Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[Ramp-Rat]

Can the British without American assistance successfully invade Northern Norway during the summer of 1942, via Narvik, and subsequently hold onto the territory as far south as possible, while clearing the Germans out of all the territory up to the Soviet border. To which the simple answer is yes, admittedly at some considerable cost, mostly in resources that might be better used elsewhere. Can they then go on to capture Southern Norway, and remove the Germans from Norway entirely, given the resources available at this time, highly doubtful and extremely costly. So what advantages would the British gain by conducting such an invasion in the short term and long term. In the short term they will have opened another front in the war, that requires significant German participation, and convincing Stalin that they are deadicated to the fight against Hitler and the Nazis. And strangely it will provide the Swedes with a route to the rest of the world that isn’t under German control, which relives some of their problems with accessing strategic materials such as oil and rubber, especially ITTL were the British are still in control of Malaya and Burma. Come the winter the Swedes will not be able to export their high grade iron ore to Germany, or their ball bearings, but can and will export these to the British in exchange of resources that they do not possess.

In addition the possession of Northern Norway by the British, will make the sailing of convoys to the Soviet Union much easier, as with a sheltered half way port at Narvik where some escorts can swap places. And the possibility of building a number of airfields which can accommodate both long range maritime patrol aircraft and long range fighter aircraft. This will enable convoys to run all year round, and in much greater safety than is the case presently, thus reducing the need for escorts. And with Northern Norway in British hands, the remaining German capital ships will be constantly exposed to attacks from the air and sea, as heavy bombers that do not have the range, can now fly one way missions starting in Scotland and ending in Norway, before returning to Scotland either directly or via targets in Norway or Germany. While smaller naval vessels including submarines can use Narvik as a starting point, for their missions against the German capital ships. Eventually the majority of the ground forces will be Norwegian, as will a major percentage of the naval and aerial forces. Far more than IOTL, an invasion of Northern Norway makes sense ITTL, whether it makes enough sense so as to be seriously considered is a question that our author has to decide on. As does the question that if it makes sense, do the advantages of such an invasion, outweigh the numerous disadvantages.

RR.

 

[matlef]

@Ramp-Rat

Given the logistical issues and the terrain in Norway. I imagine a campaign there will involve a lot of coastal raiding and littoral warfare.

Just as long as Germany doesn't decide to try to invade Sweden, which might pull allied troops into the fighting. Imagining trying to supply a force fighting in Sweden through Narvik is enough to give any staff officer ulcers.

Would not an operation in Norway be a useful place to bloody American troops? Limited ground warfare, with the option of raids to gather experience in amphibious warfare. At least until the invasion of Sicily is possible.

 

[yulzari1]

The Allies could also pressure Sweden to cancel the transit agreement that allowed Germany to ship troops and goods on Swedish railways. So the German forces in Norway would be depending on shipping from the continent. While the forces in Finland would require supply over the Baltic Sea.

What pressure? Refuse to buy Swedish ball and roller bearings?

 

[pjmidd]

What pressure? Refuse to buy Swedish ball and roller bearings?

Not allow ships through the blockade? Sweden was among other things dependant on both food and oil imports, without the Allies approval of those imports ( all ships to Sweden were searched for contraband at designated stations ), its very screwed.

 

[JWilly48519]

The western Allies didn't lean heavily on Sweden because they knew that public opinion in Sweden tilted somewhat more toward Germany than the Allies...for ethnic and regional reasons, not politics and government policy...and a less-carrot-more-stick approach to Sweden could have the highly counterproductive result of causing Sweden to formally ally with Germany for its own economic benefit.

 

[matlef]

What pressure? Refuse to buy Swedish ball and roller bearings?

As pjmidd noted they could use the exceptions in the blockade.

Although just by their proximity they would have the ability to influence Swedish policy towards a more pro allied line. Offering military aid to help build up the Swedish military to resist German pressure. Or troops in the case that Germany decides to invade.

With the Axis loss in North Africa happening even earlier, the pro allied members of the Swedish government would likely be emboldenend.

 

[Patg_hnj]

Oxelösund was at the end of the TGOJ which moved ore from Grängesberg in central Sweden.
The HNJ moved ore from Småland to Halmstad for shipment to Germany via Kattegat.

 

[MattII]

The western Allies didn't lean heavily on Sweden because they knew that public opinion in Sweden tilted somewhat more toward Germany than the Allies...for ethnic and regional reasons, not politics and government policy...and a less-carrot-more-stick approach to Sweden could have the highly counterproductive result of causing Sweden to formally ally with Germany for its own economic benefit.

You don't think the fact that Sweden was 95% surrounded by Axis occupied territory had anything to do with it?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

This is assuming that it is a choice between Norway or the Med for a British attack.

Well for me it would always be the Med over Norway.

It knocked Italy out of the war in 1943 which was massive in terms of burden on the Heer and Luftwaffe which had to replace 50 odd Italian Divisions across Axis occupied Europe and forced Germany to use about 1/5th of its army to do so.

Norway was always going to be a burden on the German armed forces even without an invasion

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Well for me it would always be the Med over Norway.

It knocked Italy out of the war in 1943 which was massive in terms of burden on the Heer and Luftwaffe which had to replace 50 odd Italian Divisions across Axis occupied Europe and forced Germany to use about 1/5th of its army to do so.

Norway was always going to be a burden on the German armed forces even without an invasion

The USA really needed working on to put anything into the Mediterranean as I understand it in the original timeline. Volume V of Churchill's WW2 memoirs includes a reproduction of a telegram from Churchill to Smuts dated 16 July 43, which opens:

In our May talks at Washington we found serious American misgivings lest we should become deeply involved in the Mediterranean, and a hankering for winding up the campaign there with the capture of Sardinia. This we combated, and as our forces in the Mediterranean far outnumber the American we were able to have the matter left open till after the capture of Sicily. Not being satisfied with this, I requested the President to send General Marshall with me to North Africa, and there upon the spot to convince Eisenhower and others that nothing less than Rome could satisfy the requirements of this year's campaign. We agreed that the decision should be taken when it was seen how the fighting in Sicily went. If it was severe and prolonged, then only Sardinia might be possible. If however our enterprise prospered and Italian resistance was seen not to be formidable, then we were immediately to invade the Italian mainland...

And there were arguments over OTL Torch in the previous volume of the memoirs...

 

[Ramp-Rat]

While there were many Swedes who were friendly towards German, especially after the Soviet assault on Finland, there was a significant number who were ambivalent at best and hostile at worst. IOTL the collapse of Denmark and Norway, closely followed by the invasion of France and its collapse. Meant that even those who were well disposed towards Britain had to temper their attitude given the present situation, with Sweden like Switzerland effectively cut off from communication with the outside world. Off all the neutral countries in Europe during WWII, only Spain and Portugal were able to communicate ‘freely’ with the outside world. IOTL by 1942, not only had the Swedes seen the Germans run roughshod over the majority of Europe, and launch what appeared to be a very successful campaign into the Soviet Union. But the British had suffered serious defeats in the Mediterranean culminating with the loss of Crete and the retreat into Egypt. While in the Far East/Pacific although the Americans were now in the war, Pearl Harbour and the loss of all the British and Dutch colonies, meant that the Axis seemed to be in the ascendance. Other than a very few astute highly intelligent Swedes, the majority of the Swedish population and the establishment regarded the Allies as a busted flush, and due to fail big time. It took a very intelligent person to realise that the Germans and their axis allies had lost the war the day they started it, and were in reality down a bit hole and only digging themselves deeper into trouble.

ITTL the reality is very different, yes the British have been expelled from mainland Europe, but they have managed to retain Crete and recently captured Rhodes. Both the Germans and Italians have been thrown out of North Africa, and the Vichy French colonies in the Middle East, Africa and the Pacific are steadily switching sides and declaring for the Allies, by joining the Free French. While the Japanese have achieved a stunning success against the Americans in the Pacific and Philippines, they have failed against the British and Dutch, and are slowly being pushed back in the Far East. And it’s looking possible that FIC might be liberated from their control in the near future. Other than those Swedes who were ideologically aligned with the Germans, by mid 1942, a large percentage of the Swedish population were being to realise that the Germans were heading for a serious fall. And should the at this point British conduct a successful invasion of Northern Norway, they would mostly be a feeling of relief, at the opportunity to now have contact with the wider world, without having to go through the Germans. And to trade for vital resources with the nations that could supply them in quantities that the Germans are unable too. Swedes would now be able to travel with some difficulty, train to Narvik, boat to Scotland, train to Liverpool and another boat to America, that they weren’t able to while cut off from the rest of the world. Sweden has resources that the Anglo Americans want, especially the British, such as iron ore, ball bearings, and timber such as pit props and short pulp.

Yes the Swedes are going to have to build/order a large number of tank cars to transport oil along the railway from Narvik, if the Germans deny them the right to transport oil in tankers after a successful British invasion of Northern Norway. In fact it’s the Germans who will have the major problem in regards to its relations with Sweden, in the event of a successful British Invasion of Northern Norway. Whereas the Swedes had been reliant on German for virtually all its overseas trade, and they could essentially set the terms and conditions, if the Swedes now have access via Narvik to outside sources of trade. Germany has a major problem, the Anglo Americans have goods that the Germans don’t, and can either trade them for Swedish goods, or pay in internationally accepted money that the Germans don’t have. Sweden wants to purchase grain from Argentina, to feed its population, Argentina isn’t going to accept German Marks, but will accept British Pounds or American Dollars. The Anglo Americans have a limited supply of manufactured goods for sale, such as agricultural tractors and civilian trucks, plus some military armaments like armoured vehicles and advanced aircraft. Much like Spain and Portugal, Sweden would be in a much stronger position with Germany than it was, and those among the Swedish establishment who are arguing for a better relationship with the Anglo Americans, will have a much stronger voice. Sweden isn’t going to ditch neutrality, but it is going to become more favourable to the Allies over time if there is a British invasion of Norway.

RR.

 

[Sqdn19]

Well for me it would always be the Med over Norway.

It knocked Italy out of the war in 1943 which was massive in terms of burden on the Heer and Luftwaffe which had to replace 50 odd Italian Divisions across Axis occupied Europe and forced Germany to use about 1/5th of its army to do so.

Norway was always going to be a burden on the German armed forces even without an invasion

Yes, but a free north Norway means not just open convoys to the USSR, but Finland would almost certainly switch sides, meaning the siege of Leningrad would end, freeing up a lot of Red Army personnel from the Karelian front.
If the UK could get Swedish steel, it would relieve pressure on the North Atlantic convoys.
The destruction of the Kriegsmarine’s surface arm would enable much of the Home Fleet’s heavy hitters to head to Singapore. (Arguably a larger force than the Mediterranean Fleet).
Holding Northern Norway and basing Coastal Command planes up there would make most of Norway very dangerous for the U-Boats too.

It could well be ASB, but a bit of strong-arming post fall of Stalingrad *might* force Stalin to allow the co-belligerent Finns to liberate Estonia. And I’d presume a co-belligerent Finland is more of a net benefit than an Italian one.

Besides, I would presume Italy would likely fall soon enough and if the Wallies must get bogged down in mountainous fighting, I don’t see what Italy offers beyond the PR of knocking one Axis power out of the war. Possibly leave it to the Americans?

 

[pjmidd]

, I don’t see what Italy offers beyond the PR of knocking one Axis power out of the war

True, the only benefit of a land campaign past Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica was to give Stalin a Second Front. Once the Med is open, finishing off Italy is just a political decision, militarily it was actually a greater draw on Axis resources to let it be.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Yes, but a free north Norway means not just open convoys to the USSR, but Finland would almost certainly switch sides, meaning the siege of Leningrad would end, freeing up a lot of Red Army personnel from the Karelian front.
If the UK could get Swedish steel, it would relieve pressure on the North Atlantic convoys.
The destruction of the Kriegsmarine’s surface arm would enable much of the Home Fleet’s heavy hitters to head to Singapore. (Arguably a larger force than the Mediterranean Fleet).
Holding Northern Norway and basing Coastal Command planes up there would make most of Norway very dangerous for the U-Boats too.

It could well be ASB, but a bit of strong-arming post fall of Stalingrad *might* force Stalin to allow the co-belligerent Finns to liberate Estonia. And I’d presume a co-belligerent Finland is more of a net benefit than an Italian one.

Besides, I would presume Italy would likely fall soon enough and if the Wallies must get bogged down in mountainous fighting, I don’t see what Italy offers beyond the PR of knocking one Axis power out of the war. Possibly leave it to the Americans?

It wasn't just 'PR' that was gained.

The Italian Army and air force not to mention navy was knocked out of the war along with its Industry for the most part

This required a large portion of the Heer to scramble to replace them - as much as 20% of the available German army and the redeployment of significant numbers of Luftwaffe assets.

It brought more of German occupied Europe within range of bombers

It opened the Med for traffic allowing the Suez to be used and preventing the need for ships to go 'round the horn' which was millions of tons worth of shipping capacity effectively freed up.

The Med had also been a serious burden on the RN which it was now largely free from.

Also large Western allied formations and well established logistics were already present in the Med theatre along with littoral and air assets.

Italy was the more obvious choice.

 

[yulzari1]

At this period Sweden had more cultural links with Germany than Britain. The standard second language taught was German and not English. When I spent some time in rural Sweden thirty years ago even cashiers in minor rural supermarkets spoke English but, to converse with the old people I had to resort to my minuscule German. Yes I had tried to learn and use a little Swedish for politeness sake but it was brushed aside everywhere who preferred to speak with me in their far more correct English than mine as a native English speaker. My point is that Germany was a familiar neighbour with who one did business and culture whilst Britain was a far neighbour with whom the general Swedish people were far less familiar. Certainly the risk that Germany would take over Sweden directly or via a coup was far greater than the expectation that Britain could take Northern Norway let alone usefully assist Sweden against a German invasion.

 

[MattII]

How heavily guarded is Narvik at this time?

 

[JWilly48519]

How heavily guarded is Narvik at this time?

According to the useful Wikipedia (USA) article "German occupation of Norway", the total German occupation force for much of the war was about 300,000 combat soldiers.

Again per Wikipedia, as of May 8, 1945, there were about 400,000 German troops in Norway. That number included German troops that had retreated from northern Russia.

My understanding is that the most-of-war occupation troops were not concentrated in the southernmost part of the country, which contained most of the population, urban activities and manufacturing activity. It was known to the Germans that the particular Allied interest would be in control of Narvik, particularly for its iron ore transshipment activities, and the harbors and airfields northward. So, even though the overall ratio of occupation troops to native population was about 1:8, the occupation-defenses in northern locales was proportioned to German estimates of Allied potential to get attacking troops there, rather than to the relatively small local populations. And, the Narvik defenses were based on that locale's importance to the German military economy in winter months.

 

[vizzer]

According to the useful Wikipedia (USA) article "German occupation of Norway", the total German occupation force for much of the war was about 300,000 combat soldiers.

Again per Wikipedia, as of May 8, 1945, there were about 400,000 German troops in Norway. That number included German troops that had retreated from northern Russia.

My understanding is that the most-of-war occupation troops were not concentrated in the southernmost part of the country, which contained most of the population, urban activities and manufacturing activity. It was known to the Germans that the particular Allied interest would be in control of Narvik, particularly for its iron ore transshipment activities, and the harbors and airfields northward. So, even though the overall ratio of occupation troops to native population was about 1:8, the occupation-defenses in northern locales was proportioned to German estimates of Allied potential to get attacking troops there, rather than to the relatively small local populations. And, the Narvik defenses were based on that locale's importance to the German military economy in winter months.

Just looking for the population of Narvik it's currently 15k & was around 5k before WW2. So taking your 1:8 ratio would be looking at 40k German troops & I just wonder where they'd put them all as you don't want to live under canvas during a Norwegian winter.

 

[MattII]

According to the useful Wikipedia (USA) article "German occupation of Norway", the total German occupation force for much of the war was about 300,000 combat soldiers.

Again per Wikipedia, as of May 8, 1945, there were about 400,000 German troops in Norway. That number included German troops that had retreated from northern Russia.

My understanding is that the most-of-war occupation troops were not concentrated in the southernmost part of the country, which contained most of the population, urban activities and manufacturing activity. It was known to the Germans that the particular Allied interest would be in control of Narvik, particularly for its iron ore transshipment activities, and the harbors and airfields northward. So, even though the overall ratio of occupation troops to native population was about 1:8, the occupation-defenses in northern locales was proportioned to German estimates of Allied potential to get attacking troops there, rather than to the relatively small local populations. And, the Narvik defenses were based on that locale's importance to the German military economy in winter months.

So Narvik will be a blood-bath. That points to Sicily, if they can woo Weygand over, or Greece if they can't. Of course, the latter would depend rather a lot on who owns what in the Aegean. Of course, for a dark-horse suggestion, going for Sardinia might be enough to panic the Germans into taking over the Vichy, which would likely put Weygand into the Allies pocket, and thus, open the way for Sicily.

Just looking for the population of Narvik it's currently 15k & was around 5k before WW2. So taking your 1:8 ratio would be looking at 40k German troops & I just wonder where they'd put them all as you don't want to live under canvas during a Norwegian winter.

They probably spent 1940 and 1941 building accommodations.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

So Narvik will be a blood-bath. That points to Sicily, if they can woo Weygand over, or Greece if they can't. Of course, the latter would depend rather a lot on who owns what in the Aegean. Of course, for a dark-horse suggestion, going for Sardinia might be enough to panic the Germans into taking over the Vichy, which would likely put Weygand into the Allies pocket, and thus, open the way for Sicily.

Interesting idea. Think Sardinia is a leap too far without Sicily though.

They probably spent 1940 and 1941 building accommodations.

Wooden huts if there’s timber from nearby forests or it can be shipped from further south. Stoves etc. also

Not great but survivable. Could also transfer some Norwegians to other towns if need be.