Norway

[IronDuke_slith]

I don't think they would have made much difference because of circumstance.

Taking as the average - 12 divisions, I think ensuring the supply of iron ore (if memory serves) was vital for the Reich war effort.

Although between the fall of France and early 1942, you might only need half that number, between mid 42 and mid 44 you get Torch, Husky, Salerno, Anzio and Overlord, so 12 is required as the Allies clearly like and have a big amphibious capability.

Churchill also had form when it came to bouncing around the edges, in smaller theatres.

By the time that threat no longer matters (mid-late 44, Bagration, Overlord and the Allies on their way to the German border) 12 divisions would have made little difference.

Hitler's problem was that to give up Norway, showed everyone he thought final victory was beyond him, but hanging onto it helped the Allies by removing a dozen divisions from his OOB. That said, I would still have pulled them out in late 44 together with the Army in Courland when cut off, and lined them all up along the Seelowe heights.

I'd have used the time they bought me to evacuate everyone to the west of the Elbe.

Regards,
Ironduke

[The_MadMan]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I've just been reading 'Why the Allies Won' by Richard Overy and I came across something I wasn't previously aware of. In 1944, as well as creating the illusion that the D-Day invasion would be at Pas-de-Calais the Allies also attempted to deceive the Germans that a British 4th Army, stationed in Scotland, would launch a diversionary assault on Norway. Apparently this part of the 'Fortitude' deception had only limited success (Noway wasn't reinforced) since German radio operaters were mainly listening to Soviet traffic.

I've read in D-Day by Stephen Ambrose that it was succesfull because the Germans did not take away forces from Norway either so if you look at it in this way, Fortitude was very succesfull.

Hm, I wonder how deep that analysis by Ambrose was. If the forces at hand had been committed earlier the outcome would have been uncertain, too. No need to go to Norway to fish after additional troops. There were plenty at hand, they just weren't sent into the fray.

If he means that they could have used divisions from Norway to actually man the coastal fortifications, then maybe yes it'd had differed.

It seems quite deep because he spent a lot of pages on it. He claims (and I quote page 82). You are spot on btw

The payoff was spectecular. By late spring, Hitler had 13 army divisions in Norway (along with 90.000 naval and 60.000 Luftwaffe personel). These where hardly high-quality troops, but still they could have filled in the trenches along the Atlantic Wall in France. In late May Rommel persuaded Hitler to move 5 infantry divisions from Norway to France. They had started to load up and move out when the Abwer passed on to Hitler a set of "intercepted" messages about the threat to Norway. He cancelled the movement order. To paraphrase Churchill, never in the history of warfare have so many been immobilized by so few.

[Kevinugly]

Looking at JT's earlier post (5 divisions were eventually transferred from Norway) and given that the Abwehr messages appeared in late May 1944 one wonders how long it would have taken to actually ship the five divisions over (not several months obviously[:)]). One suspects that they would have arrived just in time to get chewed up in the debacle of 'Cobra', Falaise and the race across France. It's interesting though that two historians I highly respect (and I would hope that others do too) should come to diametrically opposed conclusions regarding the success of 'Fortitude North'

[The_MadMan]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Looking at JT's earlier post (5 divisions were eventually transferred from Norway) and given that the Abwehr messages appeared in late May 1944 one wonders how long it would have taken to actually ship the five divisions over (not several months obviously[:)]). One suspects that they would have arrived just in time to get chewed up in the debacle of 'Cobra', Falaise and the race across France. It's interesting though that two historians I highly respect (and I would hope that others do too) should come to diametrically opposed conclusions regarding the success of 'Fortitude North'

I was not aware of the timing of the Abwehr messages but if it is indeed late may then it would serve no perpous other then destruction.

[Juba]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne
When the Finnish army surrendered, many of the finnish units joind russian units against the german, and Lappland Armee retreated to Lyngen in Norway. VonFalkenhorst's Norwegen-Armee was later in 1944 disbanded, and most of the troops put into Rendulic's Gebirgs-AOK 20.

Just a few points:

1. The Finnish army did not surrender.
2. The Finnish army pushed the Germany army out of Lapland. In the beginning there was no fighting as neither the Finns nor the Germans wanted to fight each other. The Soviets said that the German retreat was too slow and if the Finns did not make the Germans pick up their pace the Soviets would "help" Finland to drive out the Germans.
3. Russian units did not cooperate with Finnish units.
4. Some Finns did join the Germans so that they could continue to fight against the Soviets.

[The_MadMan]

I always though the Fins joined the Axis...

[Juba]

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

I always though the Fins joined the Axis...

[8|]

Read the post I was quoting from.

I was talking about 1944 not 1941.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

I always thought the Fins joined the Axis...

As far as I am aware, it was a 'marriage of convenience' directed at the Soviet Union only. But if someone would care to correct me ........... [;)]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

When the Finnish army surrendered,...

ARRGH! The Continuation War is really a forgotten one when these kind of myths still float around...

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Juba

3. Russian units did not cooperate with Finnish units.

One exception: Soviet air units tried to support Finnish forces defending Suursaari against the German attack (Operation Tanne Ost, at Baltic Sea), but it didn't quite work out, although the defense was succesful.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly


As far as I am aware, it was a 'marriage of convenience' directed at the Soviet Union only. But if someone would care to correct me ........... [;)]

Officially Finland fought a separate war against the Soviet Union, but was allied de facto. In the summer of 1944 Ribbentrop insisted that Finland should make an official alliance with Germany or their support (grain, ammunition) would end. Finally President Ryti made an personal alliance with Hitler, which didn't tie the rest of the government and ceased as soon as Ryti resigned. Quite clever trick since the German help had a significant role in repulsing the Soviet 1944 summer offensives. Mannerheim was named president after Ryti (quite impossible if Finland surrendered...).

[Belisarius]

We're straying off the path here, but wasn't England the only western power to declare war on Finland?

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

We're straying off the path here, but wasn't England the only western power to declare war on Finland?

Great Britain in 1941 when Finnish forces crossed pre-Winter War borders, and the US in 1944 during the Soviet summer offensive.

Edit: I just checked and in fact the US didn't declare war but just cut diplomatic relations with Finland after Ryti had signed the personal pact.

[Error in 0]

I see my statement of the finnish army surrendering has caused some aggrevation. It was not intended, and of course I can admit I was wrong. However, It would have been nice to hear what happened. Can some of you finns clarify?

JT

[JJKettunen]

I see my statement of the finnish army surrendering has caused some aggrevation. It was not intended, and of course I can admit I was wrong. However, It would have been nice to hear what happened. Can some of you finns clarify?

Feeling lazy so I just copy a post of mine from another forum here. It presents the military events of summer 1944 in short. Hastily written, but better than nothing, I'd guess.

"....Anyway, it was the first major Soviet offensive of 1944, and the only one were the defender was relatively succesful.

In short, Soviets managed to deceive Finns, who believed that practically all the resources were concentrated against the Germans. With typical fashion the Red Army broke through the frontline 10 June (preliminary bombardments and recon attacks had begun the day before) at Karelian Isthmus, and the 21st Army managed to advance approx. 100km in 12 days, capturing Viipuri (Vyborg) virtually without a fight on 20 June. While this was a success without a doubt, Soviets didn't reach the most important goal of the operation, which was destroying the major portion of Finnish forces. In fact while some Finnish formations were seriously depleted, none of them got surrounded and/or destroyed, and could form a cohesive line behind Viipuri and so called VKT-line. Even more important was the fact the Finns were able to transfer formations from the Syväri (Svir) -front, were Soviets didn't attack until 21st June.

Since all the military goals were not reached, and Finns were not ready to capitulate, Stalin orderer to continue with the offensive to inner Finland, and all the way to Helsinki if possible, but he denied any reinforcements from 21st, 23rd and 59th Army. So when the offensive began, Soviets were only able to advance approx. 10km in two weeks after the most hard fighting in Scandinavian history (the battle of Tali-Ihantala was bigger than the 2nd battle of El Alamein...).

While the advance seemed to stall Soviets tried to outflank the battlefield, but were repulsed at Viipurinlahti (59th Army) and Äyräpää-Vuosalmi (23rd Army) eventually. Especially on the latter fighting were very vicious (Finns initially defending a bridgehead in fanatic fashion). By 16th of July, Stalin halted the offensive on this front and most resources were redirected against the Germans.

However Soviets still advanced NE of Lake Ladoga were Finns were performing delay action until the pressure at Karelian Isthmus somewhat decreased. When reserves could be directed here, Finns encircled and annihilated 2 Soviet divisions on early August, and that ended any active offensives by the Soviet side there. The war turned into trench warfare for a month, until the truce on early September. Then Finns changed sides and began pushing German troops out of Lappland, which turned into a full war later."

[terje439]

As stated earlier in this thread, Hitler wanted to Norway to remain Neutral, however after the Altmark-incident (a british destroyer stopping and boarding a german ship within norwegian territorial waters), Hitler was not convinced that Norway would remain neutral, this was also claimed by the norwegian politician Quisling (as he wanted Germany to invade and make him leader of the country). This and british mining operations in norwegian waters was the deciding factor for Hitler to launch the invasion.

When it comes to the forces stationed in Norway, they remaind there in force because Hitler thought Norway a likely target for the allies. HOWEVER it should be remembered that these divisions were not frontline divisions, so asking about what they could do in the easter theatre makes little sense. The divisions in Norway were old veterans, wounded and young recruites.

In my oppinion I think Germany lost alot when they felt the need to invade Norway. At this time Norway was the 4th or 5th largest shipping nation in the world. So by launching an attack on Norway, the germans actually added large ammount of tonnage to the british supply fleet. The norwegian goldassests which were brought to London, and helped the allied cause. And most importantly tremendous losses in the german surface fleet, ships Germany never did manage to replace.

[The_MadMan]

ORIGINAL: Keke

Feeling lazy so I just copy a post of mine from another forum here. It presents the military events of summer 1944 in short. Hastily written, but better than nothing, I'd guess.

"....Anyway, it was the first major Soviet offensive of 1944, and the only one were the defender was relatively succesful.

In short, Soviets managed to deceive Finns, who believed that practically all the resources were concentrated against the Germans. With typical fashion the Red Army broke through the frontline 10 June (preliminary bombardments and recon attacks had begun the day before) at Karelian Isthmus, and the 21st Army managed to advance approx. 100km in 12 days, capturing Viipuri (Vyborg) virtually without a fight on 20 June. While this was a success without a doubt, Soviets didn't reach the most important goal of the operation, which was destroying the major portion of Finnish forces. In fact while some Finnish formations were seriously depleted, none of them got surrounded and/or destroyed, and could form a cohesive line behind Viipuri and so called VKT-line. Even more important was the fact the Finns were able to transfer formations from the Syväri (Svir) -front, were Soviets didn't attack until 21st June.

Since all the military goals were not reached, and Finns were not ready to capitulate, Stalin orderer to continue with the offensive to inner Finland, and all the way to Helsinki if possible, but he denied any reinforcements from 21st, 23rd and 59th Army. So when the offensive began, Soviets were only able to advance approx. 10km in two weeks after the most hard fighting in Scandinavian history (the battle of Tali-Ihantala was bigger than the 2nd battle of El Alamein...).

While the advance seemed to stall Soviets tried to outflank the battlefield, but were repulsed at Viipurinlahti (59th Army) and Äyräpää-Vuosalmi (23rd Army) eventually. Especially on the latter fighting were very vicious (Finns initially defending a bridgehead in fanatic fashion). By 16th of July, Stalin halted the offensive on this front and most resources were redirected against the Germans.

However Soviets still advanced NE of Lake Ladoga were Finns were performing delay action until the pressure at Karelian Isthmus somewhat decreased. When reserves could be directed here, Finns encircled and annihilated 2 Soviet divisions on early August, and that ended any active offensives by the Soviet side there. The war turned into trench warfare for a month, until the truce on early September. Then Finns changed sides and began pushing German troops out of Lappland, which turned into a full war later."

Thank you for this information, I never knew what happened to Finland after the winter war with Russia. As I mentioned earlier, I always thought they joined the Axis and nothing else happened there (pardon my ignorence).

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan
Thank you for this information, I never knew what happened to Finland after the winter war with Russia. As I mentioned earlier, I always thought they joined the Axis and nothing else happened there (pardon my ignorence).

No problem. Glad to be of some service. [:)]

I hope that some day events of the Continuation War will be presented to English speaking audience by some prominent historian (like David Glantz with his "Forgotten Battles" -series).

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: terje439

As stated earlier in this thread, Hitler wanted to Norway to remain Neutral, however after the Altmark-incident (a british destroyer stopping and boarding a german ship within norwegian territorial waters), Hitler was not convinced that Norway would remain neutral, this was also claimed by the norwegian politician Quisling (as he wanted Germany to invade and make him leader of the country). This and british mining operations in norwegian waters was the deciding factor for Hitler to launch the invasion.

When it comes to the forces stationed in Norway, they remaind there in force because Hitler thought Norway a likely target for the allies. HOWEVER it should be remembered that these divisions were not frontline divisions, so asking about what they could do in the easter theatre makes little sense. The divisions in Norway were old veterans, wounded and young recruites.

In my oppinion I think Germany lost alot when they felt the need to invade Norway. At this time Norway was the 4th or 5th largest shipping nation in the world. So by launching an attack on Norway, the germans actually added large ammount of tonnage to the british supply fleet. The norwegian goldassests which were brought to London, and helped the allied cause. And most importantly tremendous losses in the german surface fleet, ships Germany never did manage to replace.

You are right Terje, the Altmark incident was the trigger for the invasion of Norway, and the plans were laid hastily. It featured the worlds first airbourne assault, and was impressive in its mobility and speed. To claim Quisling had much to do with the decision is, however, far streched. It was more a matter of 'better us controlling Norway, than they', and they did not need an obscure politician like Quisling to confirm the british interest in Norway. The loss of the 1000 vessel strong merchandise fleet to the allies is a hypotetichal one, as it is not unreasonable that most of these ships could have ended up under allied control, invasion or not.


JT

[JTGEN]

terje439:

In my oppinion I think Germany lost alot when they felt the need to invade Norway. At this time Norway was the 4th or 5th largest shipping nation in the world. So by launching an attack on Norway, the germans actually added large ammount of tonnage to the british supply fleet. The norwegian goldassests which were brought to London, and helped the allied cause. And most importantly tremendous losses in the german surface fleet, ships Germany never did manage to replace.

My bet is that most of that tonnage was allready forced to carry goods for the allied, so there was no real loss there. But the Iron ore was vital and for securing that, Narvik was the key. Also a lot of pressure was put on the Swedes, and the battle of the Atlantic got a boost.

And the Germans also attacked Soviets from Norway. The border between Norway and Soviet was short (Soviets took that piece of property from the Finns in winter war) and so they attacked through the Finnish lappland, but with wery poor success. This was no tank country so no blitzgrieg here, the Soviets had the advantage. And Finnish troops greatly outperformed their neighbouring German counterparts. But I do not know how many Divisions were used by the Germans, probably not many, as the terrain is not wery good. Allthough it is wast wilderness, during winter war on that area a Soviet Division was slowed down by about 20 Finnish borderguards for about a week, before a battallion of reinforcements came and with about 3, the attac was stopped.[&o]



And regarding the Finnish surrender discussion. The deal that Ryti made on his own behalf(put him in jail by allies after the war) meant that Germans gave a hefty help, with one Division to watch the coastal flank in Karelian Isthmus (much needed) some Stugs (performed wery poorly compared to Finnish ones) and most importantly air detachment Kuhlmey with stukas and FW190 jabo's that dropped most bombs on Soviets, and large amounts of equipement grain etc.

This helped us a lot and at the time armistice, our army was better equipped than when the Soviet attack had started. All lost artillery was replaced, airforce had more fighters (and they were better ones), and the manpower losses were covered by calling up a couple of older agegroups from the reserve. So we could have stopped an other big assault and retreted to a well laid defensive line. So the Soviets did not have the strenght to make us surrender as they needed troops to get to Berlin and thus we remained independent.

The Soviet attac was hefty indeed with 200 barrels of artillery support per 1kilometer of front line, 8000 aircraft, something like 600 tanks(we had one stug batallion plus some others) etc.