What if Germany had not invaded Denmark or Norway?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

What if Germany had not invaded Denmark or Norway?

Post by Tim Smith » 08 Jun 2003 21:43

Three questions here:

1) Would the Allies have invaded Norway instead? If so, when and why?

The Germans suffered heavy losses and damage to their surface fleet in the Norwegian operation - Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were badly damaged and put out of action for months, the heavy cruiser Blucher and 12 destroyers were sunk.

2) Without the above naval losses, would the naval part of Operation Sealion have been successful, i.e. could the Kreigsmarine protect the invasion fleet? (Assume the Luftwaffe has driven most RAF fighters out of S.E. England.)

3) Assuming Operation Sealion had NOT been launched, would Germany be better or worse off than it was historically for not having invaded Denmark or Norway, and why?

User avatar
Baltasar
Financial supporter
Posts: 4613
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 15:56
Location: Germany

Post by Baltasar » 09 Jun 2003 17:22

Norway was a vital point in the german plan for conquering the european continent. The land offers good naval ports for subs and for the war against russia, it was vital to threaten this support line.

Denmark was alogical target, as it would be in the way of the advancing troops. Furthermore, German paratroopers could jump on south norway from there and it would shorten their supply lines while they needed nearly no troops to occupy the country.

I don't know which RN ships were involved in the invasion of norway, so I don't know if the Kriegsmarine could have been successful in driving of their opponents form the landing ships.

I don't think that germany would have been better of since the KN needed those ports in norway as an "Sprungbrett".

But what if the german torpedos would have worked in those days as they should? The RN would surely have suffered some more losses, may be even forcing them to abandon the plan for norway.

User avatar
Redbaron1908
Member
Posts: 2023
Joined: 31 Dec 2002 17:52
Location: Texas

Post by Redbaron1908 » 09 Jun 2003 20:09

I think that if the Germans did not invade Norway and Denmark the Allies would have in order to cut off the Iron Ore supplies from Sweden.

User avatar
Baltasar
Financial supporter
Posts: 4613
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 15:56
Location: Germany

Post by Baltasar » 09 Jun 2003 21:01

by attacking ships under swedish flag? I don't think so.

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 21:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: What if Germany had not invaded Denmark or Norway?

Post by Sam H. » 09 Jun 2003 21:22

Tim Smith wrote:Three questions here:

1) Would the Allies have invaded Norway instead? If so, when and why?

The Germans suffered heavy losses and damage to their surface fleet in the Norwegian operation - Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were badly damaged and put out of action for months, the heavy cruiser Blucher and 12 destroyers were sunk.

2) Without the above naval losses, would the naval part of Operation Sealion have been successful, i.e. could the Kreigsmarine protect the invasion fleet? (Assume the Luftwaffe has driven most RAF fighters out of S.E. England.)

3) Assuming Operation Sealion had NOT been launched, would Germany be better or worse off than it was historically for not having invaded Denmark or Norway, and why?
1) I think the allies would have invaded Norway before the fall of France. If I remeber correctly, they had planned to send a relief force to Finland through Norway. The allies wanted to contain the Germans and eliminate the iron ore experts that Germany was recieving.


2) If the Kreigsmarine had these vessels available for operation sea lion, they definetly would have made a diffrence. I don't believe they would be the deciding factor though. Something about transporting troops by river barge just gives me nightmares.

3) If Germany had not occupied Norway it would have been virtually powerless to halt the Murmansk run. I would expect to see even more vessels filed w/ lendlease supplies usaing this route. Not having Norway would also affect KM surface ship operations (the fleet would hide in the Baltic for most of the war) and if the allies had Norway, just think of how terrible the strategic bombing campaign would be flying from Norwegian bases!

User avatar
Redbaron1908
Member
Posts: 2023
Joined: 31 Dec 2002 17:52
Location: Texas

Post by Redbaron1908 » 09 Jun 2003 22:34

Baltasar wrote:by attacking ships under swedish flag? I don't think so.
Not exactly doing that but actually stoping the shipments of Iron Ore before they even got to the ships.

User avatar
Baltasar
Financial supporter
Posts: 4613
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 15:56
Location: Germany

Post by Baltasar » 10 Jun 2003 03:22

by attacking ships under swedish flag? I don't think so.

Not exactly doing that but actually stoping the shipments of Iron Ore before they even got to the ships.
Which leaves attacking a neutral country... either by commandos or air raid.

User avatar
Yevgeniy B.
Financial supporter
Posts: 3240
Joined: 18 May 2003 01:35
Location: Wilmette, ILLINOIS USA

answer

Post by Yevgeniy B. » 12 Jun 2003 05:01

I agree with Sam. if Germans would invade Denmark Norway Finland (SCANDINAVIA)
it would cut off the sea lines to Murmansk, and Achangesk pretty much.
Another fact I know that U.S. sand like aroung 20 ships with supplies to eastern front, only one made it there.

And then another question come up, why should germans waste their people and ammo to take those powerless, and maybe useless countries when they could have just load the Bultic sea, and part of Arctic ocean with submarines.

About invading Denmark, mostly islands, I though that the paratroops, would be great idea, I don't think Denmark had a heavy armor like tanks at that time.

Want to say sorry if my writing seems confusing, I am master in Russian, not english,:)

Yevg

User avatar
Baltasar
Financial supporter
Posts: 4613
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 15:56
Location: Germany

Post by Baltasar » 12 Jun 2003 09:00

Why invade Finland? There were already lots of tensions with russia, so Hitler must have seen them as a usefull ally instead of a worthy pray.

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 21:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by Sam H. » 12 Jun 2003 15:30

About invading Denmark, mostly islands, I though that the paratroops, would be great idea, I don't think Denmark had a heavy armor like tanks at that time.
Denmark offered little resistance and was unprepared for war. I think more Germans died in traffic accidents during the drive into the country then to enemy fire.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Post by Tim Smith » 12 Jun 2003 19:38

The Allies could not have conquered Denmark had they invaded it before 1944, unless they took Norway first. Denmark is too far away from English airfields, which means the Allies would have little fighter cover. The Germans would quickly move in and throw the Allies back into the sea.

User avatar
Yevgeniy B.
Financial supporter
Posts: 3240
Joined: 18 May 2003 01:35
Location: Wilmette, ILLINOIS USA

answer

Post by Yevgeniy B. » 14 Jun 2003 17:05

I agree about useful for allies airfields

Yngwie J.
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: 10 May 2003 17:49
Location: Norway

Post by Yngwie J. » 20 Jun 2003 21:14

Tim Smith wrote :
Would the Allies have invaded Norway instead? If so, when and why?
Britain and France had concrete plans concerning an invasion of Norway.
When ? I don´t know. But an attempt would have been futile after the German invasion of France. Why ? Because of the allready mentioned iron ores and naval ports. And to move the inevitable front to Norway, instead of fighting it out on French soil again.

An interesting question would be if an Anglo-French invasion would have met the same amount of resistance as the German did. One important aspect which comes to mind is how the Norwegian merchant fleet, one of the largest and most modern of its day, was virtually played right into the hands of the British.

Baltasar wrote :
Quote:
Quote:
by attacking ships under swedish flag? I don't think so.



Not exactly doing that but actually stoping the shipments of Iron Ore before they even got to the ships.

Which leaves attacking a neutral country... either by commandos or air raid.
Why wouldn´t they ? Norway was neutral too.


Yevg wrote :
Another fact I know that U.S. sand like aroung 20 ships with supplies to eastern front, only one made it there.
8O Are you suggesting that only one in twenty ships made it through ?


Sam H. wrote :
Denmark offered little resistance and was unprepared for war. I think more Germans died in traffic accidents during the drive into the country then to enemy fire.
:lol: I think more Germans died from syphilis than to Danish bullets.

User avatar
Feldmarshall Erwin Rommel
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 16 Nov 2002 09:42
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Feldmarshall Erwin Rommel » 01 Jul 2003 23:57

Yes, ever since the Winter War, the Allies wanted to land in Norway and cut off the ore deliveries to Germany. They asked the Norwegian government permission for this but this wasn't granted.

During the night of the 8th (evening before the German invasion) the British fleet layed three minefields along the Norwegian cost. I believe they had serious plans for invading norway later on, but the Germans beat them at it. (i can't find my info, so i can't be more specific)

User avatar
taivaansusi
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 21:12
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by taivaansusi » 02 Jul 2003 15:38

Feldmarshall Erwin Rommel wrote:Yes, ever since the Winter War, the Allies wanted to land in Norway and cut off the ore deliveries to Germany. They asked the Norwegian government permission for this but this wasn't granted.

During the night of the 8th (evening before the German invasion) the British fleet layed three minefields along the Norwegian cost. I believe they had serious plans for invading norway later on, but the Germans beat them at it. (i can't find my info, so i can't be more specific)
It is true. In Fall 1939, Western Allies had offered to help Finland against Soviet Union. French and Britain formed an expeditionary force (of approximately 14-16.000 soldiers, if I remember correctly). It would have resulted in a war between Soviet Union and Western Allies - which was not desirable. The offer of help was mostly political bluff aimed at domestic opinion, which heavily favored Finland's forlorn struggle against Soviet invader. The Expeditionary force was really formed, but it was in reality tasked to occupy neutral Norway, so that vital ore shipments could be cut off and Germany totally blockaded - quite the same plan the Allies used in World War I.

Norwegian goverment denied permission for Allied troops to land in Narvik and Oslo - there was a genuine fear that it would make Norway a battleground for the belligerents. It was a vain hope. Allied troops were ready to land nonetheless, when Hitler suddenly intervened and succeeded in capturing Norway only a days ahead of his enemies. Norway was vital for Germany, to keep its supply lines safe, and to break through allied blockade.

Return to “What if”