Why was Norway never liberated?



  • Of course it was liberated at the end of the war but did the allies have any invasion plans for it? Just a question that I always wondered about.



  • Well, the Russians invaded the northern part.

    I guess it’s because all the forces were concentrated on France



  • Good point, but I thought Norway had Iron Ore reserves that were important to the German war effort. In my book that would have been a target to either take out or occupy.



  • @molinar13:

    Good point, but I thought Norway had Iron Ore reserves that were important to the German war effort. In my book that would have been a target to either take out or occupy.

    Actually, the iron ore came from Sweden and I think by 1944/45, Sweden agreed not to ship any more to germany


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I suppose that the Alllies didn’t invade Norway for the same reason that they didn’t invade quite a number of Japanese-held territories in the Pacific: because doing so wasn’t essential, and that a better use of their forces was to concentrate on the objective of knocking Germany out of the war as quickly as possible.  Liberating France was an essential preliminary to invading Germany itself; liberating Norway wasn’t.  Defeating Germany liberated Norway without the need for the direct invasion of Norway; liberating Norway, on the other hand, would not have brought about Germany’s surrender, so concentrating on Germany was the more effective option.  Similarly, in the Pacific, the Americans concentrated on capturing only the islands that were vital to achieving the twin goals of liberating the Philippines and putting mainland Japan into range of their strategic bomber forces.  They ignored the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies for that reason, and also because cutting off Japan from its supplies of raw materials from the DEIs could be done more easily by attacking Japanese convoys than by invading the DEIs.



  • @CWO:

    I suppose that the Alllies didn’t invade Norway for the same reason that they didn’t invade quite a number of Japanese-held territories in the Pacific: because doing so wasn’t essential, and that a better use of their forces was to concentrate on the objective of knocking Germany out of the war as quickly as possible.  Liberating France was an essential preliminary to invading Germany itself; liberating Norway wasn’t.  Defeating Germany liberated Norway without the need for the direct invasion of Norway; liberating Norway, on the other hand, would not have brought about Germany’s surrender, so concentrating on Germany was the more effective option.  Similarly, in the Pacific, the Americans concentrated on capturing only the islands that were vital to achieving the twin goals of liberating the Philippines and putting mainland Japan into range of their strategic bomber forces.  They ignored the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies for that reason, and also because cutting off Japan from its supplies of raw materials from the DEIs could be done more easily by attacking Japanese convoys than by invading the DEIs.

    Yes, but geographically speaking would it not have been easier to liberate Norway, establish a base then invade Germany through an amphibious assault to the North? Instead of traveling through inland France? Its just something that I’ve always wondered.



  • hmm, after looking at a REAL map, France is closer to England, than Norway is to Germany. Okay I caught myself, France would have been the better landing in terms of able to support it with supplies and air support



  • @molinar13:

    hmm, after looking at a REAL map, France is closer to England, than Norway is to Germany. Okay I caught myself, France would have been the better landing in terms of able to support it with supplies and air support

    LOL, you were looking at an A&A map?



  • maybe  :roll:



  • I believe a French and British Expeditionary force was sent in April 1940 I believe, could be wrong going off of the top of my head.  Any ways there about 4-5 different landing on the mid to northern coasts, but in all failed.  Norway is extremely difficult to conduct amphib operations due to all of the fijords that run up the western side of the country.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @molinar13:

    Yes, but geographically speaking would it not have been easier to liberate Norway, establish a base then invade Germany through an amphibious assault to the North? Instead of traveling through inland France? Its just something that I’ve always wondered.

    This kind of operation would have required three steps: 1) Launching an amphibious invasion of western Norway from northern England or Scotland, a minimum sea distance of 300 miles ; 2) Marching these forces overland through Norway, a country consisting almost entirely of mountains; 3) Launching the repositioned forces on a second amphibious assault from either southern Norway to Denmark or, if one were willing to violate Swedish neutrality, from Sweden to Germany.  By contrast, Overlord was launched from southern England (reasonably flat country in the most heavily populated area of England) across the English Channel (over a distance of about 50 miles), landing in Normany (on flat beaches) and marching to Germany across France (another reasonably flat country).  I think the geography favours the way the option the Allies chose to use.



  • @molinar13:

    hmm, after looking at a REAL map, France is closer to England, than Norway is to Germany. Okay I caught myself, France would have been the better landing in terms of able to support it with supplies and air support

    A look at real life?



  • An allied invasion of Norway was considered, but was left out pretty early, and the plan never made it outside of the different (hypothetical) options that was discussed when the allies finally decided to invade Germany.
    France was obviously the best option, because if they chose Norway instead of France, they had to bring all the men and material onto the boats again, before launching an amphibious attack on Denmark or France afterwards.
    Its not like the allies could walk from Norway, after having killed the German soldiers in Norway, to Northern Russia, and then southwards through the Baltic states and Poland and into Germany. Stalin would never allow that, so it was a much better decision to land all forces in France at once, instead of fooling around in Norway. The allies could launch a “minor” attack on Norway, but with 300.000-400.000 German soldiers, it could never be a “minor” invasion anyway, better to send it all to France, and then advance to Germany.



  • It’s worth noting that Churchill spent most of the 1940-1943 period screaming his head off for a Norwegian offensive. None of his joint chiefs really took it seriously and did their best to placate him. Italy distracted him, but then he focused all his attention on the Balkans, another eye-roller that Roosevelt/Truman pulled him away from.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The people loved Quisling and would defend Norway to the last man to save him. This made an invasion impossible due to the tenacity and resolve of the occupation.

    Psych.



  • @Imperious:

    The people loved Quisling and would defend Norway to the last man to save him. This made an invasion impossible due to the tenacity and resolve of the occupation.

    Psych.

    If I didn’t know that you were joking, I’d say that was a mean comment    :lol:



  • I imagine a whole slew of British and American ships “blockading Norway so Germany didn’t get any IPCs out of the territory” making taking it over non essential


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Joke of course.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 10
  • 16
  • 21
  • 11
  • 29
  • 15
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

48
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts