Here are the reasons Germany invaded Norway in WW2, could these be replicated in the 1910s?
More important than the motive, is it even possible with the equipment and technology of the time?
Would it require having Sweden join the Central Powers?
Could Germany invade Norway/Denmark in (an alt) WW1?
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Here are the reasons Germany invaded Norway in WW2, could these be replicated in the 1910s?
More important than the motive, is it even possible with the equipment and technology of the time?
Would it require having Sweden join the Central Powers?
It would be hard for the Germans to conquer the main islands of Denmark. Copenhagen was a fortress. The Entente might land troops in Denmark to counterattack. Maybe at the end there will be another trench war in Europe ?
Last edited:
If surprise was in their favor, and the British hadn't cracked the German codes, I could see a 1940 style surprise attack seizing some ports. The Germans would have to hope they could hold the sea passage between Denmark with torpedo boats and submarines enough to run the occasional supply ship across.
The German general staff made contingency plans for invasions of Holland, Denmark, and Norway in early 1917. There was some fear that with the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare these countries would side more openly with the Entente, so these plans were made for a “just in case” scenario. The plan for Norway was called “Kriegsfall Norwegen” if I remember correctly. The name of the Danish operation escapes me at the moment, but I know it was built on previous plans for occupations of Denmark.
Perfect info thanks. Here is what it says on the WW1 encyclopedia: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/norway
During the first few months of 1917, the German Naval Staff completed “Kriegsfall Norwegen,” a plan for war with Norway.[55] The plan was based on a situation in which Norway had joined the Entente – in other words, a situation in which Britain gained access to the Norwegian coast. “Kriegsfall Norwegen” concerned Norwegian territory only indirectly - with the possible exception of the bombing by zeppelins of towns and factories in southern Norway. The operational orders included the laying of minefields and occasional advances of the High Seas Fleet. The German army was not to participate in this plan. Because of the German naval strategy during World War I, the naval staff did not regard the opening to the Atlantic in the same light as it did in 1940. All it saw in 1917 was the entrance to the North Sea. Because the south coast of Norway is geographically closer to Germany than Britain, British naval bases here could be used not only to control the North Sea, but also as a base for an invasion of Denmark. Danish territory could then be used as a base from which an attack on Schleswig-Holstein could be launched. The Norwegian coast was also important for controlling the exits from the Baltic. The combination of the German naval strategy and the British influence on Norwegian foreign policy created a situation in which the Norwegian position was never as threatened as when Norway requested or was offered British support – the picture of safety in the politicians’ minds. That was the only scenario that could trigger “Kriegsfall Norwegen.”
The specter of a German invasion of Denmark, and a transfer of the Danish West Indies to German control, were indeed part of the arguments that were put forth for the treaty by which the United States purchased them. They'd wanted them for a long time, but this was a new reason to add to the pile.
It’s worth mentioning that this is likely the single biggest success factor for the German invasion in 1940. The sum extent of British contingency planning for an unprompted German invasion appears to have been “<Harrumph> They wouldn’t DARE!”.
Having said that, the WW2 plan revolved around basically a hit-and -run (with the run part not working so well). With WW1 ships and aircraft trying to take Norway will inevitably be a slower and clumsier process inviting the RN to turn up for a battle. So unless the intention is to trigger a Decisive Battle (©️®️™️) then maybe some sort of lunatic Hitler-type plan to seize e.g. Trondheim and turn the fjord into a naval fortress, relying on uboats to drive off the initial RN response while quickly getting some coastal guns, torpedoes and mines in place? Seems like you’d need some pretty severe neurosyphilis to try it though.
Survey also said no in 1940, didn't stop the british from legitimizing all those ridicolous incompetence in ATLs by making it real...even if thats much more forgotten then the French effort to do the same later in the year.
Driftless
Donor
Denmark would be a German short German victory - just too much available resource, even if they just overran the Jutland Pennisula and by-pass the fortified islands for the time-being. But to what purpose? If the Germans fear an Entente landing force somewhere, they just dig in along the border near Flensburg and its Flanders north.
Norway's a harder deal, for the naval reasons listed above, plus the Norwegians of 1914, or thereabouts were more prepared to fight than they were in 1940, from what Ive read. They were ready to take on the Swedes in 1905, if needs be when they declared their independence.
Norway's a harder deal, for the naval reasons listed above, plus the Norwegians of 1914, or thereabouts were more prepared to fight than they were in 1940, from what Ive read. They were ready to take on the Swedes in 1905, if needs be when they declared their independence.
That's even more true in 1940, yet they pulled it off even though it did gut the Kriegsmarine surface fleet for months.