General Mobilization, Norway, March 1st 1940

[BDV]

Following persistent Anglo-French provocations and the non-reassuring behavior of German leadership, Norway Government declares general mobilization and deploys troops around the country's critical points.

How does THIS scenario work out?

[phylo_roadking]

The first and most obvious difference to OTL that could be anticipated would be that the Air Force's airfields are well-defended. The airfield landings turned out VERY costly for the Germans anyway in terms of both casualties AND aircraft; it could have been far worse.

Another obvious diference is that the Norwegian Army's reservists have time to reach their depots and equip. Puts the full Army on readiness and in their defensive positions...not turning up to some to find the Germans in possession of the depots first, or them deserted and locked!

Third - puts a lot of nice, healthy bodies in coastal forts etc. - and ready to do some work in between musters, like repairing/mounting guns etc that had been neglected for years. Annually, a third of the call-up were used as service/construction troops and their training cut to a minimum.

At Narvik...after the naval battles, the depots are empty so the Germans can't organise/arm/dress their scratch naval battalions they formed OTL from the beached KM destroyer crews.

[Dave Bender]

Britain is deterred from mining Norwegian coastal waters and from invading Narvik. Consequently Norway remains independent throughout WWII.

[phylo_roadking]

Dave, Britain and France were planning for MANY months to EITHER mine OR intervene in Northern Norway - no matter whether the Norwegians were happy about it or not!

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1335530

I don't think the Norwegian armed forces were going to deter them...

[Dave Bender]

I don't think the Norwegian armed forces were going to deter them

If the Anglo-French invasion still happens they will suffer a diplomatic black eye. Norway and possibly Sweden also will become co-belligerents vs the Anglo-French military alliance.

Meanwhile....
If Norway is willing to protect their sovereignty there will be no German invasion. Instead Germany will send military advisors and air support. The end result will be the same but Germany will have an additional army corps available for use during the May 1940 invasion of France. Over the long term Germany gains even more as they do not need to garrison Norway.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Everybody is happier.

The UK suffers less naval threat for the rest of the war and the Arctic convoys get through more intact.

Germany initially retains more of its fleet and late in the war has hundreds of thousands of spare men due to not having to garrison the country.

Norwegians don't suffer occupation or the consequential problems of healing the internal rifts of a collaboration that does not take place.

The Oxford English Dictionary has room for another entry where "quisling" now is. ("Quisling - the act of taking a minor part in quizzes"?)

Denmark isn't occupied as a vital stepping stone to Norway, but as a Gerrman precaution against later Allied invasion by an indirect route.

OK, everybody is happier except the Danes.

Cheers,

Sid.

[phylo_roadking]

Dave,

If the Anglo-French invasion still happens they will suffer a diplomatic black eye. Norway and possibly Sweden also will become co-belligerents vs the Anglo-French military alliance.

This is EXACTLY what they were prepared to do/risk Remember - they planned to go on and occupy Northern Sweden TOO...

If Norway is willing to protect their sovereignty there will be no German invasion. Instead Germany will send military advisors and air support.

That's a complete non-sequitor. If you read elsewhere - the norwegian government had a VERY...staunch...position on its Neutralty. They wouldn't invite the Germans in EITHER - and IF they did, the Allies would have actioned their attack to prevent that very thing. The Allies didn't want Norway - they wanted to stop the Germans having it and Swedish iron ore. Their plans didn't JUST include occupying Narvik - they included landings further south to stop the Germans advancing on the enclave....which means their plans presupposed the Germans were IN Norway to advance north, either "friendly" or by invading!

The UK suffers less naval threat for the rest of the war

Unless SOMEONE helps them or sells them what they need - the Norwegian Navy probably isn't strong enough on its own to police its own waters against U-Boats either operating there or transiting via them into the North Sea. And what there is in ASW capability...is going to date very quickly unless ditto - someone sells them better.

Germany initially retains more of its fleet and late in the war has hundreds of thousands of spare men due to not having to garrison the country.

Norwegians don't suffer occupation or the consequential problems of healing the internal rifts of a collaboration that does not take place.

This is presupposing a LOT, Sid - the British planned to "invade" Norway anyway - while Hitler ordered Weserubung on the fear of a British incursion One or other or BOTH of those will happen - it's just a matter of how/against whom the Norwegian government and army decide to react...

[Dave Bender]

After the Anglo-French invasion Norway will have no choice but to ask for assistance. Sweden will probably respond first as they will not allow Britain to seize Narvik and the Swedish iron mines. German assistance will be mostly military hardware and ammunition for Norway and Sweden. I would expect Denmark to beef up their coast defenses.

[phylo_roadking]

I would expect Denmark to beef up their coast defenses

What Denmark? Remember - Weserubung had TWO parts...

After the Anglo-French invasion Norway will have no choice but to ask for assistance.

More likely from the other Oslo Group countries; asking or accepting aid from Germany makes Norway a battleground, the one thing the Norwegian government wanted to avoid.

Sweden will have it's OWN problems in Gallivare to deal with; there was ALSO an element in the early plans for an incursion at Trondheim and across into SOUTHERN Sweden

And of course - once faced with the fait-accompli of an Allied "ocupation" of Narvik and other locations - you automatically assume the Norwegians WOULD react militarily in the medium/long-term? THEY are caught in the cleft that the "occupying powers" were the nations they ALSO (rightly or wrongly) believed/expected any protection against invasion would come from...

There's a chance they would not react. Certainly King Haakon was pro-British, as were a number of senior Army officers...as as we know from discussions elsewhere the majority of the Norwegian people belived the British were their ultimate protectors as they had been in WWI and before.

[BDV]

Were the Norwegian plans for defense in 1940 made public? How did the Anglo-French forces available for invasion stack up against what Norway would deploy?

[phylo_roadking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... #Norwegian

Six divisions, around 60,000 men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... tle#Allied

This is the historical Allied expeditionary force...compare it with here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4

The original "occupation" plans for the Narvik area alone. Two other landings were planned for further south, the furthest at Trondheim.

The problem was - that was the limit of Norway's trained reserve. The Allies could send more if necessary. On top of that there was the difference in equipment and training.

EDIT: nearly forgot...

Norwegian Navy

2 Coastal defence ships - HNoMS Eidsvold ,HNoMS Norge
7 Destroyers - Three Draug class: Troll, Garm and Draug. Plus four Sleipner class ships: Æger, Sleipner, Gyller and Odin 10 Minelayers.
8 Minesweepers.
9 Submarines
17 Torpedo Boats.
58 Patrol Craft (among others Pol III)

Allied naval contingent

4 Battleships - Resolution, Rodney, Valiant, and Warspite.
2 Battlecruiser - Renown and Repulse.
3 Aircraft carriers - Ark Royal, Furious and Glorious .
4 Heavy cruisers - Berwick, Devonshire, Suffolk, and York.
6 Light cruisers - Birmingham, Effingham, Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield, and Southampton.
5 Light Cruisers - Arethusa, Aurora, Coventry, Curlew, Enterprise, Galatea, and Penelope.
4 Anti-Air Cruisers - Cairo, Carlisle, Curacoa, Calcutta.
?? Minesweepers.
21 Destroyers. - HMS Acasta, HMS Ardent, HMS Bedouin, HMS Cossack, HMS Eskimo, HMS Punjabi, HMS Hero, HMS Icarus, HMS Kimberley, HMS Forester, HMS Foxhound, HMS Hardy, HMS Hunter, HMS Hotspur, HMS Havock, HMS Hostile, HMS Gurkha, HMS Glowworm, HMS Wolverine, HMS Zulu
17 Submarines.
And IIRC 15 armed trawlers of the RN Patrol Service acting as Fleet Auxiliaries
PLUS
2 French Cruisers: Emile Bertin and Montcalm.
11 French Destroyers.
1 French Submarine.
3 Polish Destroyers: ORP Błyskawica, ORP Burza, ORP Grom.
1 Polish Submarine: ORP Orzel.
3 Polish Transport ships: MS Chrobry, MS Sobieski, MS Batory


The SEA battle won't last long...

[Dave Bender]

Sweden is likely to rush a couple of army corps to Narvik using the rail line that Britain intended to seize.

[John T]

Following persistent Anglo-French provocations and the non-reassuring behavior of German leadership, Norway Government declares

general mobilization and deploys troops around the country's critical points.

How does THIS scenario work out?

As everyone else I agree that this would most probable stop German invasion planning.
OR atleast no chance they would try a forced entry as Weserübung.

When it comes to the Allies, Norwegians would still not want to lose blood for the sake of the "Decent British" using a few bases. And as long the Allies continued to make it clear that their aims wasn't to erridicate Norwegian soveregnity but only to stop German supplies it would been more of an extention to the wartrade agreement than a declaration of war.
I expect Norwegian non-violent actions as removing rolling stock and such, but no fighting.

Or if the allies felt more secure feeling that Norway could take care of herself, just allied mining Norwegian territorial waters, and in such case the Norwegians might not been that fast at clearing the minefields either.


The German reaction must now be based on Sweden - and this scenario where the Swedish Nightmare No 1.
Germany had explicitly declared that stopping the Iron ore deliveries would been casus belli.
Either the Swedes manage to defend herself against the Allies alone (not to hard given the Allied track record from the Norwegian campaing).
And persuade the Germans that she could do it herself with whatever supplies Germany wanted to sell to Sweden.
Germany had sold weapons to Sweden during the winter war and the Swedish wish list contained:
He114, HE115, ME109, JU-87, 37mm PAK, 105mm arty, 20mm AA, and so on

But the risk would bee that Germany believed sha had to invade Sweden and Norway but this time starting of in Southern Sweden.
Cheers
/John T

[phylo_roadking]

I expect Norwegian non-violent actions as removing rolling stock and such, but no fighting.

I think the British would be quite happy with that...certainly makes moving Swedish ore hard for any "potential 3rd party liberator"

Or if the allies felt more secure feeling that Norway could take care of herself, just allied mining Norwegian territorial waters, .

The two plans - landing and mining - in the end went hand-in-hand; it was only in the early days of the development of Ironside's "occupation" plan that one was seen as a "low impact" (apart from to the ships!) alternative to the other. Remember, the mining wasn't JUST to stop the ore traffic, but to prevent U-Boats operating inside Norwegian waters...

and in such case the Norwegians might not been that fast at clearing the minefields either

...and the Norwegians didn't do much to stop them...

Either the Swedes manage to defend herself against the Allies alone (not to hard given the Allied track record from the Norwegian campaing).

Only in the south, when they were stopped north of Lillehammer. At Narvik the Allies stomped all over the opposition when the landings took place - that's what comes of letting the Foreign Legion loose!

Sweden is likely to rush a couple of army corps to Narvik using the rail line that Britain intended to seize

THIS is going to be rather difficult for them; first of all - the Allies will be in possession of Narvik to trigger such a reaction; before the Germans started fortifying the town and shore, there was little or nothing there; the Norwegians had shipped a battery of naval guns to the town a decade before - but hadn't mounted them!

Next - that railway line...that single-track railway line

An outstanding example of this is provided by the mushroom growth of the town of Narvik on a barren peninsula of rock in the Ofotfjord, at the inner end of the Artic Vestfjord. This locality had hitherto provided a meagre living for a handful of fisherman, to whom the warm water was more important then the inhospitable land. But in 1902 a railway was brought through from the Swedish frontier, involving a descent of 1,700 feet through nineteen tunnels in twenty three miles

How many of them do the British NEED to blow up?

And finally - the Swedes had snarled up their own railway network. Their moving forces north to the Finnish frontier in February, and trying to move supplies for Finalnd through, created chaos. This was even discussed in the British Cabinet in February 1940; Churchill even suggested lending the Swedes British railway managers to try and smooth out the difficulties!

[Carl Schwamberger]

I suspose the best case for the allies is a partial & discrete Norwegian mobilization. Things proceed as per OTL until the Germans hit just enough Norwegian resistance the Allies can arrive. By 7 or 8 May it is clear the Germans have lost this round tho some bridgeheads remain. So...

1. Does Sweden intervene in any way?

2. Does Hitler go ahead with the planned attack on Belgium/Holland/France?

3. Do the British still pack it in in June and abandon Norway?