WI Invasion of Norway fails alternate WW2

I'm choosing to ask about two different divergences. The first being that the Norwegians call a full mobilization and not a partial secret one done by mail. The second being the British intercepting the invasion force bound for at least Trondheim possibly Narvik too. I'm thinking they end up holding Trondheim and Narvik but the south still falls. British and French troops still pull out when the invasion of France happens but now the Norwegians are holding a line either north or south of Bergen. How long could they hold if they are just getting supplies and maybe some RAF air support?

I don't think this would have any impact on the invasion of France though maybe the rest of the French colonies do go in for the Free French possibly because the British don't feel it as necessary to attack the French ships. So with this maybe the Italians are completely out of Africa in early 41. The Germans still manage to take Greece so the Western Allies are totally off the continent and the Germans still go in for Barbarossa.

Now I would like to ask if the following would be a plausible path forward in the war.
-1940 Taranto raid more successful with inclusion of Glorious
-1941 Allies push for full control of Norway and by the end of the year are basing bombers to attack Germany from there maybe smaller operations in the Med no invasion of Crete
-1942 Possible allies attack larger islands like Sicily wait another year for attack on France
Would we see larger more successful sustained attacks on Polesti
Germans see slightly more success in the east maybe taking Stalingrad delay Soviet progress a bit
-1943 Invasion of France more at the pushing of France the British also push for an invasion in Italy or the Balkans I was also hoping to get Norway and Sweden involved here with a move to liberate Denmark from the Nazis
-1944 Western Allies reach Germany, if not already happened start of Italian and Balkan campaigns
-1945 early in the year fighting is mostly over in the west sporadic fighting in the east

Post war Germany is occupied by all 4 nations communist governments are largely kept out of eastern Europe mainly those bordering Russia or the ones they retook themselves Poland is kept free by Britain and France.

Largely unchanged is the Pacific theater maybe the British reinforce Malaya but those forces will still be needed for operations closer to home in Europe. Pearl Harbor still happens the US enters the war in 41. What would the changes mean to something like the Manhattan Project is it still going to largely run how it did OTL or does slightly more success have the British see out Tube Alloys?

Is any of it plausible or would the war still go more like OTL than I have here or am I not seeing enough Divergence in the Pacific?
The map is largely what I was picturing for the post war Europe.
 

Attachments

  • post WW2.jpg
    post WW2.jpg
    93.6 KB · Views: 372
One other change I see is France probably not formally surrendering. If the Germans can't conquer Norway, they can't conquer Britain, and it would be easier to say that victory is a matter of time after regrouping.
 
If France continues the fight from it African holdings, then the North African campaign is over before the Germans can intervene. This, and Crete holding means the Med is a viable supply route to the far East a lot sooner than OTL, not to mention having more available troops.

With Percival in command, Malaya and Singapore are doomed, but with more equipment in place, the allies might fare better in Burma, meaning a supply route to China opens early. This could butterfly away the Ichi-Go offensive as we know, along with the huge dent in Nationalist credibility.

North and South divide in China?
 
If France continues the fight from it African holdings, then the North African campaign is over before the Germans can intervene. This, and Crete holding means the Med is a viable supply route to the far East a lot sooner than OTL, not to mention having more available troops.

With Percival in command, Malaya and Singapore are doomed, but with more equipment in place, the allies might fare better in Burma, meaning a supply route to China opens early. This could butterfly away the Ichi-Go offensive as we know, along with the huge dent in Nationalist credibility.

North and South divide in China?
With North Africa falling in 1940, Britain can afford to send more troops to Malaya, which means it might hold this time around.
 
I'm choosing to ask about two different divergences. The first being that the Norwegians call a full mobilization and not a partial secret one done by mail. The second being the British intercepting the invasion force bound for at least Trondheim possibly Narvik too. I'm thinking they end up holding Trondheim and Narvik but the south still falls. British and French troops still pull out when the invasion of France happens but now the Norwegians are holding a line either north or south of Bergen. How long could they hold if they are just getting supplies and maybe some RAF air support?

I suspect Norway would have fallen by the autumn without British support. This is probably unlikely to affect anything very much. Air support from the units actually stationed in Norway would have been sufficient, although it would have meant fewer raids on Northern England from Norway. The troops actually deployed in Norway may have been sufficient and plentiful reinforcements were available after the fall of France if not.

Unless the Germans were limited to a relatively small area around Oslo by the time France surrenders there is no hope of the allies holding Norway. German air power could cover the movement of reinforcements to Norway and German land power was so superior it would have been ridiculous. France is not going to avoid surrendering after the entire country has been overrun just because a minor German campaign on the periphery has stalled.
 
It also depends on the admiralty. If someone high decidces that to keep the rn as the world's largest and strongest navy carriers are the way forward. If the decision was made in 1924 we could see a lot of butterflies flapping about 1935 onwards.
 
I suspect Norway would have fallen by the autumn without British support. This is probably unlikely to affect anything very much. Air support from the units actually stationed in Norway would have been sufficient, although it would have meant fewer raids on Northern England from Norway. The troops actually deployed in Norway may have been sufficient and plentiful reinforcements were available after the fall of France if not.

Unless the Germans were limited to a relatively small area around Oslo by the time France surrenders there is no hope of the allies holding Norway. German air power could cover the movement of reinforcements to Norway and German land power was so superior it would have been ridiculous. France is not going to avoid surrendering after the entire country has been overrun just because a minor German campaign on the periphery has stalled.
This.

Even if Norway holds out in Spring of 1940 there is nothing stopping the whole of the German armed forces repeating the trick in late Summer. Britain can't do anything as any troops are required to prevent a Sealion invasions (real or imagined)

Even if by some miracle Norway could hold out into the Spring of 1941, a relatively small commitment from the Luftwaffe could guarantee that Norway is never used to base heavy bombers anywhere more threatening than Trondheim
 
It also depends on the admiralty. If someone high decidces that to keep the rn as the world's largest and strongest navy carriers are the way forward. If the decision was made in 1924 we could see a lot of butterflies flapping about 1935 onwards.
I think that's above service level decision making and very optimistic about aircraft developments for early 20s.
It would be like today NATO scraping all manned fighters now and concentrating on drones probably long term right but very unlikely to actually be done without hindsight.
 
This.

Even if Norway holds out in Spring of 1940 there is nothing stopping the whole of the German armed forces repeating the trick in late Summer. Britain can't do anything as any troops are required to prevent a Sealion invasions (real or imagined)

Even if by some miracle Norway could hold out into the Spring of 1941, a relatively small commitment from the Luftwaffe could guarantee that Norway is never used to base heavy bombers anywhere more threatening than Trondheim

Concur but this could have some other interesting butterflies. I think the British could potentially hold Narvik in this scenario. Could be hard to hold and sustain but I'm not sure it would be worse than Malta. Also, does this have any impact on German interventions in the Balkans and Greece and North Africa? There will be casualties and losses and personnel and equipment will have to be replaced. Also, does Hitler insist on a larger garrison in Norway from the start (especially if the British can hold Narvik due to increased fears of an Allied invasion making Norway and even bigger POW camp than it was OTL.
 
Narvik would be strategically a big thing but retaining occupation forces in Norway after Dunkirk would be challenging but not absolutely impossible. After all a fat division equivalent was found for the occupation of Iceland.

It would be an interesting sideshow of a division or two of British troops plus the remnants of the Norwegian army holding the line at Trondheim against a few second rate Axis divisions spared from the Balkans and Russia after a second successful invasion. I wonder where Rommel would be sent - to clear Norway (Artic Fox?) or to support the Italians?
 
I'm choosing to ask about two different divergences. The first being that the Norwegians call a full mobilization and not a partial secret one done by mail. The second being the British intercepting the invasion force bound for at least Trondheim possibly Narvik too. I'm thinking they end up holding Trondheim and Narvik but the south still falls. British and French troops still pull out when the invasion of France happens but now the Norwegians are holding a line either north or south of Bergen. How long could they hold if they are just getting supplies and maybe some RAF air support? ...

A full Norwegian mobilization has long odds but real chance of stuffing most of the German attack. Better odds of confining the invasion to separate small enclaves in the south. Even surprised the Norse managed to sink the Blucher. The capture of a few key airfields was a close run, capturing the ports depended on seizing undefended docks. Skeleton crews of a few sentries and a hand full of early respondents to the mobilization orders gave the invasion a lot of trouble in the opening hours.

If the French remain in the war then the French battalions can remain in Norway & there will be less of a invasion scare in Britain. So, there is far less reason for the Allied ground and air forces to be withdrawn from Norway. A Allied enclave in the far north is one thing, but if the Germans are on the ropes in the south then its a potential game changer.

This.

Even if Norway holds out in Spring of 1940 there is nothing stopping the whole of the German armed forces repeating the trick in late Summer. ...

Yes there is, the German Navy was crippled in the April naval battles. They can't reproduce the naval effort made in April.

Beyond that surprise is far more difficult, and there is no practical overland route to sustain a offensive action.
 
Mo I rana.

Roughly 25 miles between the Swedish border and the coast.

If you are looking to hold the north this is a likely spot.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
I'm choosing to ask about two different divergences.

  1. The first being that the Norwegians call a full mobilization and not a partial secret one done by mail.
  2. The second being the British intercepting the invasion force bound for at least Trondheim possibly Narvik too.
I'm thinking they end up holding Trondheim and Narvik but the south still falls. British and French troops still pull out when the invasion of France happens but now the Norwegians are holding a line either north or south of Bergen. How long could they hold if they are just getting supplies and maybe some RAF air support?
IMHO you're quite generously brushing away norwegian/scandinavian neutrality here and putting at least Norway rather quickly into the Wallies-camp.

Ad 1.
WHEN in your TL Norway sould/would actually go on "full mobilization" ? If it would happen only one/two days before inviasion IOTL it would have almost no effect at all.
If it would happen at least one or better two weeks before to be of some military "usefullness" aka the potential of changuing things ... it would change a lot in the run-up to events.
Norway would be asked from all sides, who this mobilization is thought to be against, domestically as well as abroad. The request for occupation during the winter-war - though camouflaged as "help for poor lil' Finland" - was still fresh in Norway abd Sweden as well as Germany. They all would ask ... in public.
It could/would be seen as an act of aggression by the Wallies as well as by Germany, resulting in possible attacks from both sides.
It could be seen by the other scandinavian countries, Denmark and Sweden, as leaving the "traditional scandinavian accord on neutraklity" and thereby throwing these countries towards having to make a choice by themself.

All this would heavily "butterfly" diplomatics, policy and military planning.​

Ad 2.
How ?? IOTL there were operation Wilfred and Plan R 4, their execution starting on 5th April, the former more or less completed, the latter abandoned on the fly.
There simply WAS no force available for an "interception", which would have needed knowing of the german advance in advance also.​
Also : how would the above mentioned diplomatic effects of a norwegian mobilization "in time" affect the wallies/british plans ?​


Therefore I would like to ask you for some wee bit more in-depth explanation of how you think your two POD might occur ... beside simple handwaving wishes.
 
Yes there is, the German Navy was crippled in the April naval battles. They can't reproduce the naval effort made in April.

Beyond that surprise is far more difficult, and there is no practical overland route to sustain a offensive action.

You are not talking about facing the RN here - it would be a Baltic invasion with overwhelming air superiority. Besides many of the destroyer losses would be made good in 1941 from the 36A class. And there are other heavier units available (Bismarck / Prinz Eugen) if the Germans want to risk them.

Given the will the Germans would get ashore and could take Oslo. Taking the whole country could be more difficult - and I agree Mo I Rana is the fall back position after Trondheim.
 

Driftless

Donor
In addition to the points @CaRL Schwanberger raises:
  • If the Norwegians were mobilized earlier, even partially and on war alert, the old Norge and Eidsvold in Narvik may have done some damage to the invasion flotilla there. All of the German destroyers were sunk there by the RN, but after they helped get the troops on shore. If the Norwegians can gets some hits in before they land that should put fewer, perhaps significantly fewer German troops on shore. That should shorten up the time needed to reclaim Narvik and surrounding territory
  • While both the Allied and German navies suffered damages and losses, the surface Kriegsmarine was largely nobbled for several months after the Norway campaign historically. A better run RN operation (maybe better Norwegian coastal defence as well) should remove even more German ships from action. More damage, even if temporary, neuters any follow on seaborne landings.
  • If the parachute and air landing forces that took the modern airports in Oslo and Stavanger suffer higher losses in men and planes - even if ultimately successful - that has big fallout for the invasion of Netherlands and Belgium. Those earlier losses would also impact any plans for invading Britain (on both sides...) and much later on - Crete.
  • If the Norwegians prevent the takeover of those airfields, or even one, that slows the campaign and allows the allies to partly regroup.
  • If the airborne forces take higher losses in the initial invasion, there may be greater reluctance to employ them to retake Narvik, or other points in the North. With the Kriegsmarine largely out of the battle for some time, any airborne force would be largely on it's own. Northern Norway is very rugged, and had a very limited road network, and the width of the front in most spots North of Trondheim is a few kilometers - defensible country for an unmechanized army like the Norwegians.
By their very bold moves and allied dithering, the Germans historically rocked the allies back on their heels and they maintained that initiative throughout the campaign. Knock the Germans off their initial timeline and the fight becomes much more extended. The Germans needed a quick victory so that some of the forces, particularly the Luftwaffe, could be released for the attacks in France, Netherlands, and Belgium in May - that's a short window. All the same, Southern Norway falls to a determined German assault, but perhaps Northern Norway holds out for much longer.
 
Last edited:
You are not talking about facing the RN here - it would be a Baltic invasion with overwhelming air superiority. Besides many of the destroyer losses would be made good in 1941 from the 36A class.

A lot will change by 1941. As with so much else that year, any increased effort the Germans make anywhere hurts them in the east , particularly with things like their air force. If they wish to cover the entry to the Baltic sufficient to prevent RN entry it will draw down on the air support for any attack on the USSR. They can trade off a significantly reduced Mediterranean effort in support of the Italians, but that amounts to a significant strategic set back there.
 
IMHO you're quite generously brushing away norwegian/scandinavian neutrality here and putting at least Norway rather quickly into the Wallies-camp.

Ad 1.
WHEN in your TL Norway sould/would actually go on "full mobilization" ? If it would happen only one/two days before inviasion IOTL it would have almost no effect at all.
If it would happen at least one or better two weeks before to be of some military "usefullness" aka the potential of changuing things ... it would change a lot in the run-up to events.
Norway would be asked from all sides, who this mobilization is thought to be against, domestically as well as abroad. The request for occupation during the winter-war - though camouflaged as "help for poor lil' Finland" - was still fresh in Norway abd Sweden as well as Germany. They all would ask ... in public.
It could/would be seen as an act of aggression by the Wallies as well as by Germany, resulting in possible attacks from both sides.
It could be seen by the other scandinavian countries, Denmark and Sweden, as leaving the "traditional scandinavian accord on neutraklity" and thereby throwing these countries towards having to make a choice by themself.

All this would heavily "butterfly" diplomatics, policy and military planning.​

Ad 2.
How ?? IOTL there were operation Wilfred and Plan R 4, their execution starting on 5th April, the former more or less completed, the latter abandoned on the fly.
There simply WAS no force available for an "interception", which would have needed knowing of the german advance in advance also.​
Also : how would the above mentioned diplomatic effects of a norwegian mobilization "in time" affect the wallies/british plans ?​


Therefore I would like to ask you for some wee bit more in-depth explanation of how you think your two POD might occur ... beside simple handwaving wishes.

1 I was thinking the call would come when it it did originally on the 8 there was a misunderstanding that the civilian leadership didn't know it would be a secret mobilization if it wasn't full and the military leadership never bothered to point it out thinking they already knew. Now maybe it doesn't do much but at this point they should be able to give clear enough orders to at least slow down the Germans who have already attacked Norway and the soldiers they picked up after the sinking of the Rio de Jinero said they were assigned to Bergen but the Norwegian Parliament Ignores this largely because they are distracted by the British mining their waters. But the mobilization wouldn't necessarily have to bring larger forces to the battle right away maybe it doe something like get the ground forces at Fornebu issued ammunition for their personal weapons or those at Sola to not abandon the positions near the runways or maybe even prevent them from jamming firing at the Me 110s before the Ju 52s show up with the paratroopers that took the airport. Kristiansand repulsed the landings there twice before confusion allowed the Germans to sail into the harbor and land there. Just something to delay the German success enough that the Norwegian army can hold on until French and British help comes. OTL the 4th district around Bergen was also able to fully mobilize and the commander there was making plans to use his 6,000 men to push the 2,000 Germans out of Bergen but large parts of his force were ordered east on the 16 of April and on 1 May with no help coming disbanded what he had left.

2 For Narvik it could be that the Renown isn't out investigating what happened to Glowworm because either they complete their transmission or they just don't lose the crewman overboard so they are there mining the fjord when those ships come sailing up meaning there isn't going to be any landings there and maybe I was over optimistic about stopping the landing at Trondheim from happening altogether but maybe here the army gets their way without Churchill insisting on Narvik and make the landings at Trondheim and retake it.




So now I'm thinking I will change what I had happening in Norway. Stay with the full mobilization though it won't do much for the start of the invasion it might slow it down enough that by the time their forces are ready there is a smaller area needed to retake. This time the Glowworm doesn't have someone go overboard and they along with the Renown are in position to stop the landings at Narvik the British then go through with plans to retake Trondheim and General Steffens goes through with his plans to retake Bergen and Ruges plans to delay till reinforced work. By May the Germans hold the areas north of Oslo but the British and French reinforcements are planing a counter attack to push them out of Oslo and the rest of southern Norway. They don't abandon them when the invasion of France come and eventually they kick them out of Norway fully. Is this a better scenario or is it even less plausible then the first I would take suggestions on how to improve it.
 
If Norway remains in the allies then the North Sea convoys to the USSR would be easier due to air cover and being able to call at Norwegian ports instead of running the gauntlet. Would this significantly impact the Eastern Front?
 
If Norway remains in the allies then the North Sea convoys to the USSR would be easier... ... Would this significantly impact the Eastern Front?

Some, but where it counts is in lower losses of Allied cargo ships.

Norwegian ports aided the surface raiders & submarines in getting to the Atlantic. So some small advantage for the Allies there.
 
Top