzlord

Banned
(key assumption of this post: the clear defeat mention by OP means Germany is totally repulsed from Norway)


I don't think Norway would have neccessarily been much of a drain on the Allies. A fully mobilized Norway would have proven capable of defending itself from invasion from a Germany with a trashed navy. Norway may have also began to recieve Lend-Lease for its millitary New minefields would be laid, and what would the Nazis use anyway, Rhine river barges? :rolleyes: The Allies don't need to station large numbers of ground troops in Norway. The only reason I could imagine them in Norway is preparing for a Swedish campaign, which other posters have now shown me to be highly unlikely. An air war won't be a problem either. Sealion will be even more clearly an imposibility TTL, which probably butterflies away OTL Battle of Britain. No Battle of Britain means more fighters available for Norway. "The Battle of Norway" won't be a decisive as the BoB was, because loss of air superiority doesn't mean as much over Norway to the Allies in a strategic sense. But if Hitler looses faith in Goering and Sealion sooner, and the Luftwaffe isn't as badly beat up in BoB, the Med could be an even more closely contested theatre, potentially countered by more substancial Free French forces.


On the Lend-Lease tangent, what does one more nation potentially recieving Lend-Lease mean? I would expect Norway to get some, but I don't know the mechanics of how America decided to dole stuff out. Does Lend-Lease for Norway mean less equipment for Britain and China? What happened OTL when the U.S.S.R. started recieving LL? Did it cut into Britain's share at all? Or did the USA have piles of tanks, planes and guns lying around, just waiting for a nation with a millitary that could use them?
 
Short of a massive change in Norwegian readiness, which would take a major PoD, I suspect the best the Allies can reasonably hope for is northern Norway.

If the RN was a bit more on the ball, they could have destroyed much of the invasion force, certainly that headed north. OTOH, I think southern Norway is toast.

However, I think that the Allies, if they took e.g. Narvik, could hold it. Sure, the Germans will have air bases in southern Norway, but the RAF can transfer SOME units over, so it wouldn't all be one-sided.

If the allies hold Narvik, then they CAN supply Sweden with that coal and coke, and buy their iron. Which would make it easier for Sweden to shift the direction of her neutrality some.

As long as Churchill doesn't do anything stupid like trying to invade Sweden. (Sigh!)

More supplies could be shipped via Narvik to Finland, which the Swedes would probably appreciate.

While only holding northern Norway may or may not be considered a 'Nazi defeat', it might be strategically, and considered that way possibly by both sides.


A total Nazi defeat (none of Norway held) is going to be tough.
 
If the allies hold Narvik, then they CAN supply Sweden with that coal and coke, and buy their iron. Which would make it easier for Sweden to shift the direction of her neutrality some.
It is going to be easier for the Germans to guarantee supplies across the Baltic where there is no Allied interdiction than the Allies who will have to escort every convoy to Norway in order to protect ships from surface, air or submarine attack. There is also the railway between Norway and Sweden that the Germans can attempt to cut.

The Allies could thus find themselves in a position of having to commit more and more resources on a front where there is little or no strategic gain in doing so
 

Cook

Banned
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.

Sorry, I wasnt suggesting that Britain did anything in Swedish waters, I was thnking outside of them. Having bases in southern Norway means you can get further into the Baltic with heavier loads of mines or torpedoes

The Royal Navy could not make the passage between Sicily and Tunisia without suffering heavy losses from 1940 until all of North Africa was in their control in 1943. The passage was continually mined and subject to torpedo attacks by the Regia Aeronautica and the Luftwaffe.

The maritime passage between the Danish mainland and the Islands, and between Copenhagen and Sweden are far narrower. There is no way any Royal Navy vessel other than an extremely lucky submarine would ever make the journey into the Baltic.
 
It is going to be easier for the Germans to guarantee supplies across the Baltic where there is no Allied interdiction than the Allies who will have to escort every convoy to Norway in order to protect ships from surface, air or submarine attack. There is also the railway between Norway and Sweden that the Germans can attempt to cut.

The Allies could thus find themselves in a position of having to commit more and more resources on a front where there is little or no strategic gain in doing so
ummm.... maybe.

It is certainly easier for the Germans to supply across the Baltic, that I'll agree.

However, why will it be terribly difficult to run convoys into Narvik? The RAF would set up airfields just as soon as they could arrange the planes, at which point there's not going to be any problem with aircover. The RN is overwhelmingly dominant at sea - if the Nazi surface vessels try to intercept, they're probably dead. So that leaves submarines. True, some convoys would be lost, but every Uboot off Norway is one less in the Atlantic. Certainly, until the RAF could spare aircraft it would be difficult.

How on God's green earth would the Nazis cut a rail line from Narvik into Sweden!?!? That's just crazy.

As for 'no strategic gain'. :confused: Getting Sweden to switch sides, or at least to stop supplying Germany, which is certainly not guaranteed, but which Churchill would assume he could manage, would be a very significant blow to Nazi Germany. There would be hope they might eventually join the Allies and open whole new fronts.

Since one of the earlier posters talked about Sweden having little choice but to sell to the Nazis or to no one, this would give them that option.
 
If the German invasion has suffered severe defeats, especially at Sola, then the Luftwaffe is in no position to threaten Narvik or shipping in that area.

OTL the British could have intercepted and destroyed the forces for Narvik and Trondheim, which would also have cost the Kriegsmarine 14 destroyers, the heavy cruiser Hipper and both battle cruisers. It was also possible for them to destroy the German ships at Bergen and this might have resulted in an effort to land troops destroying the Germans there as well. The problem is that if all that went the Allied way and the German attack on Oslo fails as well it still leaves sufficient German territory in the south to take Norway over a matter of months barring some extremely unlikely British force deployment.:(
 
Top