WI Invasion of Norway fails alternate WW2

I think the problem is that you are assuming Norway round II would be the same as Norway round I.

It won't be for some of the very reason you describe.

But in Round I the British and French forces never entered the Skaggerak apart from submarine pickets - they won't in round II with Denmark and the airbases wherein in German hands

Assuming France goes as per OTL then the British have to decide where to spend their limited manpower. A failed invasion of Norway would give the opportunity to garrison Norway and fly bombers into the heartland of Germany. For this reason the Germans have to go for round II. I question whether sufficient British and CW ground troops will be spared to significantly increase the Norwegian army - if they are positioned then I suspect they will be concentrated in the vital areas for British interests i.e. Narvik and Trondheim.

Germany won't be able to go further North in a successful Round II than Trondheim / Mo I Rana - but this will be sufficient to prevent the RAF from threatening either escorted bombing missions to the heart of Germany or unescorted bombers anywhere they like. Which is sufficient (along with securing the Skaggerak) for Germany.

To recap - I can't see the RN putting its ships in harms way to protect Southern Norway, I can't see the Germans venturing outside of the Skaggerak (so no third battle of Narvik) but I can see a round II where the British and Germans are content to partition Norway as mentioned earlier.
Wow, Round II like Round I ? German supermen fantasizes apart how to you get that? Are you saying an amphibious assault with no specialized landing ships or doctrine, against a mobilized defender waiting for round II is going to be anything other than a one sided slaughter ( hint the Norwegians are the happy ones ) ? That's not even counting all the ports the British can supply/reinforce through that are out of range of German fighter cover, that mine fields work both ways, that fighting over Norway is just like the BoB in terms of what happens to pilots ( ie German ones are lost, allied get in a new plane ). Its attempting Sealion over an even wider channel. If the KM comes out to play its going to get wiped out very quickly, the Luftwaffe gets depleted even more and Stalin is very happy.
OTL worked due to surprise and the Norwegians trying to be neutral so not letting the Allies in till too late. Things like the propositioned ships in harbors , the effectively unmanned airfields and coastal defenses, lack of radar etc just would not apply second time round. Quisling and his cronies will be out of power or in jail depending on what the POD was so no fifth column disrupting things. First time depended on rolling 6's , second time would need 7's.
 
I'm really struggling with communication obviously.

I mean when I say

I think the problem is that you are assuming Norway round II would be the same as Norway round I.

It won't be for some of the very reason you describe.

and the reader sees

Wow, Round II like Round I ? German supermen fantasizes apart how to you get that?

I should be using more emojis or something.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Holding Norway north of Mo I Rana is a very good thing for the Allies, IMO.
Maybe that prevents Finland from becoming a German co-belligerent? Or - if not - allows for quicker Finnish about turn?
My wet fantasy is the UK telling Stalin in June/July 1941 - "OK, we will help you but first give back Finland what you stole from it."
But for that the UK would need a better PM.
 
Last edited:
Holding Norway north of Mop I Rana is a very good thing for the Allies, IMO.
Maybe that prevents Finland from becoming a German co-belligerent? Or - if not - allows for quicker Finnish about turn?
...

The first is my take. But, I'm not a expert on Finnish politics.

Sweden is the other nation affected. OTL its strategic position was impossible & the anti fascists there could take little action against Germany until 1944. Just retaining Narvik is a game changer. Neils Bohr can ride the train to British protection, US and British weapons can be sent to Sweden, The rail connection can be improved in capacity & the air freight connection is relatively easy. The Germans can certainly try to invade Sweden, but how many peripheral battle fronts can they afford? Sweden may struggle along on the neutrality route, but at some point from 1942 on its going to be better to align with the Allies and at least embargo Germany. Allowing British signals & other intelligence agencies to operate out of Sweden, support Finnlands neutrality, declare a sizable Exclusion/Neutrality Zone, increase assistance to the Danes in doing their resistance thing, ditto for the Poles. the list goes on.
 
Taking this situation to late 1942, or 1943 it starts to look like another strategic trap for the Germans, assuming they kept a portion of the south. It may be something of a stagnant from for 1941 & most of 1942. Between the terrain and priorities elsewhere I don't see either gaining a decisive advantage. In latter 1942 that changes as US ground and air forces can be introduced directly without major amphib operations and related hindrances. When the weather clears in the spring of 43 the Germans will have the same problem as in the Med, their air forces will be increasingly out numbered by the Allied side & if they make a stand in the air battle they are attrition away to nothing while the Allied replacements still exceed their losses. As in Tunisia its probable the German ground forces in Norway are isolated and surrender when their fuel and ammunition are expended.

After Allied control of all of Norway is established a long look at the northern littoral is necessary. I've never given serious consideration to the merits of invading there, but even without Sweden its something the Germans must consider. If Sweden is persuaded to actively join the Allies then there is at least the threat, which the Allies can exploit in their multiple deception operations. FORTITUDE EAST?
 

Driftless

Donor
In OTL April 1940, no thought of arctic convoys to supply the Soviets. As the war went on, the Germans had several naval and air bases along the coast all the way up past the North Cape. After Barbarossa gets underway and the need to supply the Soviets is organized; any land under allied control would have been very helpful, particularly across the North. That would have been a mostly unrecognized benefit in April 1940 though
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Yup, the sole perceived benefits of holding the north in 1940 would be blocking Narvik, thus forcing iron ore exports to Germany from November to April to go by train. Plus a possible lifeline to Sweden should it be invaded and decided to fight.
And, a few years down the line, air bases for the liberation of central Norway.
 
If the invasion of Norway failed, the Germans would almost certainly invade Sweden within a year, outflank the Norwegian line and force a surrender. An invasion of Sweden could be done safely since the Kriegsmarine would still control the Baltic.
I have big doubts that he Norwegians could hold out themselves if the French and British still evacuated.
 
Holding Norway north of Mo I Rana is a very good thing for the Allies, IMO.
Maybe that prevents Finland from becoming a German co-belligerent? Or - if not - allows for quicker Finnish about turn?
My wet fantasy is the UK telling Stalin in June/July 1941 - "OK, we will help you but first give back Finland what you stole from it."
But for that the UK would need a better PM.

The mere theoretical possibility of Finland using Narvik for foreign trade would not be enough for Finland not to ally with the Germans, I believe. What would be needed would be the British taking an active interest in helping Finland, and making assurances of concrete deliveries of weapons, supplies and food in 1940. IOTL, the Germans reached out to Finland with concrete support in the summer-fall of 1940 and that is why the Finns chose them as the only realistic option to get help against the USSR. If northern Norway is not German, the British would still have to offer a deal as good as (or preferably better than) what the Germans offered, and of course the Norwegians and the Swedish would have to be aboard for the British goods to reach Finland as well.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
With there being no RR link between Sweden and Finland I agree that Narvik is not that important.
But with Alied held northern Norway British ships can sail to Petsamo, thus alleviating the need to pass through neutral Sweden.
I agree with your political points.
 
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.
Would the casualties in eastern europe be lower in your scenario?
 
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 ?​
What if the mobilization was framed as a exercise in which Norway is invaded? How would it be percieved? I assume that Britian could get a unoffical notice on why it was done. Would the Germans give up on the invasion of Norway if they knew that Norway had full mobilisation and large forces in southern Norway?

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.
 
Would the casualties in eastern europe be lower in your scenario?
I think so there isn't a lot to be gained from the Germans to keep fighting in the east once the allies are in Germany but I also don't see them just letting the soviets walk right up and join them. The more I thought about it the less certain I am with the eastern front here. I have also considered having Moscow fall and that would certainly effect the casualty numbers.
 
Holding Norway north of Mo I Rana is a very good thing for the Allies, IMO.
Maybe that prevents Finland from becoming a German co-belligerent? Or - if not - allows for quicker Finnish about turn?
My wet fantasy is the UK telling Stalin in June/July 1941 - "OK, we will help you but first give back Finland what you stole from it."
But for that the UK would need a better PM.
Maybe the siege of Leningrad could be butterflied away?
 
The way I see it the only way to hold Norway in a timeline where the battle of France goes south for the allies is to repel or contain the initial invasion of southern Norway. For this you need a full mobilization that would be able to mount a more organized initial defense but also to completely stop one of the main southern invasion forces at Oslo, Bergen, Kristiansand or Trondheim by British interception or by mounting an actual defense after the landings. This would lead to a very different sort of campaign in southern Norway compared to the one that happened IOTL.
 
The way I see it the only way to hold Norway in a timeline where the battle of France goes south for the allies is to repel or contain the initial invasion of southern Norway. For this you need a full mobilization that would be able to mount a more organized initial defense but also to completely stop one of the main southern invasion forces at Oslo, Bergen, Kristiansand or Trondheim by British interception or by mounting an actual defense after the landings. This would lead to a very different sort of campaign in southern Norway compared to the one that happened IOTL.

Even if holding southern Norway is not possible/practical I still think Narvik can be held which still leads to all sorts of interesting scenarios.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I keep thinking if the Norwegians had issued a partial mobilization and a war warning, neither German nor Allied landings would be as easy as OTL. Something as easy as unpacking, assembling and staffing the crated Hawk 75's and stationing a battalion of solders at Sola/Stavanger airfield would have unhinged the German attack.
 

Driftless

Donor
The Norwegian cabinet clung desperately to the hope that neutrality would keep both Germany and Britain away, even though they were given credible evidence from several sources days before the invasion that the Germans were on their way. That sense of desperation carried right into the opening rounds of the fight. The thin veneer of neutrality had already been broken by both sides before April 9 - The British had crossed into Norwegian waters a few months earlier to rescue the prisoners held on the Altmark (which broke the neutrality rules on it's own). Getting the Norwegian cabinet to act a day or two earlier, even hours earlier on mobilization would have helped their situation. That, and communicating the mobilization by public radio announcement or telephone vs. snail mail.

A really well done movie: The Kings Choice gives a good flavor of the chaotic situation at the topmost levels of Norwegian government in those first three days of the invasion (the language is primarily Norwegian, with some German - subtitles in English) The scene in the movie promo with King Haakon curled up on the floor - he has a chronic and painful back problem
 
Last edited:
Maybe the siege of Leningrad could be butterflied away?
Wouldn't they need to at least isolate the city and try to cut off supplies coming in from the north so even if Finland doesn't join then they still probably try something similar.
The way I see it the only way to hold Norway in a timeline where the battle of France goes south for the allies is to repel or contain the initial invasion of southern Norway. For this you need a full mobilization that would be able to mount a more organized initial defense but also to completely stop one of the main southern invasion forces at Oslo, Bergen, Kristiansand or Trondheim by British interception or by mounting an actual defense after the landings. This would lead to a very different sort of campaign in southern Norway compared to the one that happened IOTL.
Kristiansand almost repelled the atack OTL but became confused when ordered not to fire on British and French ships and Germans started using their codes so if their is a mobilization and some clear orders before hand they might completely prevent the attempt. The local commander by Bergen was planing to retake the city and at the time had around 6,000 troops compared to the 2,000 the Germans had so if eastern Norway isn't in dire straights the forces aren't ordered to redeploy to reinforce them there they might retake the city and it all adds up to the invasion failing.
 
Top