Was it a mistake for Germany to invade Norway?

Was it a mistake for Germany to invade Norway?

  • yes

    Votes: 22 19.0%
  • no (taking WWII as a given)

    Votes: 94 81.0%

  • Total voters
    116
So you say this occupation was necessary because the Germans *did not* know they would win in France and thought they would bag only the Low Countries. But in that case, they have bigger, shorter term problems than winter ore.

The dominant interpretation here on this board and in historic SHWI is that the 1940 western campaign was do or die for the Germans, if they fail to knock-out France they lose the initiative, the Germans know it, and they coup Hitler.

This was the thinking articulated in GERMANY AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR [Ed Wilhelm Deist]. The expectation through the 1930s was in 'worse case' - any war might start like WW-I and the navy & air force had to plan from the vantage point of Winter of 1914.
 

Driftless

Donor
Francois Kersaudy's Norway 1940 is good too. It's been a while since I read it, but IIRC, he blisters both the British and French politicos for dithering and often less than honest communications with each other. He roasts both commands for keeping the Norwegians in the dark throughout the campaign. There was some reason to be concerned with some Quisling supporters in the Norwegian command, but the disconnect also significantly hampered operations. Even Churchill in his memoirs referred to the Norway operation - which he played a critical role in - as a "ramshackle campaign".
 
One of the big things about Norway 1940, it demonstrated that the Wehrmacht was full capable of planning and executing daring attacks on large enough scale to seize nations -even oversea.

Yes the KM lost some warships and sidelined others for a while- but most of the ships DID return and they were able to sustain supply for years. Just as importantly - they sealed off the western entrance to the Baltic.

The only real failure was not to take it to the next level and seize Iceland and threaten Greenland. The threat to Britain was already palpable.
 
One of the big things about Norway 1940, it demonstrated that the Wehrmacht was full capable of planning and executing daring attacks on large enough scale to seize nations -even oversea.

Yes the KM lost some warships and sidelined others for a while- but most of the ships DID return and they were able to sustain supply for years. Just as importantly - they sealed off the western entrance to the Baltic.

The only real failure was not to take it to the next level and seize Iceland and threaten Greenland. The threat to Britain was already palpable.

a reshuffling of even the historical KM fleet that spares some of the losses? have never understood the short ranged destroyers sent to furthest target? the capture of Norway might then be seen as unqualified success.
 
One of the big things about Norway 1940, it demonstrated that the Wehrmacht was full capable of planning and executing daring attacks on large enough scale to seize nations -even oversea.

Yes the KM lost some warships and sidelined others for a while- but most of the ships DID return and they were able to sustain supply for years. Just as importantly - they sealed off the western entrance to the Baltic.

The only real failure was not to take it to the next level and seize Iceland and threaten Greenland. The threat to Britain was already palpable.

Take Iceland and threaten Greenland? Probably well beyond their capabilities and a great way to get the US in the war early.
 
Really? How interesting

Try googling Operation Wilfred

Wilfred was a plan for minelaying along the Norwegian Coast (similar to what had been done in WWI), and was never expected to become an invasion; most British commanders were never enthusiastic about the prospect of occupying Norway, and any plans to do so were dropped following the end of the Winter War, which removed the pretext for it. There were strategic reasons for an occupation, yes, but it was politically unacceptable both at home and abroad, and would divert a lot of troops to a secondary theatre.

Or got straight for Plan R-4.

Plan R.4 was a purely reactive plan, intended as a response to any German invasion of Norway. The text of the operations order for the plan can be found here. Note paragraph 8:

The Admiralty said:
It is not intended that any Forces shall be landed in Norway until the Germans have violated Norwegian Territory, or there is clear evidence that they intend to do so.
 
One of the big things about Norway 1940, it demonstrated that the Wehrmacht was full capable of planning and executing daring attacks on large enough scale to seize nations -even oversea.

Yes the KM lost some warships and sidelined others for a while- but most of the ships DID return and they were able to sustain supply for years. Just as importantly - they sealed off the western entrance to the Baltic.

The only real failure was not to take it to the next level and seize Iceland and threaten Greenland. The threat to Britain was already palpable.

a reshuffling of even the historical KM fleet that spares some of the losses? have never understood the short ranged destroyers sent to furthest target? the capture of Norway might then be seen as unqualified success.

Take Iceland and threaten Greenland? Probably well beyond their capabilities and a great way to get the US in the war early.

my view is that they needed to operate on and around Greenland (they DID operate weather stations well into the war, a version of that on steroids)

realistically if they operate in the Atlantic the US is going to enter the war unless GB defeats them first?

(just to take a REALLY contrary POV, my idea is that the French Atlantic u-boat bases were mistaken too, virtually guaranteed no treaty being reached with Vichy regime, which was one they might actually have concluded. think they should have built further in Norway)
 
Take Iceland and threaten Greenland? Probably well beyond their capabilities and a great way to get the US in the war early.
Roosevelt was driven by popular opinion and would never start war over Iceland -but would order troops to Greenland , but its too large an area to cover. If the opening move of any war was the Scandinavian move seizing Iceland -it would be very doable as the WALLIES were stumbling over each other with poor Intel chasing phantoms [Read JAMES LEVY; THE HOME FLEET AT WAR
 
a reshuffling of even the historical KM fleet that spares some of the losses? have never understood the short ranged destroyers sent to furthest target? the capture of Norway might then be seen as unqualified success.


YES that was doable, But I suspect KM didn't let on to Falkenhorst just how short range the Zerstroers really were. Looking at the concept of simultaneously seizing the ports - the Narvik objective was over >1000nm away requiring over 2000nm round trip. Since high cruise speed was demanded- the early Zerstroer had about 1/2 the range needed - so they were required to refuel from tankers @ Narvik before returning. Those tankers were smuggled into the area -but a couple were intercepted and sunk , leaving just one to complete the task. That allowed the slow RN response to catch the KM with their britches down.

Since 10 Zerstroers transported 100 troops each , that 1000 troops could instead be transported by 2-3 fast K class Kreuzers plus Bremse. The short legged Zerstroers could cover the other ports the K class historically covered.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
The greatest losses Germany of Norway were indeed preventable. Narvik and Blücher could have been prevented.

But that's not the question. I would suggest to read Geirr H Haarr's The German Invasion of Norway. In this he describes the situation 1939/1940 very well.

Norway was pro British but still neutral. Still a first attempt by Visling to convince the Germans to invade failed. Hitler wasn't interested. However, the Altmark incident changed that dramatically. The supply ship, en route home from the Admiral Graf Spee operation, was boarded by HMS Cossack in Norwegian waters in presence of Norwegian torpedo boats. Which didn't interfere. Hitler rightly assumed the Norwegians were unwilling to protect their neutrality. Indeed the Norwegian government tried to avoid interfering with Allied operations at any costs. They were indeed unwilling to act against violations by the British. Hitler also rightly assumed, the seaways to Sweden in winter were no longer secure. Indeed the British had the plan to invade Norway and seize Swedish Kiruna mines.

On April 4 1940 the British started their move on executing Operation Wilfred and Plan R4, the mining of Norwegian waters and the subsequent invasion of Norway, when Germany was starting to react. They indeed executed the mining, but were OTOH surprised by the Germans, who were reacting faster than they expected.

So, yes, the invasion was necessary from a German point of view.

Oh, and losing one carrier, two CL, 9 DD and 6 submarines is not "almost no warship". If the torpedoes had worked better you could add a great chunk of 40 warships attacked by Uboats.
 
a reshuffling of even the historical KM fleet that spares some of the losses? have never understood the short ranged destroyers sent to furthest target? the capture of Norway might then be seen as unqualified success.

YES that was doable, But I suspect KM didn't let on to Falkenhorst just how short range the Zerstroers really were. Looking at the concept of simultaneously seizing the ports - the Narvik objective was over >1000nm away requiring over 2000nm round trip. Since high cruise speed was demanded- the early Zerstroer had about 1/2 the range needed - so they were required to refuel from tankers @ Narvik before returning. Those tankers were smuggled into the area -but a couple were intercepted and sunk , leaving just one to complete the task. That allowed the slow RN response to catch the KM with their britches down.

Since 10 Zerstroers transported 100 troops each , that 1000 troops could instead be transported by 2-3 fast K class Kreuzers plus Bremse. The short legged Zerstroers could cover the other ports the K class historically covered.

The greatest losses Germany of Norway were indeed preventable. Narvik and Blücher could have been prevented.

Oh, and losing one carrier, two CL, 9 DD and 6 submarines is not "almost no warship". If the torpedoes had worked better you could add a great chunk of 40 warships attacked by Uboats.

re-reading some of the details and was struck by Leipzig and Nurnberg being repaired after screening for destroyers in Dec. '39, the light cruisers screening for the destroyers!! had those both been available, some reshuffling would allow the 10 destroyers sent to Narvik to be deployed further south, maybe the 2 heavy cruisers would not enter Oslo harbor initially?

(Nurnberg was later stationed at Narvik, so it would be able to navigate there)

additionally the yacht Grille was under repair, it had speed and range to reach anywhere along Norwegian coast also served as minelayer.
 
re-reading some of the details and was struck by Leipzig and Nurnberg being repaired after screening for destroyers in Dec. '39, the light cruisers screening for the destroyers!! had those both been available, some reshuffling would allow the 10 destroyers sent to Narvik to be deployed further south, maybe the 2 heavy cruisers would not enter Oslo harbor initially? (Nurnberg was later stationed at Narvik, so it would be able to navigate there)

I would have let the DDs going to Oslo and the Blücher and Admiral Scheer to Narvik.

there was the same numbers of troops sent to Narvik and Oslo, so the destroyers would be able to handle the operations.

one thing that was involved was delay in capturing Oslo, allowed the monarch to escape along with the gold reserves.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think the RN is large enough to commit units to Norway and have enough for home defense.

Yes, but would the British have landed troops by May 10, or more important, May 20th, if at all? Would they have done anything other than laid mines by that time?

If they plan to land troops but have not committed to action by the 15th or 20th, they never will, because the situation in Western Europe would be seen as too critical.

If a German invasion of Norway starts in June or July, when Britain is concerned about air defense, reequipping their evacuated troops, and home defense, will the British throw the small # of good troops they did have available into a Narvik/Northern Norway expedition? I would not think so.

And yes, the British would be able to able to spare some naval assets to harass German invaders in Norwegian waters, and to some extent be willing, but the British may well be more tactically cautious in those waters because they can be and they don't have the same concern about a land force of their own already committed.
 
Roosevelt was driven by popular opinion and would never start war over Iceland -but would order troops to Greenland , but its too large an area to cover. If the opening move of any war was the Scandinavian move seizing Iceland -it would be very doable as the WALLIES were stumbling over each other with poor Intel chasing phantoms [Read JAMES LEVY; THE HOME FLEET AT WAR

German moves toward Iceland and Greenland are a threat to the US and FDR can justify taking action as hemisphere defense, something the isolationists were committed to.
 
And in a world where the Germans do take Iceland, with what logistics capability do they keep their troops supplied?
 
And in a world where the Germans do take Iceland, with what logistics capability do they keep their troops supplied?

About zero. Other questions are:

Does any of the German war fleet remain after this adventure?

... the air transport?

What else is lost by the German AF?

How long does it take the Brits to mop up the Germans remaining on Iceland?
 
And in a world where the Germans do take Iceland, with what logistics capability do they keep their troops supplied?


Plenty of vessels could be routed independently getting sufficient resources/supplies. It would be much easier to get to Iceland than run the GIUK gap for blockade runners. In the first year only about I ship in 7 German MV was even detected and flagged by RN for inspection.
 
Top