The Allies had not pulled out of Northern Norway in '40

[fredleander]

Just as the remnants of the German forces at Narvik was about to be annihilated/pushed over the Swedish border - the Allies - under the impression of the fighting in France, decided to pull out - leaving the Norwegian forces "high and dry". What if they had decided to stay in the Narvik area? Could they have maintained the situation - or even improved upon it, considering their naval supremacy. And made the area north of Trondheim a "bleeding" ground for the German forces? The Norwegian authorities wanted this very much and was in the process of building/rearming more units from local resources.

[fredleander]

This should be of some interest to you guys as the Germans was, at the time of the Allied withdrawal (last fighting day was June 8th - the Allies started their withdrawal a week earlier) planning a rescue operation across the sea.

At this time the German forces at Narvik was with their backs up against the Swedish border (the story goes that Swedish rail authorities already had train transport ready for them) and their northward putsch across land had reached the area north of Bodø from where the northbound communications depended on sea transport. At the moment the Brits controlled the sea lanes in the area. An expedition (Operation "Buffalo" - approx 2500 men) towards the Narvik area was also planned over the mountains, paralell to the Swedish border, but this would take two weeks with no certainty as to the final result.

The sea rescue, then, (Operation "Naumburg") was planned with a 6000 -man force (and a dozen tanks) that should be transported from Germany in two fast passenger liners - the "Bremen" and "Europa". Their escorts were to be "Scharnhorst, "Gneisenau", "Hipper", and four destroyers! The order for the operation was issued on June 27th and the convoy left Kiel on June 4th. The destination was Lyngenfjord - north of Tromsø! Their intention to get behind the Allies strongpoint area Tromsø/Bardufoss and attack it from the north. The convoy had to pass through whatever the Royal Navy had in the North Sea and along the Norwegian coast and go around the central area of Tromsø/Harstad.

But - "what if" - the British had kept their heads calm, stayed in Northern Norway, put their whole heart in it and maybe sunk or damaged the German battle units and turned back the transports? This would certainly have had an impact on the rest of the war.

[Madsen]

Could be an interesting thing. if Norwegian/Allied forces held Narvik and north, they would be blocking iron ore from sweeden to Germany.
to held North of Norway the allied side would need to maintain naval superiority at sea, and hopefully get the same in the air.
as mentioned there was no land communication between Bodø (north point of german troops) and Narvik. and the area between is a hard terrain to move in.

but the german rescue plan is a bit strange i think. Lyngen is a long fjord going straight north and you have to sail a long distanse. and every sec you have a chance that someone in Norway see them and alert allied troops. and 6000 men in two boats. probebly sea sick and tired after a long sea travel, they would have required some time to reorg after landing in Lyngen.. a higly risky operation i would say.
Why not go stright in to Narvik instead. Lyngen is far away from Narvik. would have taken several days to reach the germans in the border area.

[fredleander]

but the german rescue plan is a bit strange i think. Lyngen is a long fjord going straight north and you have to sail a long distanse. and every sec you have a chance that someone in Norway see them and alert allied troops. and 6000 men in two boats. probebly sea sick and tired after a long sea travel, they would have required some time to reorg after landing in Lyngen.. a higly risky operation i would say.
Why not go stright in to Narvik instead. Lyngen is far away from Narvik. would have taken several days to reach the germans in the border area.

I am just referring the actual German plan. As you point out yourself this was a very dangerous plan that might well have gone awry. To enter Narvik directly was out of the question as the Allies were too strong in this area. The liners weren't exactly landing crafts and obviously needed a controlled, protected area to off-load. By the way, Lyngenfjord has "always" been central in the defense of Northern Norway - a choke-point between Troms and Finnmark. An alert Royal Navy could have played havoc with this operation.

The Norwegian government wanted very much to continue on their own. Plans were developing for setting this part of Norway on a total war-footing. What they asked the Brits for was mainly air, and some naval, support. Specifically, they also wanted the Brits to help with a total infantry rearming because ammo for the Norwegian rifles and machine-guns were running low and there was no way of replenishing. They had been promised a large shipment of Lee-Enfield and Brens several weeks before the withdrawal, but nothing materialized.

By the way, I believe the Germans in the first attack (April 9th) was much more sea-sick than those coming with "Bremen" and "Europa". These were, after all, proper passenger liners.

[Tim Smith]

Well, I can't really add very much, except to say that the Norwegian campaign would probably drag on for several months longer than it did historically, with more naval and ground losses on both sides. After the fall of France the Wehrmacht would be focused on conquering northern Norway - this would be a major distraction from Operation Sealion. Another German army, and a panzer division, would have to be shipped to Norway.

I don't think the Allies could actually drive the Germans out of Norway in 1940 - they're just not strong enough. The Germans would win the campaign eventually through far superior airpower, and superior numbers of tanks and troops on the ground.

[Leutnant]

The nearest German airfield was at Trondheim and it was quite small.
The Allies had Bardufoss, which was near the front + Glourious.

A Panzer Division would'nt do much good in pre-war Northern Norway.
As far as I know most transports up to Tromso went by sea.

And Warspite sunk all those German destroyers.

It could be a very costly campaign for the Germans if they would try and get it without total air cover and allied sea supremecy.
On the other side, it would be a thorn in the eye if they would let the Allies stay there.

[fredleander]

If anything could have been achieved the Brits would have to put something into it. It had been a good "investment".

Army-wise, this needn't have been much except equipment - AA-units would be nice, though. As it turned out the Norwegian forces, given a fair chance, had nothing to fear from the German army regulars. Or specialists, for that matter. All the Norwegian units (6. division) were intact and had gained much valuable experience. The losses had not been grave - what was needed was a little time for recuperation. "Shadow" units were being established and there was a constant trickle of personell from the units that had laid down their arms in Southern Norway. But, first of all, the unoccupied area had a further manpower potential of more than 20-25000 men. Would have been nice if the Poles had stayed on. That the British and French wanted to go home is understandable. However, rearming for the infantry was a necessity due to the ammunition situation. Armour proved of little value in the actual terrain. The civilian community was just gearing up to supporting the effort

The Royal Navy would have to keep up the pressure, as they should anyway, to hold on to the naval supremacy north of Bodø. This effort needn't be more than what they did to protect the Murmansk convoys. After all, the Kriegsmarine had already lost approx. 1/3 of its assets on the Norwegian campaign.

Air support would have been the most important asset. The Brits were already operating with Gladiators from Bardufoss airfield - less than 100 km. north of Narvik. They would have had to step up to Hurricanes - several squadrons. For that matter, there was building up a nucleus of experienced Norwegian military pilots at Bardufoss - arriving from the south and eager to fight. The Germans' nearest airfield was north of Trondheim - so much farther from the disputed area.

Had the Allies continued their offensive after June 1st, as the Norwegians did, the German Narvik detachment would definitely have been pushed into Sweden within a week. Operation "Buffalo" (supposed to use two weeks through very rough terrain) would then be met with "open arms" by rested Norwegian army units,

Even more, if the RN had given it all and gone hell-for-leather for the northbound German rescue convoy the results could have been devastating. The German Narvik detachment pushed into Sweden, the three heavy units damaged or sunk, and "Bremen" and "Europa" chased back or sunk. Finally, an exhausted "Buffalo" force met by less than happy Polish and Norwegian army units, now with some considerable fighting experience!

[Madsen]

Maybe a bit of topic, but can a neutral country sell ammo to one side in a conflict or war? if im not to much wrong the swedish armed forces also used 6,5mm ammo in their rifle. at least they have their factories intact and not captured by the enemy as in Norway. If its not against the rules for a neutral country to sell ammo then sweeden could be an option to get supplys from . and if the Norwegian and allied force could hold out to babarossa started thei might get supplys from east.

And as mentioned, a german armour div or two would have very rough terrain to fight in. Ive been in the area on a NATO manouver and its no terrain for a tank, north of Ofotfjord i mean. and south of it is no better. long deep fjords and high mountains.

In Lyngen /inner part of Troms was the area that the Sovjet attack was to be stopped during cold war. but Ofotfjord could be a similar thing.

[fredleander]

Maybe a bit of topic, but can a neutral country sell ammo to one side in a conflict or war? if im not to much wrong the swedish armed forces also used 6,5mm ammo in their rifle. at least they have their factories intact and not captured by the enemy as in Norway. If its not against the rules for a neutral country to sell ammo then sweeden could be an option to get supplys from . and if the Norwegian and allied force could hold out to babarossa started thei might get supplys from east.

It is not off topic. Neutral countries cannot sell arms to a warring party - then they are no longer neutrals. In time it was clarified that the Swedes would not supply any sort of arms to Norway. There was a Norwegian commission in Stockholm that worked on this. One paragraph in the Swedish response went: "..... as long as the Germans are in Narvik........". However, they sold a lot of other stuff - material for making uniforms, foodstuff, 400 binoculars, 12.000 steel helmets, several hundred tons of forage and flour. By the way, the Swedish rifle cartridge was not the same as the Norwegian - it was made for the stronger Swedish Mauser actions.

The Finns were also selling whatever they had, but to my knowledge - no arms. I suppose they were already gearing up for the great revanche. A curiosity - in Finland was stranded a Polish force of volunteers that had fought the Russians during the Winter War - approx. 1000 soldiers and 80 officers. They wanted to go to Norway. For them it didn't matter if it was Russians or Germans - both parties had invaded their country.

What was most important, the social and governing systems were working excellently in the unoccupied part of Norway - and they were not going to be taken off-guard again. Civilian supporting organisations were working in high gear. As an example, before the Alta battalion left for the front the women in alta had made up snow camouflage suits for the whole unit. Also, the military sea transport system had been organised excellently. Hundreds of local fishing vessels were requisitioned, often skippered by their owners.

[Tim Smith]

Neutral countries cannot sell arms to a warring party - then they are no longer neutrals.

If you're right, that makes the United States a belligerent since 3 September 1939, since they were already selling arms to France at that time.

[D. von Staberg]

Neutral countries cannot sell arms to a warring party - then they are no longer neutrals.

If you're right, that makes the United States a belligerent since 3 September 1939, since they were already selling arms to France at that time.

Sellign arms and equipment to a belligrent is allowed and does not constitute and act of war:
Article 7 of the 1907 Hauge convention

Art. 7.
A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Regards
Daniel

[Madsen]

Sellign arms and equipment to a belligrent is allowed and does not constitute and act of war:
Article 7 of the 1907 Hauge convention

but that would meant that sweeden could sell ammo to the norwegian gouverment in Norway. they had a chance to use the gold they saved from Norges Bank. and any income they had from anything.
You can use the swedish Mauserammo in the norwegian Krag Jørgensen. its true the mauser was harder loaded but it was possible, as a last opportunity. but sweeden had a lot of less poverful ammo prodused. used in sivillian weapon.

i spoken to a Veteran from the Altabattalion and he said they had all it takes to push Dietl over the border. and when newsc came that the allied were pulling out many soldiers cried of the disapointing.

[fredleander]

Sellign arms and equipment to a belligrent is allowed and does not constitute and act of war:
Article 7 of the 1907 Hauge convention

But, was U.S.A. a declared "neutral"

[fredleander]

i spoken to a Veteran from the Altabattalion and he said they had all it takes to push Dietl over the border. and when newsc came that the allied were pulling out many soldiers cried of the disapointing.

I know - I knew general (then LTC) Dahl personally and he expressed the same opinion. The son of major Munthe-Kaas - Hugo - (18 year old he followed his father's unit during the fighting along the Swedish border) also said his father - commanding the eastmost brigade - aggreed.

Curiosity: A few years after this conversation with Hugo I met him again (he was then CO of the Ranger Regiment) in the mountains north-east of Tromsø. We were manning an OP on the highest terrain. A few minutes after hearing a chopper flying around in the area - it was intermittently foggy - a single person could be seen approaching our position through the fog. He was carrying a walking stick, dressed in the classical British short "battle"-jacket - with "service" cap! It was the regimental commander - inspecting his men! I wasn't too impressed - I knew his story - but the others surely were! After a few minutes of joking conversation he disappeared back into the fog.

[Leutnant]

The Germans would win the campaign eventually through far superior airpower, and superior numbers of tanks and troops on the ground.

Trondheim-Narvik = London-Inverness
Trondheim-Tromso = London-Kirkwall
in air line

I guess no 109's

A squadron or two of Hurricanes/Spitfires at Bardufoss would do it.


From Bodo north there wasn't any road, the last 250km to the front was only accessable by sea.
It would be a nightmare getting a sufficent number of troops there and keeping them supplied.