Reaction to uninterrupted Plan R-4 (Allied invasion of Norway)

What would have been the likely reaction in Europe and America to the 'preemptive' invasion of Norway by the Allies without the coincidental German invasion? Would this have pushed the Norwegians and/or Swedes into an alliance with Germany? Would Norway even fight back? What would the reaction have been in Western Europe/America?
 

Driftless

Donor
The Norwegians fight - at least enough to make a diplomatic point. The Norwegians had significant economic ties with Britain and a "friendly neutrality". The British did not have adequate infantry training for deep snow fighting (That's even by Churchill's own admission later), but the French had appropriately trained and equipped forces; plus the Norwegian government had historically covered their eyes and hoped that the warring parties couldn't see them.... All of which I think leads to a messy campaign - as happened historically. I don't see those bumps as being enough to push them to a German alliance, though that's the case that will be made by the Germans when they attack almost on the heels of the Allies. I don't see that a preemptive Allied invasion creates many more Quisling followers, but when the Germans do arrive and Quisling makes his broadcast proclaiming they have come to save Norway from invaders, there would definitely be more confusion. There also may be lingering hard feelings and later repercussions after the Norway Campaign is lost though - more dynamic tension?

If the Allied attack is pressed through into Sweden, then I believe they fight with all the resources they can get into the region quickly. I don't know the long term diplomatic effect though.

Any pre-emptive Allied invasion of a neutral will be viewed badly in many segments of the US and other non-warring nations and I think would have impaired relations. It will make ongoing Lend-Lease a bumpier sell to Congress. Larger strategic concerns will override those feelings with time, but in the short term, that intervention will be damaging
 
Last edited:
You Can becsure the norwegians would fight back. They were and are quite patriótica.
The swedes would fight to as the plans were to occupy the seedish iron mines.
Obviously Germany would be willing to help, the anglo-French would be villains and a million ton of merchant marine would Fall in the axis Camp.
Its a fantastically bad move, if they also fail to cut off the iron ore.
 

Driftless

Donor
A general question: IF the Allies pre-emptively invade neutral Norway and the campaign still ends in German victory, I'm assuming that Chamberain's premiership still falls. If Churchill is viewed as the driver of a diplomatic kerfuffle and a rocky military incursion, does he survive to succeed Chamberlain as PM? The RN's successes off OTL Norway masked any other miscues of the campaign, so Churchill didn't get tainted with the failures; but he was far from a shoe-in as the new PM even then.
 
On further reading it seems a more realistic question would be what the response would be to Operation Wilfred, as R-4 was merely a pre-planned intervention after an expected German response. The immediate response of the Norwegian Government to the mining of their territorial waters was outrage and demands for their removal were made, but this was immediately superseded by the German invasion.

So, a short timeline of events that I am conceiving of are as follows;

-Operation Wilfred is completed uninterrupted.

-The Norwegian government is furious and makes demands for the removal of the mines.

-The British are obstinate and make facile claims as to the necessity of the minelaying and how their placement is only injurious to German shipping.

-International and domestic outrage is real but limited; No Allied invasion has been launched yet.

-The Germans invade.

-The Allies counter-invade.

-things proceed as per OTL, though likely with far greater German casualties due to lack of element of surprise and Allied naval intervention.

Honestly is seems like the entire German invasion of Norway was a terrible idea. When does the Baltic sea ice melt? June? I think the strategic value of Narvik is overblown, certainly not worth the invasion, I'm wondering what the the Generalstab was thinking.
 
You Can becsure the norwegians would fight back. They were and are quite patriótica.

Going to dump on them a bit here, didn't see a lot of that Vigor in 1940 against the Germans, and that Quisling didn't act alone, and around 5000 joined up with the Waffen SS
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Dear @Spartasman
IIRC R-4 and "Wilfred" were planned very closely interconnected. Troops earmarked for R-4, aka invasion were actually embarked on some cruieser and had to be driven back and disembarked when R-4 was cancelled after "Wilfred" actually was completed.

... only the germans moved their forces for "Weser-Übung" that way , that it fell exactly inbetween.

Therefore ... with a 'delay' of the germans for ... maybe about 6/8/12 hours (?)(yours to find a fitting POD :biggrin:) R-4 might have happened.
 
Honestly is seems like the entire German invasion of Norway was a terrible idea. When does the Baltic sea ice melt? June? I think the strategic value of Narvik is overblown, certainly not worth the invasion, I'm wondering what the the Generalstab was thinking.

I believe the German invasion was driven at least as much by a desire for access to the Atlantic as to narvik. German Naval planners didn’t expect France to fall and wanted to reduce the British geographic advantage, which Norway does quite effectively.
 
Therefore ... with a 'delay' of the germans for ... maybe about 6/8/12 hours (?)(yours to find a fitting POD :biggrin:) R-4 might have happened.

From what I understand the troops were embarked but were only to land if the Germans made an immediate response. They didn't land because the Germans were already on the move, but if the Germans hadn't budged at all I think they were to be taken back to England. I might be wrong, the previous Allied plans involving Scandinavia were quite piratical.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
From what I understand the troops were embarked but were only to land if the Germans made an immediate response. They didn't land because the Germans were already on the move, but if the Germans hadn't budged at all I think they were to be taken back to England. I might be wrong, the previous Allied plans involving Scandinavia were quite piratical.
They were embarked and partially already at sea, some as the task force for Bergen quite a way.

They set to sea when 'Wilfred' had begun.

However, I somehow doubt that without a 'clear german reaction', like sending a full invasion force instead of maybe some mine-sweepers in 'support' of the norwegians, they would have returned after a day or so of hanging around before their target harbours
 
However, I somehow doubt that without a 'clear german reaction', like sending a full invasion force instead of maybe some mine-sweepers in 'support' of the norwegians, they would have returned after a day or so of hanging around before their target harbours

Why do you doubt this?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Why do you doubt this?
The Wallies really WANTED control of Norway/Narvik as well as the swedish iron ore. They wanted it already during the Winter War ... only to get also outrun by events : peace between Finland and Stalin what let their 'cover'-story to move forces through Norway and Sweden to Finland to help 'poor lil' Finland' go boom.

Now that they finally have the needed (as they thought) forces (contrary to Winter-War time) in place it would be just a stupid waste of resource (of position esp.) to go home again simply because the baaad krauts don't want ot come out ... for play ? ... 'uneconomic'
That these landing forces were already at sea is IMHO a clear sign that the Wallies-group responsible for this operation did NOT want to stay with simply 'lurking' german merchantmen out of the Fjords, but this time they wanted 'action'.
The admirality had already backed away from mining the Rhine what should have happened simultaneously due to the french getting cold feet on that.
Oh and ... you know who lead the admirailty at that time ? ... the guy had a reputation for doing ... (also) stupid things in regards to naval landings and similar operations.

Without being outrun once again - this time by the far bigger than esteemed and already far ahead sailing germans - IMHO Chruchill would have taken every excuse of whatever ship leaving a german harbor as 'demonstrating the intention to do so' aka : landing troops in Norway.
 

Alright, that sounds perfectly plausible. I'm curious as to your thoughts as to what comes after though? I personally cant help but think that invading a neutral county would have ended - perhaps not immediately - in political scandal. Does it sink Churchills career? I don't doubt the Wallies ability to justify their actions endlessly but really how well can such a thing go over, especially to all the other neutral European nations? All of sudden England looks like a mad dog...
 
what would be the Soviet reaction to this? not quite as menacing as intervention during Winter War but nonetheless ... the only region they could end up in shooting war with Allies?
 
I think we all forget one thing: the invasion was to, on paper, help the Finns against the Soviets. If R-4 goes through that will be what the government will be tellling the people. And that will have repercussions regarding the USSR.
 
what would be the Soviet reaction to this? not quite as menacing as intervention during Winter War but nonetheless ... the only region they could end up in shooting war with Allies?
Ninja'd
If the invasion force arrives to Finland there will be fighting between them and the Soviets, that's for sure.
 
what would be the Soviet reaction to this? not quite as menacing as intervention during Winter War but nonetheless ... the only region they could end up in shooting war with Allies?

Where would they be facing the Allies, though? Finland and the Baltic Sea are in the way, and the Soviet ability to project power from Murmansk was quite limited.

The main reason Stalin wrapped up the Winter War like he did was that he didn't want a shooting war with the Allies. The same applies here - it is rather unlikely the Soviets would become openly involved in the fighting. Sure, the USSR would suddenly become a big supporter of the sovereign rights of the small neutrals Norway and Sweden. The usual suspects would lap it up, and it would add to the hit the Allies' reputation would be getting, but most people would remember what the Soviets did to Poland and Finland in the recent past and understand the rather heavy hypocrisy emanating from Moscow.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Alright, that sounds perfectly plausible. I'm curious as to your thoughts as to what comes after though? I personally cant help but think that invading a neutral county would have ended - perhaps not immediately - in political scandal. Does it sink Churchills career? I don't doubt the Wallies ability to justify their actions endlessly but really how well can such a thing go over, especially to all the other neutral European nations? All of sudden England looks like a mad dog...
Absolutly agree with you. ... about the "mad dog" picture

I'm convinced, that R-4 would fail miserably :
not enough troops,
wrong assumption of norwegian as well as swedish non-belligerency or at least only token,
other priotities showing up forcing retreat [western campaing].​

However
At frist : Churchill
  • IIRC IOTL Chamberlaine had to take or did take the blame for the IOTL also mishappened Norway-campaign resulting in another country occupied by the germans.
  • ITTL this will more likely be put to thrown on the one in charge of the action : Churchill
  • With a 'reputation' for failed landing operations now and already in WW 1 I somehow doubt he would be seen as a suitable candidate to follow Chamberlain.
Which would make a PM Halifax more probably.
Which would open up another Pandora's box of dicussion on this board about its consequences.


At second : international political 'scandal'
  • ITTL the wallies 'lead' by Britain will have acted the same as Hitler in Poland :
    • a threadbarely 'provoked' invasion of ITTL even two neutral countries (Norway and Sweden) that were in no-way engaged in any quarrels - different to Poalnd in 1939
  • That doesn't 'help' any confidence into the wallies by other neutrals esp. in Europe (not to speak of the popular opinion of the populace of some other non-european country despite its governing presidents opinion).

Netherlands
will now seem in a situation between the fire and the frying pan.
  • Might even cause some considerations of common control of the airspace above the Netherlands against british incursions.
  • Might even cause a change of plans for the german western campaign in : no invasion into the Netherlands needed, having them as anti-british neutral would pay off much better for te moment. ... thereby freeing considerable forces (esp. of LW, Parachutists, bombers, ...).

Belgium might come to the conclusion that the wallies will have no scrouples at all to ab-and misuse belgian assets especially in their blown up form as obstacles to fight the germans on their soil.
  • Making another total destruction of the country in this generation a guaranty instead 'only' a possibility (though a very likely already).
  • But ... what about ... avoiding it almost altogether ? ... not repeating the same 'error' again ?
    • Why not 'inviting' this time the germans to fight their war right from the beginning on the french borders ... instead on belgian soil ?
  • The brits have just shown their 'attitude' towards neutrals :
    • worse than Hitler

Norway
  • might now be happy to provide the KM the wanted basing rights without the need of a german occupation.
  • Any probably following british occupation of Iceland would only cement the picture of ruthless british invaders

Denmarck , spared the occupation of OTL might also
  • 'combine forces' with the axis/germany to 'observe' the british naval agression.
  • Might have 'interesting' recuparations on the situation of Greenland ITTL.
    • German weather bases ? ... subs bases ? ... at least for supply ?
 
Last edited:
Top