Effects of an unconquered Norway on WWII?

It seems to me that if the Allies had had a bit more skill or luck, the German invasion of Norway could have easily failed, or at the least failed to take Narvik. If this had happened, how would it affect the course of the war?

I know that it would have disrupted Swedish iron shipments to Germany, but I'm not sure how important this would have been to the German economy. Especially since for half the year the iron could just be sent through the Baltic anyway. Of course, it would have weakened the German nuclear program (by removing a supply of heavy water) but since they were unsuccessful IOTL that doesn't really change much. It would make Lend-Lease easier to ship north to Murmansk/Archangel, but that was only a small fraction of overall Lend-Lease to the USSR. How important was Norway as a base for German U-Boats, though?

I guess I could see the Germans not occupying Norway being beneficial for the Nazi war effort - IIRC they had something like 11 divisions in the country by the end of the war. But overall, I think it would be a minor benefit to the Allies, not enough to radically change the course of WWII in Europe but enough that maybe the war would end a couple months earlier with slightly different West/Soviet frontiers. And we'd have to come up with a different term than "Quisling" for collaborators ;) But maybe I'm missing something about this that could radically change WWII, thoughts?
 
If Norway stays neutral, England gains no bases to use against Germany, on the other hand Germany will have a lot of difficulty doing anything about convoys to Murmansk. A neutral Norway will allow the British to better check the Baltic exits, either with patrols or simply diplomats having a "beach house" that overlooks the sea.
 
Would bases in Norway have enabled the WAllies to airlift supplies to the Polish revolt?

Hmm. Narvik is too far away to be all that useful, but if the Allies held southern Norway as well, Oslo to Warsaw is 1050 kilometers, while London to Warsaw is 1450 kilometers (both approximate). It's about as far as London to Berlin, actually. So probably?

Whether they could land enough supplies to change the outcome, and whether the Warsaw Rising would happen as OTL, are more doubtful though.
 
Like it has been mentioned earlier when this question comes up, Norway staying neutral or becoming part of the Allies could mean that Finland at least tries to stay neutral and does no tbecome a German ally. But like I am apt to point out, this is in no way a foregone conclusion, as even with Norway unconquered in 1940, there still might be no realistic option for Finland to get strong military support against the USSR and crucial supplies in a situation of being de facto blockaded by the stoppage of Baltic trade.

Every time the figure of 400,000-450,000 German soldiers in Norway in 1945 comes up, we need to remember that over half of that number of men was made up by the (former) 20. Gebirgsarmee that in 1942-44 held hundreds of kilometers of front against the Red Army in Finnish Lapland and only withdrew to Finnmark by early 1945. The 20. Gebirgsarmee included most of the battle-worthy units up north, and most of the German troops in Norway itself by that time had been mostly second or third line garrison troops.

If Germany still manages to convince Finland to join the war ITTL, it would still need to send, at a guess, at least 300,000 men to Finland to not only help the Finns attack the USSR but also to protect the Western parts of Finnish Lapland from a potential allied attack from Norway. So in comparison to the OTL, the savings would not be huge especially if we accept that these troops would have to be, on average, somewhat better in quality than Germany had in Norway IOTL.

But if Finland does not join the war, then all these troops could be used on other fronts. The USSR would benefit from Finland staying neutral (or getting incorporated into the USSR itself in '41-'42), of course the loss of much of Karelia would be avoided, as would be the siege of Leningrad, and the Murmansk railway and the Murmansk convoys would stay safe. Germany would probably lose the nickel it got from Petsamo IOTL, which by 1945 amounted to over half of all nickel used by the German industry, and with no German troops and bases in Norway or Finland, the Nazis would have a lot less leverage over Sweden than IOTL which might allow Sweden sending a lot more iron ore and ball bearings to the Allies than to Germany.

If Germany in late 1940, say, decided to not try to make Finland into an ally due to it seeming less than feasible ITTL, and accepted the Soviet demands of giving Moscow free hands with the Finns in the framework of Molotov-Ribbentrop, a renewed Soviet conquest of Finland in 1941 is possible, though it is difficult to say how likely that would be. It would be pretty nice for irony if ITTL the USSR unwittingly staged an invasion of a neutral Finland virtually at the same time as *Barbarossa kicks off in the summer of 1941... This would of course make Finland into a de facto German ally in 1941 and after that, only in a different fashion than IOTL. It could also make for a lot more bloody and brutal war for the Finnish people as well.
 
I know that it would have disrupted Swedish iron shipments to Germany, but I'm not sure how important this would have been to the German economy. Especially since for half the year the iron could just be sent through the Baltic anyway.[/QUOTE

You've got this backwards. Narvik, and the Norwegian Leads route are relatively ice free and open all year. It is the eastern route across the Gulf of Bothnia that freezes over 5 or so months each year.

Also, there is almost no possibility that Norway could remain neutral. Both the Brits and Germans had violated Norwegian Neutrality multiple times prior to the German invasion, notably the Altmark Incident in February 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altmark_Incident) and Operation Wilfred, the Royal Navy emplacing minefields in neutral Norwegian waters without permission (or even notification until the mines were in the water). Wilfred was begun on 8 April 1940, the day before the German invasion. One of the reasons the German battle group steaming up Oslo Fjord was initially so successful, is because in the early morning hours of 9 April 1940, the Norwegian coastal defenders were reluctant to fire on the unidentified intruders because they really did not want to be going to war with the Royal Navy.
 
Last edited:
You've got this backwards. Narvik, and the Norwegian Leads route are relatively ice free and open all year. It is the eastern route across the Gulf of Bothnia that freezes over 5 or so months each year.

That's what I meant - even if the Germans can't send iron through Narvik, they can still get Swedish iron through the Gulf of Bothnia for much of the year.

I'm not so much thinking of Norway as a neutral here, but as an allied power after a failed Wesserubung invasion. If the Norwegian government had ordered a full instead of a partial mobilization, and if the British and French landing forces had performed a bit better, it seems to me that the German invasion could have easily failed, leaving Norway as an Allied belligerent by June 1940.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It is a huge help, even if it observes strict neutrality (and that isn't violated by the WAllies, which is a not a sure thing) The Murmansk convoys were bloodbaths thanks, in no small part, to the presence of Luftwaffe and KM patrol assets operating out of Norway. A neutral Norway also allows the RN to push its ASW picket lines, and more importantly, air patrolling out from the Shetlands and Orkeny Islands virtually to the edge of Norwegian territorial airspace and waters without fear of interference by Luftwaffe assets. It would effectively turn the North Sea into a British lake and greatly reduce the U-boat threat, at least until the conquest of the France and the Low Countries.
 
Top