ahc wi Nazis lose badly in Norway

[Derek Jackson]

Could luck or better organization or intelligence have resulted in the Nazi invasion of Norway being defeated.

Would that prevent the invasion of France and the Low Countries?

How good might Chamberlain's reputation be if the Nazis were defeated without Barbarossa or the USA?

 

[CV(N)-6]

If the British don't completely screw up their analysis of all the intel they had, and/or the plane that spotted the Trondheim warship group circling west of the city spots them heading any direction but west, the RN can be out in force pretty quickly, Renown's group can block the entrance to Narvik, the Norwegians can be alerted, and the cruisers that left the troops destined for Narvik in port when they rushed out to intercept the supposed sortie into the Atlantic can instead land them where needed.

 

[Astrodragon]

The KM really lucked out with the weather. Go a day earlier or later, and they cant hide from the RN nearly so well. Or have the weather change.

 

[Driftless]

The on-off-on again-off again-back on nature of loading the supplies (due to ongoing political and intelligence confusion) for the British ground forces going to Norway, helped create chaos in the way the ships were finally loaded out. Miss-matched supplies, going to the wrong locations, hamstrung local commanders in the first days, where timing was critical. Reducing that chaos would be a big help

 

[Gokbay]

Norway being more prepared could have also helped.

RNrN was expecting a fight but they didn't know if it was going to be with RN or the KM. Them being ready to face the KM could have made the Germans lose even more ships. Perhaps Eidsvold and Norge could have achieved something in Narvik.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Drachinifel has some good documentaries on Youtube (top of the list)

https://www.youtube.com/c/Drachinifel/search?query=norway

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Don't just blame the Anglo-French for the debacle, Norway itself bares a fair amount. Had they mobilised when warned most of the landings would probably have failed, As it was they didn't mobilise until just before the Germans landed and even then rather than get on the radio and recall everyone to the colours they sent out the notices through the post. By the time many reservists knew they'd been recalled the Germans had already occupied their town or village.

 

[Driftless]

Don't just blame the Anglo-French for the debacle, Norway itself bares a fair amount. Had they mobilised when warned most of the landings would probably have failed, As it was they didn't mobilise until just before the Germans landed and even then rather than get on the radio and recall everyone to the colours they sent out the notices through the post. By the time many reservists knew they'd been recalled the Germans had already occupied their town or village.

The bulk of the Norwegian government did a lot of "whistling past the graveyard" in hoping their ardent stance on neutrality would continue to work.

And delaying even partial mobilization - by postal service past the eleventh hour of the crisis - was catastrophic.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The bulk of the Norwegian government did a lot of "whistling past the graveyard" in hoping their ardent stance on neutrality would continue to work.

A fair portion of the rest were pressing their SS uniforms and doing all they could to prevent or delay any mobilisation.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Could luck or better organization or intelligence have resulted in the Nazi invasion of Norway being defeated.

Yes. Had a few decisions been correct the Germans could have been stuffed.

Would that prevent the invasion of France and the Low Countries?

No, Losing the Norwegian campaign has very little effect on the preparations for Plan Yellow

How good might Chamberlain's reputation be if the Nazis were defeated without Barbarossa or the USA?

Chamberlain was incapacitated medically before the end of 1940. He'd have no connection to a later victory.

Hos chance to head off a large scale war came with the Czech crisis in 1938. If he had stood firm against the nazi regime he'd have been the guy who risked war, or the guy who started a war with Germany. Many people are going to blame him for a negative outcome (in their view) whatever happens.

 

[PSL]

According to James Levy , the RN Intell was very poor in the first year of the war , while Nazi code breaking was very good and they knew the location of bulk of all RN squadrons at sea in April 1940. That was planned it was not an accident. Nothing would have stopped the Denmark Norway invasion.

 

[Derek Jackson]

So how much difference does this make to other events in the Spring and summer of 1940?

 

[Driftless]

So how much difference does this make to other events in the Spring and summer of 1940?

IF the Germans are kept completely out of Norway, then there's no Luftwaffe threat from that direction during the BoB. The Luftwaffe would still be present in Denmark I'd guess - no help for that. Perhaps that change means some of the RAF squadrons from 13 Group can come south in rotation?

The bigger impact would be later. No German-occupied Norway hampers the U-boat war some and keeps the surface fleet based back in Germany, which would help the RN enormously. Also, once Lend-lease starts with the Soviets, the Arctic convoys don't need to go so far north - that was a very long, time-consuming, resource-consuming, and high wear-and-tear route on ships and sailors. Shorten the route, more supplies get to the Soviets in a quicker fashion. Even with concern over U-boats, the convoys would have a wider range of routes.

 

[Post]

The bigger impact would be later. No German-occupied Norway hampers the U-boat war some and keeps the surface fleet based back in Germany, which would help the RN enormously. Also, once Lend-lease starts with the Soviets, the Arctic convoys don't need to go so far north - that was a very long, time-consuming, resource-consuming, and high wear-and-tear route on ships and sailors. Shorten the route, more supplies get to the Soviets in a quicker fashion. Even with concern over U-boats, the convoys would have a wider range of routes.

It's not just a setback because the Germans can't use it as a base. It's also a setback because the allies can use it as a base.

They can build up a presence in Norway. They can conduct aerial searches against U-boats from there, which mean the subs that are based in Germany have much more chance to be found and targeted.

For convoys to Russia, they'd have pretty much constant aircover (at least with good weather, which often it won't be, but still it'd be a massive improvement).

And then there's the threat of an allied invasion of Denmark, which is a short route to the German mainland.

 

[Garrison]

Could luck or better organization or intelligence have resulted in the Nazi invasion of Norway being defeated.

Would that prevent the invasion of France and the Low Countries?

How good might Chamberlain's reputation be if the Nazis were defeated without Barbarossa or the USA?

The British mistakenly assumed the initial Kreigsmarine force was trying to break out into the Atlantic and thus RN forces were sent the wrong way. Had the British figured out the real target they could have torn the landing force to pieces.

Biggest impact for the Germans is that Sweden may be a lot less willing to ship iron ore, which would cripple military production.

 

[Oddball]

A fair portion of the rest were pressing their SS uniforms and doing all they could to prevent or delay any mobilisation.

Care to elaborate on this statement?

 

[Oddball]

Norway being more prepared could have also helped.

RNrN was expecting a fight but they didn't know if it was going to be with RN or the KM. Them being ready to face the KM could have made the Germans lose even more ships. Perhaps Eidsvold and Norge could have achieved something in Narvik.

Mostly true, but the Norwegian Navy (nor army) would NEVER open fire on the Royal Navy.

A small part of why the Navy hesitated in the opening hours of the war, was that they were unsure if it was the KM or RN that approached. And opening fire on RN ships was out of the question.

 

[MUC]

Without Norway under German occupation, perhaps Winston can try again for a Baltic Sea Expedition in 1941?

 

[DrakonFin]

Biggest impact for the Germans is that Sweden may be a lot less willing to ship iron ore, which would cripple military production.

With an Allied Norway, the Swedish will sell somewhat less iron ore to Germany than IOTL, but there are limits to this at least until 1942 or so, depending on how the rest of the war goes. As long as Germany is still a major combatant, and thus a potential threat to Sweden, Stockholm will not abandon its commitment to a form of neutrality. And neutrality means that you trade with both sides of the conflict. To hold on to their neutrality, Sweden will continue to sell iron ore and ball bearings to Germany. Only when it starts to seem that Germany is really losing they will shift to selling the Allies significantly more.

 

[Garrison]

With an Allied Norway, the Swedish will sell somewhat less iron ore to Germany than IOTL, but there are limits to this at least until 1942 or so, depending on how the rest of the war goes. As long as Germany is still a major combatant, and thus a potential threat to Sweden, Stockholm will not abandon its commitment to a form of neutrality. And neutrality means that you trade with both sides of the conflict. To hold on to their neutrality, Sweden will continue to sell iron ore and ball bearings to Germany. Only when it starts to seem that Germany is really losing they will shift to selling the Allies significantly more.

With Norway in Allied hands they won't be able to ship through Narvik and without the Nazi's on their doorstep it should be easy to outbid the Germans for the rest of the year.