No German invasion of Norway in April 1940.
- Thread starter Cook
- Start date
Then they will be invaded later. Either they do it themselves or in response to the inevitable British landing, take your pick. If they let the Brits land, then kicking them out again might delay the Russian campaign. And the opportunity to land in northern Europe might distract the British from the attempted Greek campaign.
None of which will I pretend I have researched in any serious fashion. These are just the first notions that come to mind.
None of which will I pretend I have researched in any serious fashion. These are just the first notions that come to mind.
Why no invasion and occupation of Denmark and Norway. It is a logical pre-move to the assualt on the west, since it secures a northern flank and provides the German surface and U-boat fleets with the Norwegian coast as a base.
Denmark and Norway invasion
The German military would see the securing of both these countries as essential to Germanys future. THe British blockade some 20 years earlier choked off Germany. That cant be allowed to happen again.
Idealogically Hitler wants to unite the Arian peoples which includes Denmark and Norway and thus Germanys influence over Scandanavia. Whilst in the early part of 1940 there is some question over whether or not he wants to invade /conquer the UK its clear he doesn't want the UK to have mastery of the seas and to that end requires Denmark and Norway. This will secure sea bases for securing sea routes and securing long term Iron Ore and other minerals from Sweden.
The German military would see the securing of both these countries as essential to Germanys future. THe British blockade some 20 years earlier choked off Germany. That cant be allowed to happen again.
Idealogically Hitler wants to unite the Arian peoples which includes Denmark and Norway and thus Germanys influence over Scandanavia. Whilst in the early part of 1940 there is some question over whether or not he wants to invade /conquer the UK its clear he doesn't want the UK to have mastery of the seas and to that end requires Denmark and Norway. This will secure sea bases for securing sea routes and securing long term Iron Ore and other minerals from Sweden.
Fearless Leader
Donor
Well I agree with the above posters that Norway/Denmark will be invaded by the Nazis at some point.
That being said I think it's reasonable to see Hitler prioritizing attacking the West...
One potential butterfly effect could surround the invasion of the Netherlands. In OTL the German airborne attack on the Netherlands was supposed to be a surprise but the Dutch got wise to it and bloodily repulsed the German invaders. This included derailing a plan to capture Queen Wilhelmina and force peace on the collaborationist members of the Dutch government. Without the experience of Denmark, the airborne attack on Holland might just succeed...
That being said I think it's reasonable to see Hitler prioritizing attacking the West...
One potential butterfly effect could surround the invasion of the Netherlands. In OTL the German airborne attack on the Netherlands was supposed to be a surprise but the Dutch got wise to it and bloodily repulsed the German invaders. This included derailing a plan to capture Queen Wilhelmina and force peace on the collaborationist members of the Dutch government. Without the experience of Denmark, the airborne attack on Holland might just succeed...
BlondieBC
Banned
War comes to Norway later in 1940 or possibly 1941 at the latest. It is plausible that Germany would decide to concentrate on France first. In this case, the British would mine Norwegian waters. After the fall of France, both Britain and Germany would have strategic needs to take Norway. Germany would end up taking Norway due to being stronger on land and air. Butterflies:
1) If the British shut down iron ore from Narvik in 1940/1941 winter, it will slow German production.
2) Britain may move first in the ATL. The British also likely attack the French fleet in Oran in OTL. The British will look more like the aggressive war party compared to OTL, so it will be harder for FDR to come to Britain aid. If the major USA military registration bill is changed or FDR is not able to provide lend/lease support to the UK, there are major changes.
3) The invasion of Russia is likely impacted. After the fall of France, there will be an additional war in Norway. The British may do the Norway operation instead of operations related to Greece.
4) Germany actively fighting in Norway may delay the Central European countries allying with Germany, since Germany victory will be slower and less decisive than OTL.
In summary, Germany will still end up with Denmark and Norway, but the operation could take months is the British land forces get there first, and especially, if the RN does a max effort to defend Norway. Narvik is conquerable using over land forces only, but the terrain is hard to operate over. In the ATL, the British probably destroy the port in Narvik and much of the railroad leading to Narvik from Sweden. This harms German arms production substantially. To outsiders such as Americans, the moral difference between the British and the Nazi's will seem smaller. The invasion of Russia will be changed, but it is hard to quantify how it will be changed. A war in Norway after France is a major strategic change, and will have many ripples in time.
1) If the British shut down iron ore from Narvik in 1940/1941 winter, it will slow German production.
2) Britain may move first in the ATL. The British also likely attack the French fleet in Oran in OTL. The British will look more like the aggressive war party compared to OTL, so it will be harder for FDR to come to Britain aid. If the major USA military registration bill is changed or FDR is not able to provide lend/lease support to the UK, there are major changes.
3) The invasion of Russia is likely impacted. After the fall of France, there will be an additional war in Norway. The British may do the Norway operation instead of operations related to Greece.
4) Germany actively fighting in Norway may delay the Central European countries allying with Germany, since Germany victory will be slower and less decisive than OTL.
In summary, Germany will still end up with Denmark and Norway, but the operation could take months is the British land forces get there first, and especially, if the RN does a max effort to defend Norway. Narvik is conquerable using over land forces only, but the terrain is hard to operate over. In the ATL, the British probably destroy the port in Narvik and much of the railroad leading to Narvik from Sweden. This harms German arms production substantially. To outsiders such as Americans, the moral difference between the British and the Nazi's will seem smaller. The invasion of Russia will be changed, but it is hard to quantify how it will be changed. A war in Norway after France is a major strategic change, and will have many ripples in time.
i recall someone mentioning in another thread that at the same time the germans started invading norway the british were going to actively mine the norwegian coast, and that the germans just beat the british by days with starting hostile action against norway.
So with the british mining the norwegian waters might see norway being pushed into the axis realm. if no invasion of denmark, then sooner or later denmark will be part of the axis too when the british invade iceland.
The invasion of iceland had to take place one way or another, but with britain being agressive to 2 neutral countries would give roosevelt a hard time getting lend lease through i guess.
If the germans are not invading norway or denmark, I could very well see them repeat ww1 and not violate dutch territory. The netherlands was always seen as a 'related' country an as such the invasion of the netherlands was not really popular with some germans. So in case of no scandinavian invasion i see it as very likely that they would bypass the netherlands too.
edit: in case the british would destroy narvik, sweden might move closer to germany, because it is hurting their exports.
edit2: in case no lendlease, massive butterflies, for starters norway might help finland and just wondering if their combined troops would be enough to capture the kola penisula (with murmansk) and karelia & leningrad. this would mean even there is lendlease for the ussr, they will not be able to receive it (it would have to come thought the black sea, or all the way over the transsiberian railway, both is rather unlikely). And operation barbarossa might just be enough successful to push stalin into asking for peace.
So with the british mining the norwegian waters might see norway being pushed into the axis realm. if no invasion of denmark, then sooner or later denmark will be part of the axis too when the british invade iceland.
The invasion of iceland had to take place one way or another, but with britain being agressive to 2 neutral countries would give roosevelt a hard time getting lend lease through i guess.
If the germans are not invading norway or denmark, I could very well see them repeat ww1 and not violate dutch territory. The netherlands was always seen as a 'related' country an as such the invasion of the netherlands was not really popular with some germans. So in case of no scandinavian invasion i see it as very likely that they would bypass the netherlands too.
edit: in case the british would destroy narvik, sweden might move closer to germany, because it is hurting their exports.
edit2: in case no lendlease, massive butterflies, for starters norway might help finland and just wondering if their combined troops would be enough to capture the kola penisula (with murmansk) and karelia & leningrad. this would mean even there is lendlease for the ussr, they will not be able to receive it (it would have to come thought the black sea, or all the way over the transsiberian railway, both is rather unlikely). And operation barbarossa might just be enough successful to push stalin into asking for peace.
Last edited:
There were at least two earlier threads on this at https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=143009 and https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=112948.
My own ideas were in the earlier thread although I am certainly not an expert on US politics.
My own ideas were in the earlier thread although I am certainly not an expert on US politics.