What if Germany had not invaded Denmark or Norway?
What if Germany had not invaded Denmark or Norway?
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) 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?
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.
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.
- Redbaron1908
- Member
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: 31 Dec 2002, 18:52
- Location: Texas
Re: What if Germany had not invaded Denmark or Norway?
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.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?
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!
- Redbaron1908
- Member
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: 31 Dec 2002, 18:52
- Location: Texas
- Yevgeniy B.
- Member
- Posts: 3240
- Joined: 18 May 2003, 02:35
- Location: Wilmette, ILLINOIS USA
answer
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
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
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.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.
- Yevgeniy B.
- Member
- Posts: 3240
- Joined: 18 May 2003, 02:35
- Location: Wilmette, ILLINOIS USA
answer
I agree about useful for allies airfields
Tim Smith wrote :
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 :
Yevg wrote :
Sam H. wrote :
Britain and France had concrete plans concerning an invasion of Norway.Would the Allies have invaded Norway instead? If so, when and why?
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 :
Why wouldn´t they ? Norway was neutral too.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.
Yevg wrote :
Are you suggesting that only one in twenty ships made it through ?Another fact I know that U.S. sand like aroung 20 ships with supplies to eastern front, only one made it there.
Sam H. wrote :
I think more Germans died from syphilis than to Danish bullets.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.
- Feldmarshall Erwin Rommel
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 16 Nov 2002, 10:42
- Location: The Netherlands
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)
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)
- taivaansusi
- Member
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 22:12
- Location: Helsinki, Finland
- Contact:
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.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)
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.