OP Weserübung 1940

[phylo_roadking]

And with that statement - I think it's fair to say I won't be learning much from you.

It is not exactly like there were many countries invaded by Germany without Hitler knowing about it.

And you think invading countries was ALL Hitler did?

BTW - what's the point of saying -

It is not exactly like there were many countries invaded by Germany without Hitler knowing about it

AFTER saying...

It is highly doubtful given that Hitler had last say in Germany

The two positions are incompatible.

Instead, how about...

1/ providing even a single example of a major offensive or strategic action such as invading a country that Hitler DIDN'T have a last say in?

2/ providing some of the often-repeated "evidence is supposedly found in Kriegsmarine files and internal correspondence"?

And can you also please STOP posting up...

What were the most important matters regarding Norway, prompting the launch of Op Weserübung?

Why did the Germans launch Op Weserübung?

Fred - what were the main reason/reasons for the German invasion of Norway and Denmark?

....we all read it the first time.

[Wolf]

To my knowledge, the go-ahead was given long before the British started mining. That started on April 8th. At that time the slowest German transports had already been in the sea for a while. The actual landings started on April 9th. However, there was much talk of mining Norwegian territory before that.

You are correct.

It would be interesting to hear the views of more people on the forum as to what (they think) caused Weserübung. It would also be interesting to know what books and other sources availiable in various countries claim to be the primary motives behind the invasion....

[phylo_roadking]

It would also be interesting to know what books and other sources availiable in various countries claim to be the primary motives behind the invasion....

Have you read any yet?

[Wolf]

And you think invading countries was ALL Hitler did?

Of course not, but this thread is mainly about Weserübung and the invasion of Norway (Denmark), which is what we were discussing above. Feel free to start a thread yourself about whatever invasions or other things you think were done in Hitlers name (without him knowing it).

BTW - what's the point of saying -

The point is to make it clear to you that we are discussing Op Weserübung and the invasion of especially Norway. It is not something that is likely to have happened without Hitler knowing, or him giving the go-ahead.

1/ providing even a single example of a major offensive or strategic action such as invading a country that Hitler DIDN'T have a last say in?

I have no idea why you first argue that things were done without Hitler knowing then want me to provide examples of major actions he did not have last say in.

2/ providing some of the often-repeated "evidence is supposedly found in Kriegsmarine files and internal correspondence"?

No I can not. I have never seen any such evidence. I have however come across a Danish poster on the internet who claims to be a historian and who is the origin of this view as far as I know. This sparked my interest in the subject and that is why I am asking. I don't believe it myself, but I am curious of what information and interpretations others have.

And can you also please STOP posting up...

What were the most important matters regarding Norway, prompting the launch of Op Weserübung?

Why did the Germans launch Op Weserübung?

Fred - what were the main reason/reasons for the German invasion of Norway and Denmark?

....we all read it the first time.

I don't think the answers so far have been entirely satisfying. I would like for more people to give their view.

[Wolf]

Have you read any yet?

Several - but mainly books of Swedish and Norwegian origin.

[phylo_roadking]

BTW - what's the point of saying -

The point is to make it clear to you that we are discussing Op Weserübung and the invasion of especially Norway. It is not something that is likely to have happened without Hitler knowing, or him giving the go-ahead.

Then why are you not accepting what Quisling, and Halder, and Keitel said about Hitler's statements, opinions and motivations with regard to him being more concerned at and preparing for a British breach of Norwegian neutrality instead of giving Raeder permission to breach it pre-emptively?

No I can not. I have never seen any such evidence. I have however come across a Danish poster on the internet who claims to be a historian and who is the origin of this view as far as I know. This sparked my interest in the subject and that is why I am asking. I don't believe it myself, but I am curious of what information and interpretations others have.

...as opposed to asking HIM to provide examples of and references to the said evidence? That's normally how it's done.

I don't think the answers so far have been entirely satisfying. I would like for more people to give their view.

They're the answers regarding the causes of WESERUBUNG that you'll find in Francois Kersaudy's "Norway 1940", and T.K. Derry's official history of the campaign. You may not like them, but you'll have difficulty turning up many others....

Several - but mainly books of Swedish and Norwegian origin.

And what did they say?

[Wolf]

Then why are you not accepting what Quisling, and Halder, and Keitel said about Hitler's statements, opinions and motivations with regard to him being more concerned at and preparing for a British breach of Norwegian neutrality instead of giving Raeder permission to breach it pre-emptively?

Err..., did I state that I did not accept this?

...as opposed to asking HIM to provide examples of and references to the said evidence? That's normally how it's done.

True, but I find this particular induvidual unconvincing and unstable. I want to hear other voices too.

They're the answers regarding the causes of WESERUBUNG that you'll find in Francois Kersaudy's "Norway 1940", and T.K. Derry's official history of the campaign. You may not like them, but you'll have difficulty turning up many others....

Ok.

And what did they say?

Many Swedish sources claim the importance of another factor - that in this thread so far has only been mentioned by Fred (who seems to be Swedish) - and that is the supply to Germany of Swedish high grade iron ore, i.e. the supply and supply lines of iron ore to Germany being a significant factor for both the allied and German leadership before the invasion of Norway.

[merdiolu]

The way I see it there are four pre invasion stages prior to Weserubung

1) Raeder and Kriegsmarine's lobbying for the operation beginning autumn 1939. Raeder was aware of the British naval blockade and its limiting aspects of U-boat warfare. Every -U-boat was forced to pass from Skajerak and North Sea before starting their patrol during WW1 , a good hunting ground from Royal Navy and mining. Vikdun Quisling's visit of Berlin and his willingness to provide intelligence about Norwegian defences should be studied from that perspective

2) Winter War. After invasion attempt of Soviet Union Finland tried to gain help from every resource. British and French began to draw up plans to send supplies and troops to Finland via Narvik harbour and display of these plans on press. That was a major catalyst for Hitler to consider invading Scandinavia seriously first time. So far he resisted Raeder's ressure for Weserubung because Norway was an important conduit and transport area for iron ore shipped from Sweden. Neutrality of Norway was favorable to Hitler as long as iron shipments continued. If Allies intervened in this area German war economy might be damaged.

3) Altmark Affair. Capture of Altmark in February 1940 in international waters convinced Hitler that Norway could not hold its neutrality under Allied pressure. Convinced that Allies would cut iron transport route sooner or later ( press on Allied countries was also speculating about Churchill's idea of mining Norwegian territorial waters and land troops on Scandinavia ) he decided to act first and invade

4) 7th April mining of Norwagian waters was initiated by Royal Navy , 8th April Germans invade....

[phylo_roadking]

Many Swedish sources claim the importance of another factor - that in this thread so far has only been mentioned by Fred (who seems to be Swedish) - and that is the supply to Germany of Swedish high grade iron ore, i.e. the supply and supply lines of iron ore to Germany being a significant factor for both the allied and German leadership before the invasion of Norway.

OP, you're putting the cart before the horse a bit there...

That was why the British wanted by various means to interrupt the supply of Swedish ore to germany - breaching Norway's neutrality BY the occupation of Northern Norway and Sweden being the most obvious of them.

It wasn't necessary to Germany that they occupy Norway to ensure supplies - German ore carriers could reach Germany via Norwegian and Swedish and Danish NEUTRAL coastal waters right into the Skaggerak...

But it would have been necessary that they occupy Norway to stave off or prvent a British occupation; exactly what Hitler said to Raeder, Quisling, etc....

So when you get down to it - it's STILL about pre-empting a British breach of Neutrality.

...as opposed to asking HIM to provide examples of and references to the said evidence? That's normally how it's done.

True, but I find this particular induvidual unconvincing and unstable.

But have you asked him for his sources and references?

[fredleander]

Many Swedish sources claim the importance of another factor - that in this thread so far has only been mentioned by Fred (who seems to be Swedish) - and that is the supply to Germany of Swedish high grade iron ore, i.e. the supply and supply lines of iron ore to Germany being a significant factor for both the allied and German leadership before the invasion of Norway.

Hi, Wolf - I am actually Norwegian even if I presently live in Sweden..... ....There is another aspect about the Swedish iron ore. The Germans weren't really dependant on taking this down the Norwegian coast from Narvik. The whole background for Narvik as an ore shipping port was that the Baltic Sea, or rather the Northern part of it (The Botten Sea - Bottenhavet), froze solidly during the winter stopping the sea transports from Kiruna to Germany through the Baltic. To get around this problem a modern electrical railway line was built (long before the war) across the mountains to Narvik which was normally ice-free. With other other words, a mining of the Norwegian "Leads" or an occupation of Narvik would not solve this problem for the British. The Germans could take all the iron ore they wanted through the Baltics during the Summer, they would only have to act accordingly as to delivery schedules, etc.

The British knew this and that is why an important part of their planning was not only to close the transport route along the Norwegian coast, or to occupy Narvik, but also to advance along the cross-border railway line to Kiruna in Sweden to take control of the Swedish iron ore production as a whole. To achieve this they worked under the cloak of "military aid to Finland". Their plans also touched onto using Trondheim, with its railway line going into Sweden, for the same purpose (as well as some other plans on occupying key points along the Norwegian coast, Bergen, Stavanger, etc.). Both the Swedish and Norwegian governments rejected these plans out of hand. Knowing what we know today it is obvious that such an operation wouold have helped the Finns very little, which wasn't the major Allied point in the first place. What could have been the result of this is that Sweden also would have been invaded by the Germans, which probably would have gained the Allies' cause, giving the Germans another problem to handle. The French would have liked this very much as a diversion from their own threatened borders.

The discussions between the British and French leaders went on for months, resulting in nothing before the Finns surrendered on March 12th 1940. All this back and forthing of course seeped out to the media and became a fairly well known secret for the Germans.

Finally, the British also bought Swedish ore coming through Narvik before Norway was invaded. Allied control of Narvik would therefore hinder German supplies via this port at the same time gaining the Allies' cause. Still, the Germans could get their ore through the Baltic during Summer.

Fred

[fredleander]

....Vikdun Quisling's visit of Berlin and his willingness to provide intelligence about Norwegian defences should be studied from that perspective

This one I would like you very much to elaborate on....

Fred

[phylo_roadking]

With other other words, a mining of the Norwegian "Leads" or an occupation of Narvik would not solve this problem for the British. The Germans could take all the iron ore they wanted through the Baltics during the Summer, they would only have to act accordingly as to delivery schedules, etc.

Fred, it's worth noting that mining the Leads wasn't going to be that effective for blocking German ore traffic...as what the British did was lay AND MARK a couple of real minefields with safe channels and a number of fake ones What it would theoretically do is force it out to sea out of Norway's Three Mile Limit - just beyond which uboats had been sinking BRITISH ore ships starting in February - into international waters where the RN could "apply the economic embargo" I.E. board and seize.

As for Germany sourcing its ore via Lulea and others...there was a finite limit on what throughput each port could handle John T has supplied figures elsewhere that note that after 1940...when the Allies did do ENOUGH damage to hugely impact Narvik's capacity to throughput for the rest of the war!...overall annual Swedish exports of iron ore to Germany declined accordingly; that would to me hint that the trade had already reached the limits that Lulea etc. could support in the summer months.

The discussions between the British and French leaders went on for months, resulting in nothing before the Finns surrendered on March 12th 1940.

It would be wrong to portray these talks between the Allies as one single long dragged-out discussion; it was more a case that when one party was all for it - the other wasn't; and when the party of the second part eventually was....the party of the first part had changed their minds! This happened a number of times...because although BOTH nations' economic warfare staffs accepted how important Swedish ore was to Germany...the political will on the part of the two governments wavered back and forth It took a change of government in Paris to eventually galvanise the Allies into action.

Also - for the British there was the major sticking point of legitimacy; in the last hours of the Winter War the government in London was cabling the Finns to hold on and request Allied military aid - which was sitting ready to depart - but the request simply never came. The Finns negotiated with the Soviets instead.

Finally, the British also bought Swedish ore coming through Narvik before Norway was invaded. Allied control of Narvik would therefore hinder German supplies via this port at the same time gaining the Allies' cause.

Three ore ships a week; British east coast smelters and foundries were predicated on using Swedish ore as it didn't have to be pre-sintered I.E. roasted. Loosing access to the Sweidsh ore meant sinter beds having to be built at these to keep production going, and of course an extra expense in labour and energy per ton to produce iron and steel.

But - as noted above - starting in February, British ore imports via Narvik dropped sharply due to uboats lurking just outside Norway's Three Mile Limit when the British ore carriers left the Leads to cross the North Sea...

[Kingfish]

But - as noted above - starting in February, British ore imports via Narvik dropped sharply due to uboats lurking just outside Norway's Three Mile Limit when the British ore carriers left the Leads to cross the North Sea...

Any info on how effective British subs were against German merchants plying the same routes?

What's good for the goose...

[fredleander]

Fred, it's worth noting that mining the Leads wasn't going to be that effective for blocking German ore traffic...as what the British did was lay AND MARK a couple of real minefields with safe channels and a number of fake ones What it would theoretically do is force it out to sea out of Norway's Three Mile Limit - just beyond which uboats had been sinking BRITISH ore ships starting in February - into international waters where the RN could "apply the economic embargo" I.E. board and seize.

Certainly, but the threat as such was obviously taken seriously and that it actually took place indicated a new phase in British warfare. What comes next...? Anyway, at the time the invasion was already in progress.

As for Germany sourcing its ore via Lulea and others...there was a finite limit on what throughput each port could handle John T has supplied figures elsewhere that note that after 1940...when the Allies did do ENOUGH damage to hugely impact Narvik's capacity to throughput for the rest of the war!...overall annual Swedish exports of iron ore to Germany declined accordingly; that would to me hint that the trade had already reached the limits that Lulea etc. could support in the summer months..

I find this a little too simplified. As a matter of fact German exports over Narvik started to diminish already before April 1940 with a subsequent increase in traffic over Luleå and other Swedish ports. Without knowing this I should think that this was a result of the pure fact that the war had started. BTW, Luleå port was expanded to facilitate the increased traffic. Actually, the Germans offered to finance this development but the Swedes took it upon themselves. As such, with only the German ore traffic passing through Narvik there was less need to have the port fully rehabilitated.

As for "...do ENOUGH damage to hugely impact Narvik's capacity to throughput for the rest of the war!..". From where do you have this information, please? I mean to have seen a source stating that the port of Narvik was up to German needs within a year or so. I shall look for it. I believe I have it from the official Norwegian military operations books.

Well, these details reflect only little on the background for the whole matter in hand.

Fred

P.S.: For those interested I have posted a picture of Narvik and its surroundings below. Bjerkvik, in the background, where the first Allied landings (French Foreign Legion) took place after a naval bombardment. Unfortunately, there were mainly Norwegian civilians in Bjerkvik. After this landing the FFL could join up with the French and Norwegian forces which for some weeks already had been pushing southwards, the French in Gratangseidet (the high pass between Gratangen and Bjerkvik) and the Norwegians on the high ground stretching all the way to the Swedish border. After the Germans withdrew over the Rombak Fjord an amphibious assault was made against Narvik from Öyjord by Norwegian and French infantry. The Norwegian general Fleischer, CIC Northern Norway, was onboard the first landing craft.

In the bottom of the picture can be seen the iron ore loading piers. After the fighting in 1940 35 sunk or half-sunk vessels were laying around the outer and inner port. Among them the two Norwegian coastal "panzer" vessels Eidsvold and Norge.

[Wolf]

So when you get down to it - it's STILL about pre-empting a British breach of Neutrality.

Irrelevant - unless you factor in why the British establishing themselves in Norways was bad for Germany.

But have you asked him for his sources and references?

I have not, but I deem it pointless. He will not be able to provide any.