The Allies invade neutral countries to cut off German imports of crucial metals

[historygeek2021]

Indeed, there was effectively zero chrome shipments from Turkey to Germany from 1 September 1939 until late 1943. How is an Allied invasion of Turkey in 1943 going to reduce nonexistent shipments? How is an Allied invasion of Turkey supposed to key Turkey pro-Allied?

Germany and Turkey signed an agreement in October 1941 to resume chrome shipments in 1943. Thus, the Allies would have until then to apply diplomatic pressure, backed up by the threat of blockade and invasion, to convince Turkey not to ship ore to Germany.

If the British stayed in Narvik in May 1940 it would not have been for long. They had a single weak brigade after the French and Poles were withdrawn. Britain was not going to supply coal to Sweden via Narvik because of Trondheim, well Vaernes. The Germans had air superiority and were about to have air supremacy over Norway by late May 1940. The other problem for the weak British brigade if they stayed at Narvik was 2. Gebirgs-Division, which, despite poor roads and 85 miles of no roads during the last leg, marched to Narvik from Trondheim 5-13 June. The Swedes also, despite being pro-Allied, allowed supplies to be shipped via their rail to the German defenders at Narvik, well, rations, medical supplies, and specialist personnel, not ammunition, but the last was not a problem since they were able to air drop ammunition by flying from Vaernes to Narvik, because, well air superiority.

The Allied force in Narvik numbered 24,500 in early June. The Germans landed in Narvik with 4,500, received an additional 1,050 reinforcements (by air, not through Sweden, per DRZW Volume II), and had a relief force of 2,800 troops from southern Norway marching north through barren terrain with no road. That's 24,500 Allied soldiers vs 8,350 Germans. Five of the seventeen Allied battalions were French who may have left regardless of a British/Polish/Norwegian decision to fight on, but that still leaves the Allies with numerical superiority. Narvik was well out of fighter range from the nearest Luftwaffe bases near Trondheim, so Germany did not have air superiority at Narvik. Per DRZW, the food and medical supplies and specialists that Sweden allowed through were "very limited". The Allies could be supplied by sea, the Germans only by air.

[Carl Schwamberger]

The air campaigns against the Axis transportation systems arguably were the more succesfull of the bombing effort. Im wondering if increased interdiction of the Axis transportation might be more efficient than invading these neutral nations.

True, but the strategic bombing campaign didn't really start to pay off until late 1944,

The transportation campaigns were successful earlier. That in NW France effectively isolated the Normandy battlefield. As early as 1 May the arriving supply to 7th Army depots were less than 30% of requirements (15% if you use the pessimistic accounting). Operation STRANGLE executed against the Italian railways in the spring of 1944 left Kesselring with a similar problem of the army depots south of Rome drawing down as consumption outran deliveries.

If you count naval transport the US was doing successful interdiction campaigns back in 1942.

[KDF33]

The Allied force in Narvik numbered 24,500 in early June. The Germans landed in Narvik with 4,500, received an additional 1,050 reinforcements (by air, not through Sweden, per DRZW Volume II), and had a relief force of 2,800 troops from southern Norway marching north through barren terrain with no road. That's 24,500 Allied soldiers vs 8,350 Germans. Five of the seventeen Allied battalions were French who may have left regardless of a British/Polish/Norwegian decision to fight on, but that still leaves the Allies with numerical superiority. Narvik was well out of fighter range from the nearest Luftwaffe bases near Trondheim, so Germany did not have air superiority at Narvik. Per DRZW, the food and medical supplies and specialists that Sweden allowed through were "very limited". The Allies could be supplied by sea, the Germans only by air.

I'm at a loss here. Do you actually believe that the British, after the defeat of France in 1940, could maintain a presence in Norway even if the Germans firmly decided to allocate the necessary resources to their expulsion?

[Peter89]

Spain was economically dependent on the Allies. There is no way they would resist an Allied landing. To do so would mean mass starvation, as Spain couldn't feed itself and Germany couldn't feed them either. In fact, the Allies simply had to threaten to completely blockade Spain (and Portugal) back in 1940 to induce them to stop selling wolfram to Germany. In any event, Spain's military was a joke compared to the Allies. It lacked the equipment, tanks, motorization, air power, training, etc. to fight against American forces that defeated far better trained and equipped Germany units throughout the war. Germany's only connection to Spain was a single rail line through the Bordeaux corridor that was in range of coastal bombardment. With Vichy France staying neutral due to the Allies landing in Spain rather than Morocco, Germany could be effectively blocked from sending forces to Spain. If Germany violates French neutrality, then all of French North Africa enters the war on the side of the Allies.

Turkey was self-sufficient agriculturally and its biggest trading partner before the war was Germany, but Turkey was still a pro-Allied country that wanted to reduce its dependence on Germany and did so in the OTL by completely stopping its chrome shipments to Germany starting in 1939. Turkey was completely dependent on the Allies for oil and the threat of Allied blockade in 1944 caused panic throughout the country and its Parliament swiftly ordered a halt to the chrome trade with Germany. Following the defeat of Rommel at El Alamein in November 1942, there was no longer any Axis threat to the Suez Canal. Montgomery could have diverted his forces north instead of chasing Rommel across a desert that had no strategic importance. With Montgomery's forces on its doorstep and the Allies in control of Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean, Turkey would have yielded to Allied threats of invasion and blockade and halted its chrome trade with Germany.

Sweden was the most economically dependent of these three countries on Germany, being surrounded by Germany during the OTL and dependent on Germany for shipments of coal. But what if the British had stayed in Narvik in 1940? Britain was abundant in coal and could have supplied Sweden through Narvik. The Swedish population were pro-Allied and Sweden was better prepared to defend itself against German invasion than Norway. But what Sweden really feared was Russia. When the Allies abandoned Narvik, Germany was Sweden's only help against the Russian Baltic fleet. With a continued British presence in Narvik, Britain can offer military aid to Sweden and Finland, and Stalin will be less inclined to oppose Britain in Finland given that he is now alone on the continent facing Hitler. Finland could have been effectively prevented from joining Germany in Operation Barbarossa, and both countries could have been induced to cut off iron, nickel and copper exports to Germany.

Your analysis is simply wrong.

Narvik could not be sustained via sea for many reasons. First, the Brits had to cross the sea to supply it, and naval losses would soon be unacceptable, like at Crete. Second, German superiority was not to be underestimated, and the pressure would only grow with time. Maybe the Brits could cling on to Narvik for a few more months, but Third, it would make no sense, the Germans successfully re-routed the ore shipments to the Baltic sea (did you read the paper I've quoted?)

Turkey was by no means pro-Allied, it was looking for its own interests, and played the three parties against each other. When Turkey fell under German influence, they've favored the Allies; when they fell under Allied influence, they favored the Germans as long as the result of the war did not become obvious. Had there been an Allied threat in 1942, the Germans would counterbalance it. Btw, Turkey was stockpiling amazing quantities of chrome by 1942, and they mostly hoarded it in the northwestern part of the country, easily within German reach. Even the threat of these resources falling under German control would not simply ruin the economic warfare efforts, but also would make the whole operation pointless. Given how small amount of Turkish chrome was shipped to Germany, a tenth of Turkey's stocks would ruin the Allied effort already.

The Spanish have anticipated an Allied intervention in 1940-1941, but as the German threat became more clear, they slowly redirected their forces to the Pyrennes. Had there been an Allied threat or would it materialize, the Spanish would not join forces with the Allies but with the Germans, at least until the Allies could make substantial progress. It would also mean that the wolfram stocks stored in the Pyrennes would be seized or delivered to the Germans, making the whole campaign pointless.

[Peter89]

Btw, Spain was a net food exporter, but it lacked certain types of food, so integrating it into the Reich's food system is different than simply looking at their dependency in grain and cereal imports. The Spanish produced a lot of foodstuffs which the Germans lacked and could use.

There's a WI thread on another forum about the "Iberian invasion", which also revealed that the early German occupation of Iberia might yield a number of secondary results for Germany, including cutting off the iron ore and potash exports for Britain.

The possible integration of Iberia into the Reich's ecosystem was probably a big enough fear of the Allies.

[historygeek2021]

I'm at a loss here. Do you actually believe that the British, after the defeat of France in 1940, could maintain a presence in Norway even if the Germans firmly decided to allocate the necessary resources to their expulsion?

The Germans had no means of allocating resources to Narvik. Most of the German fleet was destroyed or undergoing repair, and even at full strength the Kriegsmarine was no match for the Royal Navy. Narvik was out of range of the Luftwaffe. There was no road or rail line connecting Narvik to German occupied Norway. In short, there was nothing Germany could do to eject the British from Narvik.

[Peter89]

I'm at a loss here. Do you actually believe that the British, after the defeat of France in 1940, could maintain a presence in Norway even if the Germans firmly decided to allocate the necessary resources to their expulsion?

The Germans had no means of allocating resources to Narvik. Most of the German fleet was destroyed or undergoing repair, and even at full strength the Kriegsmarine was no match for the Royal Navy. Narvik was out of range of the Luftwaffe. There was no road or rail line connecting Narvik to German occupied Norway. In short, there was nothing Germany could do to eject the British from Narvik.

What naval losses would it worth to maintain that garrison in Narvik?

Btw Narvik was NOT outside the range of the Luftwaffe; it was outside the range of certain types.

Anyways; the Germans captured eg. Bodö, and quickly built a proper airfield there, thus coming in range of the area. With months passing by, the Brits had zero chance to maintain that garrison.

[Richard Anderson]

Germany and Turkey signed an agreement in October 1941 to resume chrome shipments in 1943. Thus, the Allies would have until then to apply diplomatic pressure, backed up by the threat of blockade and invasion, to convince Turkey not to ship ore to Germany.

Indeed, and the wartime shipments began sometime after 23 October 1943, so late in fact that it appears the Germans counted them as arriving in 1944. Thus, we are looking at Allied planning for late 1943 and early 1944, when the Allies were firmly ensconced in Italy and priorities were on SHINGLE and AVALANCHE. Is the idea if diplomatic pressure doesn't work, which did eventually IRL, then the Allies will simply abandon operations in Italy, SHINGLE, and NEPTUNE in favor of invading Turkey in order to prevent chromium from there reaching Germany in 1944?

The Allied force in Narvik numbered 24,500 in early June.

Sorry, but no. The Allies had roughly 24,500 personnel in northern Sweden, covering an area from Ballangen to Tromos, scattered at 13 different embarkation points. By 24 May, the French were already committed to a withdrawal

The Germans landed in Narvik with 4,500, received an additional 1,050 reinforcements (by air, not through Sweden, per DRZW Volume II), and had a relief force of 2,800 troops from southern Norway marching north through barren terrain with no road.

Yes, my fault for going from memory. The Germans airlifted in 1,050 combatants by air, the Swedes only allowed "noncombatant specialists" through by train, mostly medical personnel. Of course, the Allies did not know that and estimated the Germans were capable of airlifting thousands more, mostly because they were observing nearly daily resupply flights that they were unable to do anything about, since, well, again, air superiority. The main allied ground-based air was Bardufoss, 50-odd miles away and they had no effective early warning or intercept capability. The main German base at Trondheim was 400 miles away, although the occupied the Allied base at Bodo on 1 June, just 112 miles away.

BTW, only the last 85 miles to Narvik were without roads, the roads north from Trondheim were poor and not always contiguous, but they were there. It may also have been barren, but the Gebirgsjäger were designed for barren terrain. The advance guard marched over 800 kilometers to there in nine days.

That's 24,500 Allied soldiers vs 8,350 Germans. Five of the seventeen Allied battalions were French who may have left regardless of a British/Polish/Norwegian decision to fight on, but that still leaves the Allies with numerical superiority.

Are you unaware that the four battalions comprising 4,778 Polish troops were French? They were French armed, organized, equipped, and commanded. They did not like the idea of retreating, but they did, because they were under French command. Nine of the seventeen battalions committed were French. Three were British. The remaining five were Norwegian, two of which were very weak, one partially surrendered to the Germans initially at Narvik and the other badly used up in the first Norwegian counterattacks. Once the French departed, there were three British battalions and three effective Norwegian battalions.

Narvik was well out of fighter range from the nearest Luftwaffe bases near Trondheim, so Germany did not have air superiority at Narvik. Per DRZW, the food and medical supplies and specialists that Sweden allowed through were "very limited". The Allies could be supplied by sea, the Germans only by air.

Counting only those vessels sunk or damaged requiring yard repair, the Luftwaffe did the following in the Norwegian Campaign.

17 April - CA Suffolk badly damaged by Ju 88
24 April - CLAA Curacoa badly damaged by bombs
3 May - DD Afridi and Bison sunk by Ju 87
4 May - DD Grom sunk by Ju 87
7 May - CL Aurora and DD Blyskawica damaged by bombs
16 May - BB Resolution, Sloop Fleetwood, and Tanker Broomdale damaged by bombs
21 May - two ASW trawlers sunk by bombs
23 May - DD Milan, Fame, and Firedrake damaged by bombs
25 May - three ASW trawlers sunk by bombs
26 May - CLAA Curlew sunk by bombs
28 May - CLAA Cairo and DD Walker damaged by bombs

Note that the loss of escorts to sinking and damage off Norway and Dunkirk meant that the two groups of troop and supply transports used for the evacuation sailed from Norway without escort as a calculated risk. They rendezvoused with an escort group mid-ocean for the trip back to England and Scotland.

[Richard Anderson]

The Germans had no means of allocating resources to Narvik. Most of the German fleet was destroyed or undergoing repair, and even at full strength the Kriegsmarine was no match for the Royal Navy. Narvik was out of range of the Luftwaffe. There was no road or rail line connecting Narvik to German occupied Norway. In short, there was nothing Germany could do to eject the British from Narvik.

Um, if Narvik was out of range of the Luftwaffe, then how is it that the sunk and damaged British, French, and Polish ships in the waters off Narvik?

If there was no road or rail line connecting Narvik to German occupied Norway how did the 2. Gebirgs-Division get there? Swim?

[historygeek2021]

There was a single road in poor condition that ended in Sórfold. The remaining 150 kilometers had to be traversed over mountainous terrain, which took 10 days for specialized mountain troops. The Germans could only deliver supplies by air.

The Polish troops could have stayed and been supplied by the British. The British could have sent reinforcements, and it would have been much easier for them to do so than the Germans, who were only capable of doing so by air and over 150 miles of mountainous terrain with no roads.

The nearest German airfield was at Bodo, which the Germans captured on June 1, a week after the Allied decision to withdraw. It took the Germans until August to build a new airstrip there.

The Allies had numerical superiority, better logistics and naval supremacy. The Allies could and did build their own airfields, giving them air superiority in an area out of range of Luftwaffe fighters.

Edit: typo

[John T]

If there was no road or rail line connecting Narvik to German occupied Norway how did the 2. Gebirgs-Division get there? Swim?

Walk.

It was no road or rail, they walked in a terrain where no cart could go.
And during this period early June, the snow was in such bad shape that sleds didn't go either.

Cheers
/John

[Richard Anderson]

If there was no road or rail line connecting Narvik to German occupied Norway how did the 2. Gebirgs-Division get there? Swim?

Walk.

It was no road or rail, they walked in a terrain where no cart could go.
And during this period early June, the snow was in such bad shape that sleds didn't go either.

Cheers
/John

Indeed John, it was a rhetorical question. The last 130-odd kilometers was trackless. Nevertheless, the leading element of 2. Gebirgs-Division got there in nine days.

[John T]

The Polish troops could have stayed and been supplied by the British. The British could have sent reinforcements, and it would have been much easier for them to do so than the Germans, who were only capable of doing so by air and over 150 miles of mountainous terrain with no roads.

What British forces were able to fight in that environment?
Gurkhas?

The nearest German airfield was at Bodo, which the Germans captured on June 1, a week after the Allied decision to withdraw. It took the Germans until August to build a new airstrip there.

Did not hider the Germans to operate from temporary bases.

cheers
/John

[John T]

If there was no road or rail line connecting Narvik to German occupied Norway how did the 2. Gebirgs-Division get there? Swim?

Walk.

It was no road or rail, they walked in a terrain where no cart could go.
And during this period early June, the snow was in such bad shape that sleds didn't go either.

Cheers
/John

Indeed John, it was a rhetorical question. The last 130-odd kilometers was trackless. Nevertheless, the leading element of 2. Gebirgs-Division got there in nine days.

They could walk there as the Poles had gone, and came with very little supply.
So if Britain finds it appropriate to sacrifice the free Poles, they could have delayed the Germans for some time.

But Narvik could not be the lifeline of Sweden, it was an Export harbor for Iron ore.
Purpose-built to drop ore from railcars into chutes down in ships.
The Fagernaes quay, used for normal goods was minuscule by comparison.

So The allies could have destroyed the regiment of Gebirgsjäger and stayed in Narvik for some time if even indefinite it would not change the German supply situation.

Would the notion of a Free North-Norway be worth it ?


Cheers
/John

[Richard Anderson]

There was a single road in poor condition that ended in Sórfold. The remaining 150 miles had to be traversed over mountainous terrain, which took 10 days for specialized mountain troops. The Germans could only deliver supplies by air.

The Germans could only deliver military supplies by air, i.e., ammunition and weapons. The Swedes let them transport rations and medical supplies by rail.

The Polish troops could have stayed and been supplied by the British. The British could have sent reinforcements, and it would have been much easier for them to do so than the Germans, who were only capable of doing so by air and over 150 miles of mountainous terrain with no roads.

The Poles were French troops, under French command, enlisted under oath to the French government. Are they supposed to mutiny? Who instigates that? Perfidious Albion?

If it was so easy for the British to deploy forces to Norway in general and Narvik in particular, then why were Maurice Force (146 Infantry Brigade) withdrawn from Namsos to England and Sickel Force (15 and 148 Infantry Brigade) withdrawn from Aandalsnes to England weeks before Avon Force (24 Guards Brigade) was withdrawn from Narvik? Wouldn't it have made more sense to move the other two forces to concentrate at Narvik?

The nearest German airfield was at Bodo, which the Germans captured on June 1, a week after the Allied decision to withdraw. It took the Germans until August to build a new airstrip there.

No, it took until August for the Germans to improve the forward airstrip built by the British at Bodo. I am uncertain why the transfer of a grass strip unimproved airfield from RAF to Luftwaffe hands makes it unusable?

The Allies had numerical superiority, better logistics and naval supremacy. The Allies could and did build their own airfields, giving them air superiority in an area out of range of Luftwaffe fighters.

By the end of May, the Allies had a rump division in northern Norway, a collapsed front in France, desperate evacuations from France, and a badly over-extended RAF and RN, supported by a shaken French Navy. Their logistics were dependent on maintaining the sea lane from England to Narvik, which was something the RN was not exactly sanguine about.

So, if the Allies could so easily build airfields, a skill apparently the Germans lacked, why did they build essentially just two, Bodo and Bardufoss? Why did they not man them with more than a handful of RAF Gladiators and RN Skuas and Fulmars?