Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Norway

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No Norway

    Ok, here is the strategy and timeline shift. Germany is dedicated to a short war, and all pre-war strategies take this into account. The main detour from OTL is the decision not to invade Norway in an attempt to secure iron shipments. From this diversion you may bring whatever likely cause/effect situation you'd like to the table for consideration. Would this decision help their chances in defeating France and Britain or hurt them? This thread is mainly focussed on the war in the west, but if there is a relevant east front topic(like winter war issues), then feel free to table it as well. But keep in mind if bringing ideas about possible German moves that they must attemp to adhere to this "short war" strategy as that was the thinking when OTL was averted.

    Have fun and stay polite!
    "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

  • #2
    Only way Germany can secure iron ore from Sweden is
    1.Send the U-boat fleet in the Atlantic. Have the RN follow the U-boats this will leave less ships for the RN to attack Norway.

    2. Build U-boats and destroyers to sink any British ships near Norway

    3.Sign a non-aggression defense pact with Norway. If the Allies attack Norway Germany defends Norway.

    4. Build watch stations in Norway in imminent threat of a British attack.

    Comment


    • #3
      You may have the cause and affect mixed up. The British decision to invade Norway and Sweden was the provocateur for the German pre-emptive invasion.

      No push by Churchill and others to interfere with neutral nations results in no action by the Germans. The situation for Germany was much better with Sweden and Norway neutral rather than occupied.

      If there is no German counter-action to the British invasion, Sweden will continue to ship iron ore to Germany across the Baltic during the summer months; unless of course, the British plan to occupy Sweden is executed. With British and French troops/aircraft stationed in Norway and Sweden, it could result in a weakened defense of France and a distraction of support. Once the Low Countries are occupied by the Germans, the British/French position in Norway would become most untenable due to German interdiction of supply lines.

      It most likely would become the same sort of fiasco it was for the Allies, but with a longer timeline and greater loss of material and manpower.
      If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

      Comment


      • #4
        Winter shipments via Narvik are simply cut by the British "Distant Blockade' policy, Norway's neutrality would mean little in the end and it was certainly not going to declare war over this issue. The Germans can't do much about it other than to occupy Norway.

        One way or another Germany was going to have to occupy Norway in order to secure the winter route. if left neutral, the Germans are even more tightly blockaded and the British have less pressure against themslves. Further, the lack of German bases in the Arctic would have allowed the expansion of the LL convoys via Murmansk much beyond what was envisioned and losses would have been minimal. The USSR receives even more LL than in the OTL and Germany's defeat is hastened by that much.

        Norway's occupation is an imperative for Germany both offensively and defensively.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The last bullet View Post
          Only way Germany can secure iron ore from Sweden is
          1.Send the U-boat fleet in the Atlantic. Have the RN follow the U-boats this will leave less ships for the RN to attack Norway.

          2. Build U-boats and destroyers to sink any British ships near Norway

          3.Sign a non-aggression defense pact with Norway. If the Allies attack Norway Germany defends Norway.

          4. Build watch stations in Norway in imminent threat of a British attack.
          Could Germany live off of her stocks and what comes throough the Baltic if the war ends in late '40?
          "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Freightshaker View Post
            You may have the cause and affect mixed up. The British decision to invade Norway and Sweden was the provocateur for the German pre-emptive invasion.

            No push by Churchill and others to interfere with neutral nations results in no action by the Germans. The situation for Germany was much better with Sweden and Norway neutral rather than occupied.

            If there is no German counter-action to the British invasion, Sweden will continue to ship iron ore to Germany across the Baltic during the summer months; unless of course, the British plan to occupy Sweden is executed. With British and French troops/aircraft stationed in Norway and Sweden, it could result in a weakened defense of France and a distraction of support. Once the Low Countries are occupied by the Germans, the British/French position in Norway would become most untenable due to German interdiction of supply lines.

            It most likely would become the same sort of fiasco it was for the Allies, but with a longer timeline and greater loss of material and manpower.
            I wonder how relations between Russia and the west would fare if the allied invasion had gone through? Would supplies be sent to Finland via Narvik as promised?
            "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
              Could Germany live off of her stocks and what comes throough the Baltic if the war ends in late '40?
              How does the war end in late 1940? I doubt Britain will sign any sort of peace agreement with Germany.

              That being said, at this point in time the USSR was offering Germany far more lucrative (like, highway robbery) trade deals out of fear that Germany might attack them. If Germany makes these deals they might be able to raise naval and aircraft production to levels necessary to better combat Britain. The Heer would simultaneously need to focus on capturing North Africa and the Middle East, and avoid provoking Russia.
              A wild liberal appears! Conservative uses logical reasoning and empirical evidence! It's super effective! Wild liberal faints.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
                I wonder how relations between Russia and the west would fare if the allied invasion had gone through? Would supplies be sent to Finland via Narvik as promised?
                The plan wasn't for supplies but rather troops. 3-4 brigades were earmarked for support to Finland. The odd thing was no plans were made to advance past the Swedish ore mines.

                Interesting question regarding the support to the Fins, especially considering how paranoid Stalin was concerning the motives of the West.
                If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Destroyer25 View Post
                  How does the war end in late 1940? I doubt Britain will sign any sort of peace agreement with Germany.

                  That being said, at this point in time the USSR was offering Germany far more lucrative (like, highway robbery) trade deals out of fear that Germany might attack them. If Germany makes these deals they might be able to raise naval and aircraft production to levels necessary to better combat Britain. The Heer would simultaneously need to focus on capturing North Africa and the Middle East, and avoid provoking Russia.
                  I was speaking of the intention for the war to be over by then. In this TL the Germans are strategizing on the supposition that they will steamroll the allies in France and Britain will call it quits, maybe its just far-fetched. I know the German high command was as suprised by their own success as the allies were.
                  "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Freightshaker View Post
                    The plan wasn't for supplies but rather troops. 3-4 brigades were earmarked for support to Finland. The odd thing was no plans were made to advance past the Swedish ore mines.
                    That is odd.
                    "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Destroyer25 View Post
                      How does the war end in late 1940? I doubt Britain will sign any sort of peace agreement with Germany.

                      .


                      I'll give you one not too difficult possibility. The allies successfully land in Norway and there is no military response from Germany. A propaganda gift allows Germany to occupy ports in Sweden without resistance. Stalin sends letters of condemnation concerning the move to Britain and France. The next month Germany launches case yellow, and 6 weeks later they are sending peace proposals to the British from an occupied France.

                      The question is...who are they negotiating with? If there is no Norway debacle then it is Chamberlain who gets the demands, not Churchill. With his only ally defeated and an angry Russia, what decision does Chamberlain make?
                      "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There are three issues that have not yet been discussed.

                        The first is how a British intervention in Norway before the Germans themselves entered either Norway or Denmark would have played with American opinion and specifically with American voters of Scandinavian descent. It is possible that we might have a more isolationist Republican candidate than Wilkie in 1940.

                        The second is the Norwegian merchant fleet. Clearly Norway will be very reluctant to oppose Anglo-French landings militarily but might seek to put pressure on the Allies by withdrawing their shipping from Anglo-French contracts. For comparison in 1939, Norway had 1,082 ships over 1,000 GRT totalling 4,552,895 GRT compared to 3,049 such ships totalling 16,643,904 GRT for Britain.

                        Lastly, Germany might not lose so many warships and might, for example, try to attack the Dunkirk evacuation with anything up to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with escorts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mostlyharmless View Post
                          There are three issues that have not yet been discussed.

                          The first is how a British intervention in Norway before the Germans themselves entered either Norway or Denmark would have played with American opinion and specifically with American voters of Scandinavian descent. It is possible that we might have a more isolationist Republican candidate than Wilkie in 1940.

                          The second is the Norwegian merchant fleet. Clearly Norway will be very reluctant to oppose Anglo-French landings militarily but might seek to put pressure on the Allies by withdrawing their shipping from Anglo-French contracts. For comparison in 1939, Norway had 1,082 ships over 1,000 GRT totalling 4,552,895 GRT compared to 3,049 such ships totalling 16,643,904 GRT for Britain.

                          Lastly, Germany might not lose so many warships and might, for example, try to attack the Dunkirk evacuation with anything up to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with escorts.
                          Good points, welcome to the forum.

                          American opinion did not sway that much with catapult/mers. But there are alot of scandanavian americans about.

                          Good point on the merchant fleet.

                          Right again. An attack towards Dunkirk with the less depleted KM could happen, but would probably meet a stronger RN as well. The main difference being this would be a naval battle fought within the LW's sphere. Although the RN had one up on the KM as far as aerial naval conflict, but who knows.
                          "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
                            That is odd.
                            Not when you find that there never was a real intention to make it all the way to Finland. Support for Finland was a pretext for the British invasion of Norway and Sweden in order to secure the iron ore fields.

                            Originally posted by Mostlyharmless View Post
                            There are three issues that have not yet been discussed.

                            The first is how a British intervention in Norway before the Germans themselves entered either Norway or Denmark would have played with American opinion and specifically with American voters of Scandinavian descent. It is possible that we might have a more isolationist Republican candidate than Wilkie in 1940.
                            Britain had already mined Norwegian waters the night before the German invasion. British troops were already boarded on ships bound for Norway when it was discovered that the Germans were invading. Germany beat Britain to the punch by mere hours.

                            Churchill and Parliament were not particularly concerned about world opinion.
                            If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Freightshaker View Post
                              Not when you find that there never was a real intention to make it all the way to Finland. Support for Finland was a pretext for the British invasion of Norway and Sweden in order to secure the iron ore fields.
                              Let me rephrase...That is odd.
                              "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Karri
                                Prawn heads
                                by Karri
                                How do you cook them? How do you eat them?

                                So far I've always just twisted them off, and discarded it along with the shells and such, only...
                                Today, 11:40
                              • Jose50
                                Thoughts on the US abandoning NATO
                                by Jose50
                                Now may be a good time for the NATO countries to start beefing up their materiel, personnel and alliances. There is a decided wave here in the US that...
                                Today, 08:41
                              • Von Richter
                                Sagittarius Rising...
                                by Von Richter
                                Just having a re-read of this book after it's stood for donkey's years on the bookshelf. Once again, within the first couple of pages, I'm transported...
                                Today, 01:19
                              Working...
                              X