Operation Weserübung

[composer99]

I've seen German invasions of Norway before. Usually the Royal Navy has to be "tapped out" for that to happen (whether chased from the North Sea by German naval air, or concentrated in the Med, or both).

IMO it could be more feasible if and when offensive points are added to MWif. But all the same, the variable turn length, alternating impulse, and sea box game mechanics all make Weserübung very difficult to implement in this game.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Wasn't the National Organisation on the Right a nationalist party in those days? They had quite some seats in Parliament in 1940. Sure, they weren't a Nazi party, but they were nationalists. It looked to me (after having done some reading a couple of years ago on Swedish politics during WW II), that they were slowly going towards the fascist party in Italy before it came into power. The only thing missing was a charismatic leader. And I don't confuse them with the real Nazi Party in Sweden (which was very minor indeed).

And are you sure that if the CW would have attacked and put a lot of forces in Norway, that Sweden wouldn't have become very nervous? In such a case the CW would have attacked a country which had a democratic chosen government. I believe such an action would have changed the way politics were done in Sweden. From such a time forward, Sweden could not trust any country in the war anymore. Don't forget: in november 1939 the CW guaranteed any nation which had a democratic chosen government. Chamberlain promised the the CW would never declare war on such a government. Now, Churchill wasn't interested in keeping that promise at all. What would such a thing have meant for Swedish trust in the CW? I believe that they would have reacted. When Germany attacked Norway, it was clearly not in their interest to do so. But if the CW would have done so?

Also, there are the memoires of Molotov, who wrote that Sweden didn't want the USSR to occupy all of Finland. So Sweden put a lot of diplomacy in to get a peace between Finland and the USSR which should make sure that Finland would stay independent after the winterwar. He even wrote that if Stalin would not do this, that Sweden might go to war with Stalin over this...

Now, what if there hasn't been a winter war and suddenly Churchill attacks Norway? I believe that Sweden would swing towards the German side fast in such a case. A democratic nation which attacks another democratic nation after promising that it would never do so? That's very, very difficult to ignore, I believe, even if one is a democratic nation itself...

Of course, Orm, you are from Sweden, but still?

1) All Swedish parties were agreed on that Sweden should remain neutral. Opposition to neutrality was weak in all parties.
2) The German Nazi party and AH were seriously disliked in Sweden. As I understand it is that most saw AH as a clown and could not understand how he could come in power.
3) Germany, on the other hand, was liked but as long as AH remained in power Sweden would be concerned.
4) Sweden made some concessions to Germany because of the German occupation of Norway. As long as Germany was in a position to invade Sweden then we would try to convince them that it would not be beneficial to invade Sweden.
5) Sweden feared USSR so we would go a long way not to provoke them. Sweden lost 1/3 of its territory to Russia during the Napoleonic wars. After that Sweden has had several opportunities to try and recapture part of those territories but each time we have passed. Either siding with Russia (1813-1814) and since then stayed neutral.
6) If the Western Allies had occupied Norway I am sure that concessions to them would have been considered with the goal of staying out of the war.
7) Neutrality was, and is, popular in Sweden. One could even claim that neutrality is more important than religion.

[Centuur]

That last sentence is probably the most important one where Swedish politics are involved. But there remains the fact that Molotov wrote about the Swedish involvement to get a peace between the USSR and Finland during the winterwar. He truly believed that Sweden would go to war if Finland would become Russian again...

However, would these neutrality politics stay the same if Sweden was suddenly confronted by an assault on a democratic neighbour by a democratic nation who did guarantee that neighbour some months before? That's questionable, because suddenly Sweden is placed between two fronts. One the Germans, who control the Baltic, another the CW, who control Norway. Both nations will demand the iron. How to handle such an impossible situation?

If Sweden negotiates with the CW, they make Hitler mad. If they negotiate with Germany, Churchill is on their doorstep. If they split it up, both nation would accuse Sweden for collaboration with the other party. I don't believe that the CW or Germany wouuld be content with 50-50 on the Iron ore...

It would have been impossible to stay neutral in such a situation for Sweden...

The fact that it was Germany and not the CW which attacked Norway made it possible for Sweden to stay neutral.

[AlbertN]

For what I've read across an amount of history books about WW2, Sweden traded with Germany because they were on good terms, nation to nation; Sweden needed Germany coal for their own economy; and Germany seemed to be on the winning side for quite a long time.
Sweden indeed in the mid 1944, once ensured the Germany lacked force to invade or do harm, and when Germany economy was pretty crippled, started to thin down the commerce with Germany, that along the effort of the Allies to starve Germany of strategical resources (For example the USA bought all the production of metalballs from Sweden in mid-44 to avoid these products be sold to Germany.).

But I am quite happy with a Sweden neutral unless attacked, really.

[Jagdtiger14]

Centuur: I forgot about NEI, sorry...that does make ALOT of sense! But what about "non-beligerant status"?...allowing any country to move its military through, but remaining neutral? If I were leader of Germany I think I might have offered this up first. If rejected, I would then have moved in anyway...same thing for Franco in Spain...after the fall of France on the way to taking Gibraltar.

Also, about Sweden...what if Stalin had taken all of Finland, CW Norway, and Germany asking for the iron ore and in control of the Baltic? Would there be enough pressure to force them to take a side? Keep in mind that up to mid-41 USSR and Germany were seen as working together...and Germany winning the war vs the west. My wife is Swedish, but cant give me any historical context other than her own personal thoughts about it.

[brian brian]

Didn't the last Annual finally include a system - for extending Days of Decision style shifts in minor status - that could be used during General War? That would really be the ultimate modeling of the war.

I've posted this thought before, but what drove Churchill and Hitler on the questions of Scandinavia wasn't just 3 resources out of 25 being used in the German economy. The Swedish iron ore was a high grade ore that Germany could only get limited amounts of elsewhere. Without it, German steel production would certainly decrease. Less steel, less Panzers. But that is too fine a detail for World in Flames.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Centuur: I forgot about NEI, sorry...that does make ALOT of sense! But what about "non-beligerant status"?...allowing any country to move its military through, but remaining neutral? If I were leader of Germany I think I might have offered this up first. If rejected, I would then have moved in anyway...same thing for Franco in Spain...after the fall of France on the way to taking Gibraltar.

Also, about Sweden...what if Stalin had taken all of Finland, CW Norway, and Germany asking for the iron ore and in control of the Baltic? Would there be enough pressure to force them to take a side? Keep in mind that up to mid-41 USSR and Germany were seen as working together...and Germany winning the war vs the west. My wife is Swedish, but cant give me any historical context other than her own personal thoughts about it.

warspite1

I must admit that and

Centuur: the CW, who control Norway.

did make me chuckle [:)]

Centuur: .....by a democratic nation who did guarantee that neighbour some months before?

Also, does this refer to the UK guaranteeing Norway?

[Jagdtiger14]

Warspite: If Germany had done nothing concerning Norway, was not CW on the way themselves? I don't think it unrealistic that CW would have taken Norway to keep it out of Axis hands.

[warspite1]

The British and French (oh yes, they were involved too) “planning” for Norway needs to be read to be believed. Farcical, amateurish, muddled, inadequate are probably four of the kinder words I would use*.

Was a force on its way to Norway prior to the Germans launching Weserubung? Yes. What size of force? Where was it going? What was it seeking to achieve? What, given its size, was it capable of achieving?

1.

If Germany had done nothing concerning Norway, was not CW on the way themselves?

Size: A couple of brigades – one of which was a territorial unit. This tiny force was also deficient in supporting equipment of all sorts.

2. Where was it going and what was it seeking to achieve: This is where the story really goes downhill. The “plan” was that the RN would lay mines in Norwegian waters. As a result the Germans would “react”. What German “reaction” meant was not properly thought through or defined. This was somewhat surprising given that it was this “reaction” that would apparently see the Norwegians acquiesce in the landing of Allied troops in the country, rather than what would be a hostile landing!! Surprisingly no one seemed to notice the contradiction that it was previously agreed by the Allies that if they landed in Narvik, it would be May(!) before the Germans could react.

The terms of engagement for Allied forces were also – shall we be polite and call them - confused? Having landed the Allies were not to fire on the Norwegians (a degree of Allied casualties was to be expected) – unless of course the commanders felt their force was under threat! What constituted being simply shot at and killed and a threat to their force was, of course, not defined, let alone how Narvik was to be taken without killing Norwegians.... no muddled thinking there then eh?

I will leave the embarrassing why’s and the what for’s of what actually happened as your scenario assumes the “CW take Norway” as the Germans have not prepared Weserubung. So, in summary the Norwegians (though keen not to fight the Allies, but are even more keen to remain neutral) have told the Allies that they will not accept troops on their soil. Regardless, the RN have mined Norwegian waters and the Germans are incapable of mounting any response for a month! However, Hitler cries foul and announces that Germany will not allow this outrageous attack on a neutral country (ha ha) to go unpunished! This gives the Allies the “reaction” they were looking for and they land two brigades near Narvik (let's assume Hitler's speech was immediate so the British troops are not waiting on board ship for days!). Let’s also ignore the presence of the two Norwegian coastal defence ships for the moment as I would really rather not think about that….

3.

I don't think it unrealistic that CW would have taken Norway

What was the Allied force capable of achieving: Well that depends on the situation that now develops. Either:

a) The Norwegians, not realising that Captain Mainwaring and Dad’s Army alone has just landed near Narvik (and assume instead that a proper, appropriate sized professional army has landed and that reinforcements are on their way) they decide to surrender the country to Allied occupation.

b) The Norwegians fight.

In the case of the former (and let’s not even muddy the waters with what Sweden would do), what exactly are the British going to offer in terms of additional troops to defend against the German response? – which no doubt would be landings in strength along Norway’s southern shore. How quickly are those brigades – devoid of proper supporting arms (anti-tank and particularly AA) going to move south to counter any threat? That assumes of course that the Allies (totally oblivious to how quickly the professional Germans can move) even bother to move south – remember, Narvik and indeed the iron ore fields of Sweden(!!!) are why they are there in the first place.

In the case of the latter, well this is where things really come apart. If the Norwegians fight they will no doubt “accept” landings of German troops in the south and then we end up with the same situation as per Weserubung (Germans in the south and Allies in and around Narvik), with the exception that Norway are hostile and Narvik has fallen earlier than real life. The Kriegsmarine is also intact at this point.

Summary

The Allies do not “control” Norway, even in the former scenario. The force there is simply a military defeat waiting to happen and the actions of the Allies would, if anything, push Sweden closer to the Axis camp. God only knows what the US think of this nonsense.

*No disrespect to those troops tasked with undertaking this – but anger and bemusement toward politicians who, having declared war, were simply playing at it in the first year of the war.

[tom730_slith]

In my current Solitaire Global War campaign the CW does invade Norway - following a DOW of course!
This results in the addition of a small Norwegian land force and a sizable merchant marine immediately becoming available to Germany!
The Transports in particular have had a big impact on the ability of the Germans to improve over their historical outcomes! The convoys are also a very nice addition as the Axis gains more territory and has access to more resources that require transporting back to Germany!

Kicking the rather small small CW force out of Norway would have proven more difficult if they hadn't been voluntarily withdrawn after things went badly in France.
I'm currently in 1944 and the Axis has done very well on all fronts, and the Norwegian shipping continues to help bring resources from the Middle East and Africa back to Germany (and eventually Italy!) Currently in my game the extra transports are also helping make possible simultaneous moves to Iceland (by Germany) and the also CW and French colonies of north-eastern South America (by Germany and Italy)

A CW invasion of Norway - and DOW - is a gift that just keeps on giving! [:D]

[Jagdtiger14]

I think a well timed CW invasion in 1941 when Germany is embroiled in a Barbarossa...S/O'41? Leave enough juice ready to assist the US in the Med for when ever they enter the war.

I did this in one game as the CW and did fairly well (took Norway), although I was stopped in Denmark and never took Copenhagen. The US player was playing stupidly in Morrocco, where he got bogged down and kept spending my supply units (Axis had Gibraltar and we had a hard time keeping things in supply). I wanted him to focus on Scandinavia/France/Baltic...but NOoooo. I had ideas about trying to take Sweden and Finland if I had major US commitment (the US came in very early that game...M/J of '41).

[Palle]

Just a correction, the French troops deployed to Narvik was anything but "Dad's Army"; it was the 13e Demi-Brigade de Légion Étrangère and Chasseurs Alpins. Highly professional troops I would say. It is pretty difficult to find any more so and harder than the legionnaires- even if they had just come from the desert to below zero degrees.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Palle

Just a correction, the French troops deployed to Narvik was anything but "Dad's Army"; it was the 13e Demi-Brigade de Légion Étrangère and Chasseurs Alpins. Highly professional troops I would say. It is pretty difficult to find any more so and harder than the legionnaires- even if they had just come from the desert to below zero degrees.

warspite1

1. As I made clear in my post, the comments were no reflection on the troops assigned to carry out this ...ahem..."plan".

2. Within the force, there were - on both the British and French side - professional soldiers. Sadly, the presence of a few professionals does not make up for: the deficiencies in planning (a total lack thereof), equipment (or lack of and lack of the right equipment), size of force (totally inadequate), objectives (undefined or not properly defined), air cover (too little, too obsolete) and composition of force (not enough trained, experienced troops). It was these things as a whole that makes them "Dad's Army" or "General Goofy goes to war" or whatever other title one may wish to give such a pathetic enterprise, rather than the shortcomings (or otherwise) of any individual unit.

[TeaLeaf]

I always take Norway for its resource.
That 1 resource can be defended well enough if need be. If Germany, I am not much interested in the Northern parts of it, as it is difficult for Germany to get supply to this area. Although, if it is deemed necessary, Mannerheim could reach quite far into the Northern parts of Norway. If the Finnish resource is to be protected (and Murmansk to be cut or taken), Germany needs that man in the north anyway.
Come to think about it, German units may move and -more importantly- trace supply through Sweden (but not end a movement step there). I never tried this but I think this means that Von Leeb, if moving along the Swedish border, can trace to the Swedish railways and then through Sweden via the Baltic Sea back to Germany.

If Germany can effectively protect Petsamo and Knaben, those two resources are worth/producing ~75BP for Germany throughout the game. Equivalent of 25INF units. That is worth some effort, I'd say. Not sure what exactly, but Germany can place a few units Around Knaben/Oslo and also replace Mannerheim in the North with Von Leeb and a few additional German units. My guess is that Murmansk will also be in big trouble..
The downside is ofc very obvious: CW merchant fleet will be reinforced.

Now, as to how to grab Norway. This is very easy, since Norwegian notional units will defend with '0' factors during the surprise impulse. Norway must therefore set up in Oslo or it will be taken in the surprise impulse. A bit of planning ahead and a couple of Para's and subsequently flown in reinforcements (MTN or DIVs) goes a very long way to begin with. A few LND may be necessary later on and so may shore bombardment, so a combined action sometime during the turn is recommended. Preferrably during the surprise impulse to also make use of the AMPH as well. BTW, Germany should go from the Baltic Sea. Their invasion forces are just too exposed in the Nort Sea.

Usually the CW is too busy in France, collecting its forces from all around the globe, protecting their convoys and sending units to Africa/Mediterranean to have a meaningful force ready to react to Norway being usurped. Even if they react, what can they gain in Norway? Germany should have the resource and the CW gets a port with a few units (Narvik?!) at best.
After Norway is conquered, the CW will have trouble invading Norway untill their first AMPHs arrive. The CW then has a choice: attacking Persia + Iraq or attacking Germany in Norway. P+I will cost Germany an oil and delivers a lot more oil to the CW and it remains to be seen if a relatively small CW force is able to take the Norwegian resource away from Germany, and it isn't even an oil resource.

My perspective of the pros and cons and ins and outs of this operation [;)]. If the CW, I would let them bastards have Norway as I would be too preoccupied with fighting in the med and preparing to take Persia + Iraq (as soon as the US is in the war to not jeopardize its entry)...

[AlbertN]

I don't think the issue is very early in the war but as much as Norway can easily get turned into a land-carrier for Strat Bombers of the Allies for example, or Tacs to help a landing in Denmark at short range; or to go in the Baltic flying from there.
Norway, on top of that, turns into a place you need to dedicate troops to defend the resource as well - and to quell partisans down.

Timing would also be rather relevant as it would strip assets from main theathers such as France for example; or Spain / Russia later on.

[Jagdtiger14]

If as Germany you want to undertake this strategy...I highly recommend it be done after the fall of France. Also, going forward you will need a fairly good defense (include Denmark) since this area then becomes a big target for the WAllies in 1942. Hopefully the units you are using to take Norway and hold it will not impact your activities in the Med/Balkans/Spain (I consider these areas of greater importance)...prior to a '41 Barb (if '41 Barb is your plan).

Its an interesting concept, and I would love to play either side some day in trying this out.