WI: Norway becomes major WWII theater?

The Norwegian campaign was a long one, the second longest the Germans fought, and went on for six months. It only ended with the Fall of France, among constant counter attacks by the Germans forcing the Allies from Narvik. What if however the Allies never leave Norway, instead reinforcing their toehold through June and into July; possibly even expanding it some. This would force the Germans to divert forces to keep them bottled up in Northern Norway. Would that have a major effect on the rest of the War in Europe?
 
It would have ruined the genius of Operation Viking. 40 Divisions were kept there in what was jokingly referred to as the worlds largest POW camp because Hitler was convinced that an invasion of Norway was coming at any time.
 
A Allied Army remaining requires the western Europe campaign of May-June to fall out differently. As it happened there was little chance of the Brits committing reinforcements to keep the enclave going.

For the Allies to return post 1941 I can only see that if Italy remains nuetral & there is a much curtailed Mediterranean theatre, or with very different Allied leaders.
 
There's a reason Chamberlain's premiership fell due to the debacle of the Norwegian campaign. It was ill conceived, poorly executed by unprepared, under trained and under equipped. forces. However if the operation was planned from its inception to fight in Norway and not merely occupy it then many of the planning errors could have been resolved. Indeed a proper force equipped with supporting arms including some tanks and prepared to fight in the winter conditions of Norway (not impossible for the British to train for thanks to the unusually cold winter of 1939/40) would have done considerably more before the battle and later fall of France. In this scenario its not unreasonable for the Allies (Norwegians and British Empire and Commonwealth) to hold the North of the country by June 1940. The terrain is mountainous and easily defended and the British cant be outflanked without either breaking Swedish neutrality or bringing the Royal Navy into play.

In this case what do the British do? In OTL they felt that Norway was indefensible long term, but this was largely down to the limited forces available in theatre. In this scenario the forces present could be considered adequate to hold the line and therefore all the arguments for going into Norway to begin with still have merit. Plus a couple more. It would show the world and the British public that Britain was undefeated and would fight on. It might also encourage Hitler to hit Norway first before turning on Britain, buying valuable time to correct the deficiencies in Britain defences. It would also move the bulk of the U boat fleet to the North Sea to attack the heavily defended supply convoys to Norway (including continuous air cover form bases in the UK and Norway). This would be bloody for both sides but would be better for the \British than the OTL battle for the Atlantic as the distance requiring protection is considerably less.

This creates Norway as a major theatre especially if Hitler turns east as OTL and the Arctic convoys start without German bases in Norway. I foresee this being a cause for increasing the tempo of operations in Norway as the Germans try to halt the convoys by capturing the north until the end of the war. There is also the possibility of heavy bomber bases in Norway hitting northern Germany and the calls to liberate the south to keep things interesting.
 
This creates Norway as a major theatre ....

This creates the possibility of the German invasion being stuffed entirely. It was a high risk operation that suceeded because the Norwegians and Allies were caught badly prepared. If the Anglo French force arrives a week earlier, better prepared, and the Norwegians have their reservists called up the invasion force may as well stay home.

Of course the Allied/Norse defense is still not strong & the Germans are free to take another shot after the Collapse of France, but thats a different TL
 
This creates Norway as a major theatre especially if Hitler turns east as OTL and the Arctic convoys start without German bases in Norway. I foresee this being a cause for increasing the tempo of operations in Norway as the Germans try to halt the convoys by capturing the north until the end of the war. There is also the possibility of heavy bomber bases in Norway hitting northern Germany and the calls to liberate the south to keep things interesting.

A quick note that if Norway is still in the air when Hitler turns East, the Finns are less likely to join in.
 
There's a reason Chamberlain's premiership fell due to the debacle of the Norwegian campaign. It was ill conceived, poorly executed by unprepared, under trained and under equipped. forces. However if the operation was planned from its inception to fight in Norway and not merely occupy it then many of the planning errors could have been resolved. Indeed a proper force equipped with supporting arms including some tanks and prepared to fight in the winter conditions of Norway (not impossible for the British to train for thanks to the unusually cold winter of 1939/40) would have done considerably more before the battle and later fall of France. In this scenario its not unreasonable for the Allies (Norwegians and British Empire and Commonwealth) to hold the North of the country by June 1940. The terrain is mountainous and easily defended and the British cant be outflanked without either breaking Swedish neutrality or bringing the Royal Navy into play.

In this case what do the British do? In OTL they felt that Norway was indefensible long term, but this was largely down to the limited forces available in theatre. In this scenario the forces present could be considered adequate to hold the line and therefore all the arguments for going into Norway to begin with still have merit. Plus a couple more. It would show the world and the British public that Britain was undefeated and would fight on. It might also encourage Hitler to hit Norway first before turning on Britain, buying valuable time to correct the deficiencies in Britain defences. It would also move the bulk of the U boat fleet to the North Sea to attack the heavily defended supply convoys to Norway (including continuous air cover form bases in the UK and Norway). This would be bloody for both sides but would be better for the \British than the OTL battle for the Atlantic as the distance requiring protection is considerably less.

This creates Norway as a major theatre especially if Hitler turns east as OTL and the Arctic convoys start without German bases in Norway. I foresee this being a cause for increasing the tempo of operations in Norway as the Germans try to halt the convoys by capturing the north until the end of the war. There is also the possibility of heavy bomber bases in Norway hitting northern Germany and the calls to liberate the south to keep things interesting.

This - I could see Churchill, desperate for any kind of a victory in June 1940 deciding that Narvik must be held. Hard but IMWO not impossible and as I have said on other threads, arguably not as hard as sustaining Malta was OTL. If the Germans decide that ejecting the Allied presence in Northern Norway is necessary then they will have to mount a major effort to do it while the British mount a major effort to sustain their lodgement.

I so wish somebody would write a TL on this. I would but I don't have the time.
 
A quick note that if Norway is still in the air when Hitler turns East, the Finns are less likely to join in.

would they turn East with two fronts still contested? and/or if the Allies are linked up or liaison with Finns might they try to involve Soviets against them? ("Finnmark has been seized by the capitalist powers")
 
If the British hold Northern Norway after the Fall of France this puts the Germans in a bit of a quandry. They don't have enough forces to divert enough to Norway to drive out the British and consider actions in the Balkans, Greece, and North Africa and gather strength and reserves for Barbarossa. After the Fall of France the Luftwaffe was quite stressed, and if you add the Norwegian theater as an active theater then the ability to attack the UK directly is much diminished.

Assuming Barbarossa goes off as OTL the convoys to Russia will do very well. Without Luftwaffe attacks and reconnaissance from Northern Norway, the risks of attacks by large surface units from Norway, and the U-boats sailing from Norwegian ports these convoys will face much less danger and supplies to Russia will be increased. Trying to attack UK-Russia convoys with U-boats coming from Germany (or even southern Norway) will result in higher losses for them, air attacks and surface attacks will simply be impossible.
 
If the British hold Northern Norway after the Fall of France this puts the Germans in a bit of a quandry. They don't have enough forces to divert enough to Norway to drive out the British and consider actions in the Balkans, Greece, and North Africa and gather strength and reserves for Barbarossa. After the Fall of France the Luftwaffe was quite stressed, and if you add the Norwegian theater as an active theater then the ability to attack the UK directly is much diminished.

seems as though they would turn from France to solving their Norway problem, which butterflies away the BoB or at least as it came off IOTL?

(Bismarck and Tirpitz have very different careers?)
 
It would have ruined the genius of Operation Viking. 40 Divisions were kept there in what was jokingly referred to as the worlds largest POW camp because Hitler was convinced that an invasion of Norway was coming at any time.

Prior to November 1944, the number of German divisions in Norway never exceeded 13. And when the numbers went up after that, this was only because of the troops that had to be withdrawn from the Finnish Lapland when Finland bowed out of the war.

Seriously, this is becoming one of my pet peeves on the forum: people are so enamored with the "huge amount of troops in Norway" myth that they forget that almost half of the troops up north (and the most battle-worthy part of them) were in Finnish Lapland, covering hundreds of kilometers of front against the USSR, helping keep Finland in the war as an ally and making sure that the German industry got the nickel it sorely needed from the Petsamo mine.
 
Last edited:
The Norwegian campaign was a long one, the second longest the Germans fought, and went on for six months. It only ended with the Fall of France, among constant counter attacks by the Germans forcing the Allies from Narvik. What if however the Allies never leave Norway, instead reinforcing their toehold through June and into July; possibly even expanding it some. This would force the Germans to divert forces to keep them bottled up in Northern Norway. Would that have a major effect on the rest of the War in Europe?

your whole premise (or at least your arithmetic :closedeyesmile: ) is incorrect ...
the OTL Norway campaign started with the German sneak attack on 9 April 1940
and ended with a formal surrender on 10 June .. though the Norwegians had ceased fighting a couple of days before

2 months not 6 ,,, 62 days

With a few exceptions the immediate Norwegian response was ineffective
and in practice all Norway's major cities were captured (or surrendered) to the Nazis within hours or days.

Given Norwegian losses on equipment, especially air power, in those first days
only British Naval strength and the British and French soldiers and air squadrons ferried across the North Sea
permitted any effective resistance beyond that point.

Despite that effort the whole of Central and Southern and central Norway had to be abandoned by the Allies by 5 May i.e before any action in France.

Once that started on May 10, no further Allied reinforcement could be countenanced.
The french collapse was clear by May 22 and therefore planning for a possible complete evacuation of Norway began on May 24th
(There had already been several small scale lifts of troops cut off by German successes)

The Norwegian King quit the country on 7 June
while the last British and French troops were gone by the next day, covered by those few Norwegian forces still able to fight.

The French surrender on June 22 was the final nail in the coffin for Norway.
With the equipment losses at Dunkirk and an immediate air threat Britain simply could not help further.
 
Last edited:
The Norwegian campaign was a long one, the second longest the Germans fought, and went on for six months. It only ended with the Fall of France, among constant counter attacks by the Germans forcing the Allies from Narvik. What if however the Allies never leave Norway, instead reinforcing their toehold through June and into July; possibly even expanding it some. This would force the Germans to divert forces to keep them bottled up in Northern Norway. Would that have a major effect on the rest of the War in Europe?

Simply get more of the Norwegian armed forces to actual fight on the day of the invasion - for example where forts did fight they caused significant damage proving once again that ships should not fight forts.

Had units been given robust orders and stood up in a timely fashion (only one Division the 6th had its 3 component Infantry Regiments fully active - sadly these were in the northern areas of the country due to the winter war) - and where orders did not exist 'march to the sound of the guns' - block runways and dig in units around airfields etc then the German plan becomes badly unstuck

And it would not take too much IMO as the German plan was high risk,did not run very smoothly despite the relative lack of resistance and had little scope to handle setbacks.

Once the attack fails then Norwegian troops can form the building block of the 'Allied forces' in the country with the Infantry Regiments expanding to divisions.

Its air force can be built up around the 60 odd P36s it had ordered and would eventually benefit from expanded British aircraft manufacture and subsequent US orders/Lend Lease.
 
Top