Why didn't the Allies use a naval invasion to retake Norway?

score:12

Accepted answer

Because the costs outweighed the benefits. They could fairly easily block submarines entering the Atlantic by then. It served very nicely as a [by the Allies] attackable port where the German Kriegsmarine had parked their ships. Kept them far away from doing any harm elsewhere.

Yes, the Germans could ship iron ore via Norway, but only during the winter. In summer, they could use the Baltic Sea route. That route was the more important one and could not be closed by the Allies.

Of course, the Allies could invade Norway. But at great costs. The possible invasion beaches would be:

  • A thousand miles further away than Normandy
  • In near Arctic conditions
  • Against a well entrenched and fortified enemy (400.000 troops in the area)
  • With combat experience (many of them)

Not a place you'd want to invade, unless absolutely necessary.

The Allies had a pretty bad experience, early in the war, invading Norway. After that, they learned at Dieppe that a maritime invasion against a well-prepared enemy was near suicidal.

As it was, the Allies were very happy Hitler believed they would invade Norway. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. (N. Bonaparte)

Upvote:2

Because it was Plan "B" (or even "C"). In 1942, Winston Churchill was "undecided" between invading Norway or North Africa, but the Americans tipped the balance in favor of the latter campaign.

Let's look at the results of the plan that was actually followed, the invasion of Italy:

  1. Italy, with its 40 million people was induced to "switch sides." This is about half the number of (ethnic) Germans in greater Germany (about 80 million). The psychological effect of "turning" a German ally (as opposed to an occupied territory) was enormous.
  2. The 4 million man Italian army was neutralized. A fraction of it joined Mussolini's new "republic," but an equal number fought on the Allied side.
  3. The occupation of southern Italy (including Sicily) gave the Allies almost complete control of the Mediterranean, including the use of the Suez canal.

Let's compare that as to what was to be gained by a Norwegian invasion:

  1. We would have liberated a country with 4 million people (not 40 million). These four million people were "garrisoned" by 400,000 German troops, a wasteful ratio of one soldier to ten civilians.
  2. We might have interfered with shipments of Swedish iron ore. This is an unquantifiable "X" factor that might have made the Norwegian campaign worthwhile.
  3. We might have forced Finland, with its 4 million people and 400,000 men army out of the war. Again, this would be one-tenth of Italy's numbers.
  4. Such a plan might have served to rescue Russia (via Norway, Finland, Archangelsk, Leningrad), if Russia need rescuing. But by mid-summer 1943, they had won the Battle of Stalingrad and would soon win the battle of Kursk. If anything, it was more important to "race" Russia for Continental Europe, rather than "Scandinavia."

More post

Search Posts

Related post