PC: Allied invasion of Norway and Sweden in 1943

So, the scenario is as follows:
  • The Soviets are losing badly, having lost Moscow and being on the defensive in the Caucasus. However, British and Indian troops from Iran are holding the line, and Germany hasn't conquered the oil fields yet.
  • The Allies have won in Africa a bit faster, due to Hitler not sending troops to Tunisia (ironically due to a longer front in the east tying more troops there).
  • Japan, after the fall of Moscow and the almost collapse of the USSR attacked the Far East. The USSR, more focused on the West, simply retreated beyond the Amur, where skirmishes happen between Soviet troops and partisans and IJA units. The Chinese front has stalemated as a result.
  • The Germans are about to launch a Spring/Summer offensive on 1943 to capture Murmansk, to cut the Lend-Lease Line going to Archangel.
  • Also, the German High Command, seeing how Tunisia could be used as a launch pad to invade Italy, decide to reinforce Sicily with troops from Norway, making any potential Allied invasion very bloody.
With all this, the Allies feel the need to land troops in Europe, to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Italy and the Balkans are a no-no due to Axis reinforcements in the area. Normandy is also viewed as an impossible assault due to generally flat terrain that favours an armored counterattack.
So the decision is made to attack Narvik the first of April of 1943 and then advance to the iron fields in Northern Sweden. This would have the following effects:
  • Denial of the iron ore to Nazi industries.
  • Blocking of possible reinforcements sent to Finland through Sweden (Sweden allowed German troops to pass through its territory)
  • Disruption of the planned German Offensive over Murmansk, which, if succesful, would cut the lifeline that is the Lend-Lease. The idea is that troops located in Finland would be needed to expell the Allies fron Sweden.
  • The Soviets would launch a coordinated offensive in Finland with the little spare troops they have, hoping to dislodge the Germans there and retrieve a bit of pressure on the overall front.
So, how plausible is it?
 

nbcman

Donor
Not very plausible if the circumstances in Russia are that dire. Most likely there would have been Operation Roundup / Sledgehammer executed in the spring of 1943 as opposed to an invasion of Norway especially since there is no need for an Operation Torch in this timeline.
 
Not very plausible if the circumstances in Russia are that dire. Most likely there would have been Operation Roundup / Sledgehammer executed in the spring of 1943 as opposed to an invasion of Norway especially since there is no need for an Operation Torch in this timeline.
There has already been an Operation Torch, that's how the Allies won in North Africa. Also, Churchill would not allow a landing in France (that's why there was an Italian campaign to begin with).
 
Last edited:
If they are going that for North why not have the ships continue to Murmansk and off load in a friendly port and then help the Soviets up North?
 

nbcman

Donor
There has already been an Operation Torch, that's how the Allies won in North Africa. Also, Churchill would not allow a landing in France (that's why there was an Italian campaign to begin with).

If there was an Op Torch without German troops being sent to Tunisia, then all of French N Africa would have switched sides in November 1942. The WAllies would have troops available to invade either Italy (if the UK wins argument with a weakening USSR) or France (if US wins) in 1943. Norway is a distraction and a strategic dead end.

I don't see Germany moving troops hundreds of kilometers from Norway to Sicily. Their Norwegian forces would be used as part of the German Murmansk offensive.
 
If they are going that for North why not have the ships continue to Murmansk and off load in a friendly port and then help the Soviets up North?
Hmmm... Maybe they want to occupy the iron mines? Also, they would block german retreat across Sweden.
 
If there was an Op Torch without German troops being sent to Tunisia, then all of French N Africa would have switched sides in November 1942. The WAllies would have troops available to invade either Italy (if the UK wins argument with a weakening USSR) or France (if US wins) in 1943. Norway is a distraction and a strategic dead end.

I don't see Germany moving troops hundreds of kilometers from Norway to Sicily. Their Norwegian forces would be used as part of the German Murmansk offensive.
Well, that was just a way of weakening their Norweigan forces to make a landing there viable while making one in Italy not. Though maybe it wasn't the most plausible way to do it...
Now, there is a way the Allies would prefer Scandinavia to Italy?
As for a dead end, I wouldn't say that. If the Allies are succesful in Scandinavia they would knock Finland out of the war while also having a relatively open path right into Berlin, while if you want to enter Germany from the south you must pass the Alps.
 

nbcman

Donor
Well, that was just a way of weakening their Norweigan forces to make a landing there viable while making one in Italy not. Though maybe it wasn't the most plausible way to do it...
Now, there is a way the Allies would prefer Scandinavia to Italy?
As for a dead end, I wouldn't say that. If the Allies are succesful in Scandinavia they would knock Finland out of the war while also having a relatively open path right into Berlin, while if you want to enter Germany from the south you must pass the Alps.
Jacky Fisher's Ghost! There was never any serious consideration for a Baltic invasion route by the WAllies. Churchill did consider Operation Jupiter but that was far northern Norway - and there was almost universal opposition to that proposed operation.
 
Top