WI UK occupies Norway

[aktarian]

I don't think I saw either TL or thread about this. What would be results if UK would occupy Norway in WW2 instead of Germany? Say UK moves in 2 (or 1) week before they did or Germans move in a bit later.

Who takes Denmark?

For one Artic convoys would be easier. Maybe convoys to UK as well. Fighter protection for bombers sooner due to shorter distances. Different Bismarck sortie.

Thoughts?

 

[Hyperion]

If the Brits and French can get there sooner, or the Germans show up late, and the allies can set up some decent positions, and the Norwegians are don't end up fighting the Brits and French, this could hurt Germany.

No Norway means that the Germans don't get a lot of coal. No Norway means that they don't have bases for their ships and submarines to work out of. If the RAF can get some sizeable bomber forces into Norway, they can bomb Germany ports.

 

[Tom_B]

After the fall of France you would see British forces in Norway being reduced to supplement their Home Forces. The likelihood is Hitler would abandon Sea Lion (which he was never enthusiastic about) and launch a second invasion of Norway. How that plays out might make an interesting scenario. Of the top of my head guess they capture a large chunk of the south easily and the British fall back to the north and harder to displace.

Even if the Norwegian government unenthusiastically accepted the Allied invasion a good sector of their populace would not. Look for Quisling to have broader support.


Tom

 

[ljofa]

No Christmas tree from Norway to the UK every year.

The Allies would have lost some moral high-ground over an invasion at Narvik which might have influenced post-war decision making.

Churchill drew up plans to seize Narvik but the political price was deemed too heavy to pay at the time so they just tried to mine the port thus cutting the Germans off from Iron Ore shipments from Sweden for Winter 1939/40. The Norwegians would have been irate, sure but I think the Norwegian government would have been pragmatic enough not to do anything outrageous like declare war at that time.

Even if the Allies got the drop on the Germans, they still would have invaded as Sweden's Iron was critical to resupply after Poland and the upcoming invasion of France. Indeed, the original plan "R4" called for the invasion of Norway if Germany invaded. Conicidence saw the Allies and the Germans activating their plans at the same time. The fighting might well have spilt over into Sweden in an attempt to deny Germany Sweden's iron or the Germans might have thrust for it directly.

Germany would have had logistical issues in supply, the British and French would have an easier time. It's hard to say whether the Norwegians (and Swedes) would have fought both the Allies AND the Germans or would have taken sides or just not bothered. The Fascists in Norway had reasonable successes in elections, true but weren't overwhelmingly popular. The King of Norway married Princess Maud of England and she was reasonably popular for her charitable work so that might have drawn people to the Allied banner.

The actual fighting would have been mixed. 1939 was a very cold winter and the rugged Norwegian terrain was not natural tank country. German Luftwaffe and Panzer advantages would have been mostly negated. Stalin would have continued to resupply the Germans with oil so the Germans could have flown in supplies for their army. I think the Germans would have wanted to draw in as many Allied soldiers as possible so they would draw forces away from France which would still have been invaded in May 1940 (or thereabouts). The Germans could have then seized the French Iron producing areas of Northern France thus off-setting their losses.

Ultimately, if the French were invaded and collapse in OTL then the consequences are worse for the Allies. Germany knows how to fight a Winter War a little better and there are more Cold-Weather supplies should Germany decide to go ahead and invade the Soviet Union in 1941 or 1942. Once France is knocked out the war, the Norwegian and British armies would probably be forced out of Norway (and the Swedes from Sweden if involved). Germany do better against the USSR - assuming they decide to invade. Can they force a peace before the tide turns?

What if the Allies are successful? Say they are able to repel a German invasion using operation R4 and the Kriegsmarine is wrecked beyond repair? Churchill is vindicated in his belief of amphibious schemes after the disaster at Gallipoli in 1915. Could we see more such attempts in the future? Certainly Germany now would be in range of Allied bombers from the north - in the Summer anyhow although it's debatable as to how effective they would be.

I can't guess at how the war might go on from Allied success in Norway. Hitler always called for an invasion of the Low Countries and Northern France but with only 5/6ths of Germany's iron cut off, it's debatable whether he will be able to manage it. Stalin might be able to sell him all the iron and steel he needs - at a price...

 

[Lord Douglas]

One result could be that Chamberlain is in office longer. He was mauled in a debate on the misconduct of the Norwegian campaign, and much of the Conservative Party revolted, which is why he tried to seek a coalition government and then resigned when that failed. But it also leaves Churchill's hand stronger, as we would be responsible for the successful operation as he was First Lord of the Admiralty. Ultimately though, Chamberlain is going to resign, probably when France falls, and in this case it may be that Halifax becomes PM with a mandate to negotiate the best peace that he can if public opinion favours peace. But if it is felt that they should fight on, then Churchill will be put in charge.

 

[ljofa]

Chamberlain had cancer and died within 6 months of leaving office. He might resign anyway.

 

[Dave Howery]

The fighting might well have spilt over into Sweden in an attempt to deny Germany Sweden's iron or the Germans might have thrust for it directly.
...

Now there's an unforseen long term affect. WI the fighting did spill into Sweden, and thus Sweden becomes part of the Allied cause and later NATO... how would that affect the later Cold War....

 

[stodge]

Norway Occupation

Of course, there had been a risk of Anglo-French intervention on the side of Finland in the so-called Winter War. That would have left the allies facing both Germany and the Soviet Union in the spring of 1940.

Given that the allies didn't move into Belgium until the Germans attacked, it seems less than conceivable that they would have invaded Norway. Again, unless credible intelligence was available, it's hard to see how the Norwegians could have "invited" in the British and French without compromising their neutrality as well as alarming the Swedes.

In the light of events, it now seems incredible that the Danes and Norwegians could have believed their neutrality would save them but it had in WW1 and they had apparently no quarrel with the Germans.

My guess is that if the British and French had established a presence in Norway, it would have temporarily curtailed German plans in the north, though Denmark would still have been overrun.

The attack on the Low Countries and France would have forced a partial or total evacuation leaving the Norwegians at the mercy of the Germans anyway.

If we are exploring this subject, then perhaps an alternative question to ask is what if the Germans had occupied the Irish Republic in July 1940 ?

 

[jolo]

If the British get there before the Germans, the Germans will have a landing fleet left. They will surely use it.

I doubt they'd try to conquer Norway, as that would be lots of cost for little reward. On the other hand, Britain would also be extremely risky, but at least rewarding. The best for the Germans (militarily speaking) would be to wait until the war against France is over.

At the beginning of WWII, Britain was pretty vulnerable to ground attacks, and her best corps was in the desert. If the Germans manage to occupy the British with a few fake landings (Norway, Britain) they might actually be able to get to Britain.

British air superiority would be a big problem - but not bigger than waiting for D-Day, and the same as in Norway. Also, if just a single bridge head could be established and kept for a while, artillery could destroy a lot of infrastructure in a 50+ km radius, Flak could destroy a lot of British planes without loosing even more German planes, special ops could act all over Britain (surveillance, sabotage, espionage, infiltration, ambushes...), and so on.

Another problem for Germany is the British fleet. But actually, nothing would be better for Germany than being able to sink all those ships with coastal artillery, bombers, torpedo boats, subs, torpedoes from planes, and so on, right in the British Channel.

Once the Germans know where they can land without being discovered at once, they can easily establish new bridge heads in other places, so that British resistance can be diverted, British forces can be attacked from more than one side, and lost areas (very likely at the beginning) can be replaced.

If everything went well, the Germans could get the whole southern coast within a few weeks, which would weaken Britain so much that they'd have to give up similar to France or get conquered within a few more weeks.

I'd like to know if the US would declare war under such circumstances, and if the US declares war, whether the Russians might be tempted to use the opportunity (though rather unlikely at that time, with their experiences in Finland and with Japan in the back).

If the US declares war, the British wouldn't give up, so Germany would have to continue there. The US would probably go to Northern Ireland if the situation is really bleak for Britain, and, not letting the Irish choose completely by themselves, make them an ally. As I don't see any chance of Germany against the US, that would lead to a similar outcome as in OTL, but even faster, as the US is in the war earlier.

If the US doesn't declare war, WWII is soon over and Hitler can decide freely what to do next. I suppose, he'd consolidate his gains before thinking about attacking Russia, especially as there probably were extreme losses in GB. Tensions with the US might be reduced by giving Northern Ireland to Ireland, by ruling out any claims for Kanada and Australia, by leaving GB after dividing her into her 3 states and making them independent with just some reparations, by returning most of the occupied French territories to France in exchange for some colonies, and some more. Though such modesty might be unlikely for the Nazis. That scenario even has a 1941 map now - thanks to Thande for the 1939 map.

The war against the SU would probably still happen in 1941, if the US isn't in the war. But as Germany doesn't need to help Italy, no delays, and as GB is out of the war, she wont help the SU. Might make that war easier for Germany than it was in OTL.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Another problem for Germany is the British fleet. But actually, nothing would be better for Germany than being able to sink all those ships with coastal artillery, bombers, torpedo boats, subs, torpedoes from planes, and so on, right in the British Channel.

To me this is the crux of your argument and in the end not really possible. Coastal artillery didn't sink buggery, torpedo boats only count against heavy units iof they get past the screening flotillas, u-boats will get lucky occasionally but at the same tie be unlucky a lot more often, and torpedo bombers need a decent plane with decent support to hit home

Grey Wolf

 

[Wendell]

Now there's an unforseen long term affect. WI the fighting did spill into Sweden, and thus Sweden becomes part of the Allied cause and later NATO... how would that affect the later Cold War....

WI the opposite happens, and Sweden joins the Axis?

 

[jolo]

To me this is the crux of your argument and in the end not really possible. Coastal artillery didn't sink buggery, torpedo boats only count against heavy units iof they get past the screening flotillas, u-boats will get lucky occasionally but at the same tie be unlucky a lot more often, and torpedo bombers need a decent plane with decent support to hit home

There probably needs to be a lot more thought on this part - some mines in strategic locations and during battles might help, some small boats with explosives might work during nights, and so on. The British boats and smaller ships should be easy targets for planes, though - especially if the British are occupied with the invasion force and can't give too much air cover. And the Germans should be able to do what the Japanese did in 1941, if they know where to hit.

While I see lots of losses, I also still see chances of success.

 

[Wozza]

British air superiority would be a big problem - but not bigger than waiting for D-Day, and the same as in Norway. Also, if just a single bridge head could be established and kept for a while, artillery could destroy a lot of infrastructure in a 50+ km radius, Flak could destroy a lot of British planes without loosing even more German planes, special ops could act all over Britain (surveillance, sabotage, espionage, infiltration, ambushes...), and so on.

And just how do the Germans get heavy artillery with that range across the channel???? They will need to control a port, which can be bombed and hit by artillery...

Another problem for Germany is the British fleet. But actually, nothing would be better for Germany than being able to sink all those ships with coastal artillery, bombers, torpedo boats, subs, torpedoes from planes, and so on, right in the British Channel.

Indeed nothing would be better, short of having superman on side. In fact only British light forces, mostly destroyers would be deployed in the Channel.

The problem is none of this changes the situation significantly from OTL except the Germans have a few more warships, in which they are so heavily outnumbered it makes little difference. also the British will have slightly more ships and need less on convoy duty.

No Norway means that the Germans don't get a lot of coal.

Except from the Ruhr, Poland, Bohemia and everywhere else.
Norway guaranteed Swedish iron ore. The Germans seemed to have no iron ore problems after the fall of France - if they had reconquering Norway would have been an allied priority in 42/43

 

[jolo]

And just how do the Germans get heavy artillery with that range across the channel???? They will need to control a port, which can be bombed and hit by artillery...

You don't need a port for that. If necessary, letting a boat or an old small ship with such a cannon run to the ground at the coast might be enough to fire a few hundred shots until the cannon is taken out. It should also quickly be possible to put some concrete over it, to gain a little bit more time and occupy the British more. Some fake cannons, which just blow some fire works, might also help. But usually, a big truck is all you need to transport a cannon of that reach from the beach to a suitable location.

Indeed nothing would be better, short of having superman on side. In fact only British light forces, mostly destroyers would be deployed in the Channel.

I even suppose there'd be some battle ships there, to bombard the invasion force and supplies. The British might even let some ships run to the ground and keep them as artillery, if they were desperate.

The problem is none of this changes the situation significantly from OTL except the Germans have a few more warships, in which they are so heavily outnumbered it makes little difference. also the British will have slightly more ships and need less on convoy duty.

I don't know the exact composition of the fleet the Germans used in Norway. But I suppose it could be destroyed in a landing in GB as well as in a landing in Norway - only that in GB, the defence will have to be tricked in some way, with fake landings, for instance.

 

[Wozza]

You don't need a port for that. If necessary, letting a boat or an old small ship with such a cannon run to the ground at the coast might be enough to fire a few hundred shots until the cannon is taken out. It should also quickly be possible to put some concrete over it, to gain a little bit more time and occupy the British more. Some fake cannons, which just blow some fire works, might also help. But usually, a big truck is all you need to transport a cannon of that reach from the beach to a suitable location.

Ingenious certainly, but desperate
I am really not sure about the practicality, and the vulnerability should be obvious

I don't know the exact composition of the fleet the Germans used in Norway. But I suppose it could be destroyed in a landing in GB as well as in a landing in Norway - only that in GB, the defence will have to be tricked in some way, with fake landings, for instance.

I was hoping you knew the Norway fleet in detail, as I do not! However I am fairly sure there were no landing ships, the airborne forces seized the ports I thought - certainly in the South, and the troops simply undocked. Some German ships had their own cranes also, but would still need a dock.
The main German losses in Norway were destroyers, valuable but does not solve the problem.

The problem during ahem sealion was that the Germans had no way to transport in any tanks or significant artillery, and the barges could be sunk in a heavy swell.

 

[jolo]

The problem during ahem sealion was that the Germans had no way to transport in any tanks or significant artillery, and the barges could be sunk in a heavy swell.

I was always under the assumption the Germans had (barely) enough boats and ships for a landing until loosing them in Norway. Light tanks and up to medium sized artillery also shouldn't be too much of a problem.

But a successful invasion definitely depends upon a lot of tanks and at least a few heavy guns being deployed in Britain, as especially the tanks were the only real advantage of the Germans, and even that only for a short window of opportunity before the British caught up.

If there was no possibility to land enough tanks, I rest my case...

 

[benedict XVII]

One of the possible divergences from a successful Norway campaign. could be that Béthouard refuses to send his troops back to France once the defeat over there becomes obvious. He had misgivings about that OTL and delayed the reimbarkement by several days. Béthouard takes the role of de Gaulle in this TL, only he has 35,000 well-equipped, crack men to start with. Maybe he can even rally part of the Royale, or even more of Africa than de Gaulle OTL?

 

[Halnzder Kverldak]

After the fall of France you would see British forces in Norway being reduced to supplement their Home Forces. The likelihood is Hitler would abandon Sea Lion (which he was never enthusiastic about) and launch a second invasion of Norway. How that plays out might make an interesting scenario. Of the top of my head guess they capture a large chunk of the south easily and the British fall back to the north and harder to displace.

Even if the Norwegian government unenthusiastically accepted the Allied invasion a good sector of their populace would not. Look for Quisling to have broader support.


Tom

It would be easier for the luftwaffen to win a battle of Norwy than a battle of england.
The UK would be seen as the occupier and Germany as the liberator, Quisling would certainly have more supporte and he`s pro-allied opponements would have a much narrower suporte.