Could the Norwegian Campaign have failed?

The German conquest of Norway was primarily a succes because of the German controll of the skies over the region, against which the Allies had no response yet, given their lack of long ranged aircraft in 1940. Only local airsupport was possible for the Allied forces, when aircraft carriers were present, although these carried relatively inferior aircraft themselves.

The German advance could however be slowed down a bit, but not entirely stopped. Had the Alles used their superiority at sea better, the German advance would have slowed down to the pace the troops could make overland, since the German navallandings would not take place by then succesfully. It would be a matter of time however before the last Allied forces would be kicked out of Norway though, since the German landforces badly outnumbered both Allied and Norwegian troops, besides the complete lack of landbased Allied Airpower in Norway.
 
Yes, it could have failed.

The 2 northern landings were helped by interference by Pound at the admiralty, a few small changes would have had them intercepted or attacked while they were still unstable.

The southern landings weren't going to be stopped directly due to the german air superiority. However again, little things... the Norwegians finally decided to mobilise, too late, by POST!! A faster mobilisation would have made things tricky for the invaders, the German plans basically depended on getting a small force in by surprise, then building it up while the opposition was dithering.

There was constant dithering about how and which forces to land in Norway, again the Admiralty is at fault here. The British actually had a combined operations unit at the start of WW" (who had anticipated all the problems that occured, and made plans on how to cover them), then they disbanded it as 'it wouldnt be needed' ... :p

The most likely fail is the allies in command of the north and middle of the country, the Germans in the south (German air power would be seriously reduced once the invasion of France starts). Whether the allies can hold on after France is a different matter, but Norway is a difficult country to attack up, and the Germans no longer havd a navy, so no more amphibious adventures
 

Markus

Banned
If the Norwegians had been mentally semi-ready for an invasion they would have likely repelled it. But they were not. Their old but still powerful shore batteries were badly undermanned and usually not allowed to shoot on sight, infantry was almost completely lacking.

The simultanious attacks caught them completely by surprise. By the time they realized this was not a serious breech of their neutrality but an invasion they had already lost most of the major towns, ports and airfields.
 
Had Narvik and Trondheim failed, the air landing at Oslo been defeated and the RN destroyed the Kriegsmarine in Bergen, all of which were possible, the result would have been a longer campaign as Germany was diverted in France but in the end Germany would have won.
 
Thanks for the responses.

I'm wondering if no Naval Treaty of 1921 males any if this more likely (assuming butterflies don't stop Hitler from coming to power and invading Poland, as OTL). Say, for instance more American loaned ships with anti- aircraft guns are in the area...
 
Last edited:
The British actually had a combined operations unit at the start of WW" (who had anticipated all the problems that occured, and made plans on how to cover them), then they disbanded it as 'it wouldnt be needed' ... :p

The Inter-Services Training and Developmnent Centre (ISTDC) was quickly re-established.

As you say, it had laid the foundations of amphibious operations and had amassed a lot of information.

Here is a link to a description of it

http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/457/610/1/2/

An interesting book that describes it is Bernard Fergusson's 'The Watery Maze' which describes the development of combined operations during WW2.
 
It would have been interesting to see how the British reacted if the Allies still held the northern two-thirds of Norway and the bulk of the Norwegian military was still in the field when France fell (assuming the fall of France didn't get butterflied away by the changes in the Norwegian campaign. The French units in Norway would have presumably gone home for the most part. The British forces would have presumably been forced home by the threat of German invasion, but that would have meant rather obviously abandoning their sole remaining ally.
 

Markus

Banned
Thanks for the responses.

I'm wondering if no Naval Treaty of 1921 males any if this more likely (assuming butterflies don't stop Hitler from coming to power and invading Poland, as OTL). Say, for instance more American loaned ships with anti- aircraft guns are in the area...

No, the UK had not much money for new ships after WW1 and the USA did not want to spend much. Furthermore strenght-wise the RN was more than powerful engough. As a matter of fact, the possibility of an invasion was rated so low by the British because it was assumed it would be suicide for the KM to try.
 
No, the UK had not much money for new ships after WW1 and the USA did not want to spend much. Furthermore strenght-wise the RN was more than powerful engough. As a matter of fact, the possibility of an invasion was rated so low by the British because it was assumed it would be suicide for the KM to try.

Well, given the state of the KM afterwards, it was!!! :D
 
I'm wondering if no Naval Treaty of 1921 males any if this more likely...


Checking the archives here and it seems the board's consensus is that something akin to the Washington Naval Treaty is going to occur even if the WNT itself isn't proposed or fails in negotiations. Britain is too poor after WW1 to match the other powers' proposed building programs, Congress no longer see the need for the US' program, and Japan will bankrupt herself if she attempts her 8+8 fantasy.

You'll be able to wiggle around the margins, adjusting class tonnage totals and whatnot, but a treaty or something very much like it is a given without major changes to the First World War. Even the WNT ratio will be hard to change as both the US and UK are reading Japan's diplomatic dispatches and know that the ratio eventually "settled" on was the least Japan would be willing to accept.

As for the campaign itself, the other posters have already written about how things like a faster, or even intelligent, Norwegian mobilization could change things markedly. I'd like to emphasize the role of micromanagement of the Admiralty, particularly that of Pound and Churchill, in the defeat. This early in the war, the UK also had serious troubles with intelligence gathering and applying what little it did know to the situation which made the Admiralty's constant interference all the worse. Forbes, the Home Fleet commander, was continually ordered hither and yon, saw significant assets removed from the Home Fleet to reinforce the Mediterranean during the campaign, and even had a retired WW1 admiral slotted parallel to him in the campaign's organization.

In The Royal Navy's Home Fleet in WW2", Levy writes:

"But what of the architect of Norway, Churchill? His unique responsibility for defeat lay in his insistence on "Wilfred" without thinking through possible German responses or preparing adequate forces to deal with all likely consequences. Scrapping "R4", then countermanding Forbe's decision to attack Bergen, stole any chance the British had of countering Germany's move into Norway."

As already pointed out, the UK was basically operating without air cover. The Home Fleet was bombed for nearly 4 hours on April 9th losing a destroyer. Forbes initially left behind his only carrier knowing the FAA was no match for the LW flying from Norwegian bases. While the LW was employing almost 400 combat aircraft daily, Britain's Bomber Command barely flew 800 sorties in the month between April 7th and May 10th. The UK's own campaign history notes:

"The German campaign in Norway will always have a particular place in history as being the first large scale combined operation, in which all three components - Army, navy, and Air - of a modern defense organization were thrown in with equal weight."

Yet, despite all this, the campaign was a near run thing. Forbe's propsed attack on Bergen could have greatly hurt the Germans and Germany eventually won the Norwegian campaign thanks more to the events during June in France and less to the events in April in Norway.
 
OK -- but what if the US had a much larger navy, and lent a lot more ships to Britain.
The US has a much larger navy? What part of Congress no longer sees the need for the US' program wasn't understandable?

After WW1, there isn't going to be a larger US Navy than the one we see historically without some major changes and those changes will most likely effect the size of the Royal Navy too. In the OTL, the only thing the USN has in mothballs are WW1 vintage destroyers and the UK wasn't desperate enough to ask for those yet.

You're also completely ignoring the issue of manning, training, and supplying. Let's go as far to suggest the US hand over a couple of CAs to the Britain before May 1940. Does the RN have the personnel to man them? How quickly can those personnel be trained on US equipment? How easily can Britain, or the US, supply the parts necessary for that equipment? What equipment will the RN want to replace? How quickly can that be done? What about ammunition? The list goes on and on.

During the OTL war, it took the US three months in the Pearl yards to make HMS Victorious capable of serving in the southwest Pacific and that despite the carrier being fresh out of a yard period in Norfolk. The British crew had to be trained to handle the US aircraft which be would operating off their deck, aircraft handling equipment needed to be installed, and AA guns that the US could supply were installed with more added too.

US warships just aren't going to steam across the Atlantic, be handed over to British crews, and then steam to fight off Norway in a matter of days.
 
Last edited:
What part of Congress no longer sees the need for the US' program wasn't understandable?

Sorry, missed that. I was thinking of a TL where Leonard Wood was elected 1920 -- the thread seemed to agree the WNT would likely be butterflied out, and the US could well have more interest in maintaining naval control.

You're also completely ignoring the issue of manning, training, and supplying...

Point well taken. Suppose something like a lend-lease program was passed in late 1939?
 
... the thread seemed to agree the WNT would likely be butterflied out, and the US could well have more interest in maintaining naval control.


In all the WNT threads the search function here has provided me, the consensus is that, given no major changes to the course of WW1, the WNT or a WNT will occur. None of the powers contemplating a naval race can actually afford, either financially or politically, a naval race like the one brewing after the war.

Even Japan, the most militant and least affected of the powers involved, was willing to settle for the (in)famous 60% tonnage ratio vis a vis Britain and the US.

If you change WW1 enough to change the WNT enough to increase the USN enough to have major warships in mothballs, you're not going have an invasion of Norway in 1940.

Suppose something like a lend-lease program was passed in late 1939?

Again, that would require rather a wrenching POD or PODs which in turn could obviate the 1940 invasion of Norway.

Congress was a stickler for observing the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s as it played well to the voters. It took FDR quite a bit of political capital just to modify the Acts to allow for "cash and carry" in late '39.

As for Lend Lease, Congress only agreed to that in March 1941. That's ten months after the fall of France and six months after the height of the Battle of Britain. When you remember just how big a cinder block Congress sh*t when France fell, look at the Two-Ocean Navy Act for a reminder, it's rather telling that Congress didn't also do away with most of the Neutrality Acts at the same time.

Going by Congress' behavior, for there to be a "Lend Lease"-type program early, there's going to have to be something even more catastrophic than the Nazi conquest of France was in the OTL. Again, such a wrenching event means an invasion of Norway in 1940 most likely isn't occurring.
 

Bearcat

Banned
As for Lend Lease, Congress only agreed to that in March 1941. That's ten months after the fall of France and six months after the height of the Battle of Britain. When you remember just how big a cinder block Congress sh*t when France fell, look at the Two-Ocean Navy Act for a reminder, it's rather telling that Congress didn't also do away with most of the Neutrality Acts at the same time.

Technically, yes, but remember the British had the DD for bases ships in hand in September 1940, and the US began to prepare to use the bases.

More accurate to say that Congress wasn't going to do squat until they saw which way the wind was blowing. They could have stopped FDR if they had wanted to, but really they just wanted to see if the country would follow his lead. They were less ideologically isolationist and more politically opportunistic and expedient. IE, politicians. :D

Fortunately FDR had the balls to roll the dice. It wasn't popular with many folks, but the electorate was split enough that Congress was able to cluck and make noise while doing nothing to stop it.

Once the 1940 elections were safely out of the way, most of congress was happy to let FDR continue to be out front on the issue, taking the heat, while they generally acquiesced by silence.
 
Technically, yes, but remember the British had the DD for bases ships in hand in September 1940, and the US began to prepare to use the bases.


Yes, but that deal was only for 50 old escorts. Britain needed them, don't misunderstand me, but Britain also needed rifles, warplanes, munitions, tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, and the hundreds of other things which only became available - without paying in gold - when Lend Lease was passed.

Once the 1940 elections were safely out of the way, most of congress was happy to let FDR continue to be out front on the issue, taking the heat, while they generally acquiesced by silence.

Bingo. The date is very significant. March is when the president and those newly elected to Congress used to be sworn in. Even after the change was made in 1933, Congress would show up in January for the ceremonies and that begin it's first new session in March.

So Lend Lease was passed in March of '41 because Congress wouldn't be facing another election for nearly two years and Congress had just got back to work.

Still, a Lend Lease-type bill occurring earlier than March of '41 will require something that frightens Congress even more than the fall of France did.
 
If the Norwegians mobilised on the 5th the Germans would most likely have failed. Just full readiness at all the forts would have sunk half the German navy or more. The Norwegians were very badly equipped, even worse trained and lacked all kinds of equipment, but the fighting around Narvik showed that when they had time to collect themselves, they fought bravely and learned very quickly. If the Germans are unable to secure the airfields (primarily Fornebu outside Oslo) undamaged, they will have to rely on long-range air support from Denmark and the odd planes they can place on hastily cleared ad-hoc fields.

The Norwegians could get 300 000 men in the field in case of a full mobilisation. One big what-if is the position of Sweden. If a majority of Norway bravely fights and hold for a month, I suspect the opinion will go the way it did with Finland - intervention, intervention, intervention NOW! From the start of the winter war, most Swedes expected the Finns to fold quickly, it was not until about a month into the conflict, when it was clear that the Finns were fighting like mad and actually holding the Soviets that the Swedish opinion changed and deliveries of materiel picked up to a torrent.

The Swedes and Norwegians use the same riflea and MG ammunition (6,5x55, a remnant of the Union dissolved in 1905) and the same light artillery ammunition, so Swedish supply could suite the Norwegians fine.

Mid-april, the Swedes had 400 000 men in the field and felt reasonably safe, the Finns were returning much materiel lent during the winter war and production was ramping up. I can see the Swedes fulfilling the pre-war orders for modern medium howitzers and Bofors 40mm AA guns. The Norwegians helpdes the Finns quite a bit with volunteers and materiel and I can see it being returned if the Norwegians fight on. A joint Swedo-Finnish volunteer Brigade is quite possible, as is transit instead of internment of the Norwegian 1st Division if it gets pushed across the border as in OTL.

The Germans may take Olso and perhaps Bergen, but not quickly and not without the Norwegian securing the important resources (weapons depots, mobilisation of men, the government, king, and gold reserve etc). Without airfields in Norway, they are going no-where fast against 100 000 angry Norwegians, who are among the best rifle shots in the world - harassing rifle fire did not exist in the Nordic countries, it was effective long-range fire, taking out officers and NCOs at an alarming rate for the Germans. The Norwegians said "skyt ham med tunnne ben" (shoot him with the tin legs, referring to the tight riding boots many German officers wore).

Add Swedish and allied deliveries of weapons and the Germans are in for a world of hurt. They do not have the resources to conquer a prepared Norway without seriously endangering the attack in the west.
 
If the Norwegians mobilised on the 5th the Germans would most likely have failed. Just full readiness at all the forts would have sunk half the German navy or more. The Norwegians were very badly equipped, even worse trained and lacked all kinds of equipment, but the fighting around Narvik showed that when they had time to collect themselves, they fought bravely and learned very quickly. If the Germans are unable to secure the airfields (primarily Fornebu outside Oslo) undamaged, they will have to rely on long-range air support from Denmark and the odd planes they can place on hastily cleared ad-hoc fields.

The Norwegians could get 300 000 men in the field in case of a full mobilisation. One big what-if is the position of Sweden. If a majority of Norway bravely fights and hold for a month, I suspect the opinion will go the way it did with Finland - intervention, intervention, intervention NOW! From the start of the winter war, most Swedes expected the Finns to fold quickly, it was not until about a month into the conflict, when it was clear that the Finns were fighting like mad and actually holding the Soviets that the Swedish opinion changed and deliveries of materiel picked up to a torrent.

The Swedes and Norwegians use the same riflea and MG ammunition (6,5x55, a remnant of the Union dissolved in 1905) and the same light artillery ammunition, so Swedish supply could suite the Norwegians fine.

Mid-april, the Swedes had 400 000 men in the field and felt reasonably safe, the Finns were returning much materiel lent during the winter war and production was ramping up. I can see the Swedes fulfilling the pre-war orders for modern medium howitzers and Bofors 40mm AA guns. The Norwegians helpdes the Finns quite a bit with volunteers and materiel and I can see it being returned if the Norwegians fight on. A joint Swedo-Finnish volunteer Brigade is quite possible, as is transit instead of internment of the Norwegian 1st Division if it gets pushed across the border as in OTL.

The Germans may take Olso and perhaps Bergen, but not quickly and not without the Norwegian securing the important resources (weapons depots, mobilisation of men, the government, king, and gold reserve etc). Without airfields in Norway, they are going no-where fast against 100 000 angry Norwegians, who are among the best rifle shots in the world - harassing rifle fire did not exist in the Nordic countries, it was effective long-range fire, taking out officers and NCOs at an alarming rate for the Germans. The Norwegians said "skyt ham med tunnne ben" (shoot him with the tin legs, referring to the tight riding boots many German officers wore).

Add Swedish and allied deliveries of weapons and the Germans are in for a world of hurt. They do not have the resources to conquer a prepared Norway without seriously endangering the attack in the west.

To paraphrase an old war game, "It seems to me that your ancestry is showing, Sir". Or perhaps just your nationality....

While you make some strong points to support your views of a successful defence of Norway with the support of Sweden, you seem to forget that Germany had little trouble with Poland, the West and perhaps more crucially, with the Balkans and Greece OT.

Considering the fact that the Wehrmacht in 1940 was markedly superior to its opponents, it would take more than a hastily mobilized force with indifferent and obsolete equipment to seriously inconvenience them. You mention Narvik, which happened to be the furthest point of the German invasion and the spot where the allies managed their best (but still largely ineffectual) effort. The other battles were very much a foregone conclusion. Being trained to aim at officers and NCO’s doesn’t really help that much if the rest of your military machine is lacking, just ask the BEF).

Secondly, you suppose Sweden would support Norway. The same Sweden which did not support Finland or Norway OT. Not in any meaningful way at least. Let’s face it, Sweden was rightly terrified of angering Germany and didn’t change its mind until 1944 when the end of the Third Reich was practically clear to all. It would likely take a lot more than some initial success by Norway to change their minds. Especially with the allies not in the position to send massive aid and the not so minor fact that the same allies were actually planning on invading Norway and Sweden to shut down the flow of iron ore…..

The Germans could (as they did) easily depict their actions as a defensive move to safeguard their economic interests to the Swedish. Sweden certainly knew it couldn’t really stop the Germans if they really wanted the country. And that the allies would be as useful as they were in 1939 when Poland was overrun.

In short, Norway couldn’t stop the Wehrmacht (and no shame is attached to that, no country really could until 1942 unless you had a large moat or a huge wintery backyard). Perhaps the allies could have if they sent in a huge force but that would have undermined their position on the Western Front. Which left minimal troop levels for both the Germans and the allies and Norway. And considering the difference in quality, a handful of allies and Norwegians were never going to stop a handful of Germans.
 
Top