The proposed help to Finland camouflaged the real objective: to occupy Narvik and secure control over the Swedish mining district. The French government under Edouard Daladier had another hidden objective in mind in helping the Finns. The French faced the German Army on their eastern border. Memories of the enormous suffering and destruction during World War I were still fresh in French memories, and Daladier also hoped for a change of leadership in Germany that could lead to peace. In the meantime, however, the French government viewed operations in Scandinavia as an excellent opportunity to divert the war to someone else’s territory while pacifying the demand from the French populace that action be taken to aid the Finns.
A French plan formulated in the middle of January 1940 sought to avoid the necessity of asking the Swedish and Danish governments permission to breach their neutrality. It called for British and French forces to land at Petsamo, in former Finnish territory and for a naval blockade of the Soviet coast between Murmansk and Petsamo. The British objected to this plan since it would certainly lead to war with the Soviet Union. Why the British did not think that active Allied intervention on the side of the Finns would lead to a similar result is difficult to understand, unless one assumes that the policy-makers never intended for Allied forces to advance further than to the Swedish iron ore districts.
The only measures undertaken at the War Cabinet meeting on December 22, 1939 were to make diplomatic protests to Norway about the misuse of its territorial waters by Germany and to provide instructions to the military chiefs to consider the implications of any future commitments in Scandinavia. The cabinet authorized the military to plan for a landing at Narvik in the north and to consider the consequences of a German occupation of southern Norway.
The military chiefs had been somewhat skeptical about the risks involved in an operation against the iron ore districts in northern Sweden. Some of this skepticism now began to fade. General Ironside, while stating that it would not be an easy matter to reach the iron ore districts in snow and difficult terrain, concluded that the Allies could reach the mines before any possible Russian counter-moves. He further concluded that, if the British army were to be confronted by superior forces, a line of retreat was available after the mines were destroyed. He estimated that a force of three or four thousand men on skis or snowshoes would be sufficient.11 Admiral Pound tried to ease worries that the Germans might occupy southern Sweden and Norway by stating that the disadvantages if they did so would be more than offset by cutting the iron ore supplies to Germany. The danger of war with the Soviet Union was now viewed as an acceptable side-effect of an operation that could cut the iron ore supplies to Germany. Fears of the Soviet military machine were somewhat abated when it was stopped in its tracks by the small Finnish conscript army. Military planners no longer considered the Soviets capable of creating problems for the Allies in other parts of the world or of providing a great deal of help for Germany in Scandinavia.
The military chiefs also focused on the advantages of shifting the war to Scandinavia, where they reasoned that the Germans would need at least 20 divisions while the Allies, with the help of the Swedes and Norwegians, could make do with a much smaller force. It was believed that the German army had only limited reserves of iron ore on hand, and the chiefs concluded that this fact would force the Germans to attack in the west in the near future or to invade Sweden to secure the Swedish ore. Such an action would also require the Germans to invade Norway, and these combined operations would demand resources on a scale that would force them to postpone indefinitely an attack in the west.
The chiefs gave their blessings to the proposed operations in northern Norway and Sweden, and recommended that the first part of the force be dispatched no later than March 1940 in order to secure the mining districts and the port of Luleå before the northern Baltic became navigable. No direct military action was contemplated against the iron ore mines in central Sweden. They were to be made inoperable by sabotage.
The military chiefs’ acquiescence in the operation against northern Scandinavia carried with it several assumptions. It was imperative to obtain the cooperation of the Norwegian and Swedish governments, although such cooperation would place both those nations at odds with Germany and very possibly the Soviet Union as well.
The chiefs expected that an operation against Narvik would cause German counter-action in southern Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian nations would be promised help and this help would come primarily through Trondheim in central Norway. The forces landed there would proceed to Sweden, and in cooperation with that nation’s military, establish a defensive line south of Stockholm. Since a German occupation of southern Norway would place Trondheim within the reach of their air force, it was deemed necessary to also occupy Bergen and Stavanger. It was considered essential to carry out these operations almost simultaneously, and this required much shipping and very large naval forces.
Churchill kept pressing for his more limited option of mining the territorial waters. He presented a five-point plan to the War Cabinet on December 29 calling for quick action, pending execution of Ironside’s more ambitious plan:
1. Send a note to Norway and Sweden promising Allied help in certain circumstances.
2. Notify Norway on January 1 that the British intended to retaliate for the sinking of ships in Norwegian territorial waters.
3. Send a British flotilla to Norway.
4. Begin seizing German ships in Norwegian territorial waters.
5. Take measures against the iron ore facilities in Oxelösund by end of January 1940.
As already stated, Churchill was well aware that the elimination of the iron ore shipments through Norwegian waters would not alone have a severe effect on German war industry. His plans in the fall of 1939 and spring of 1940 were simple. He hoped for a German reaction to interference with their ore shipments. This would provide the Allies with the requisite excuse needed to move into Scandinavia and eliminate the source of iron ore and other valuable supplies for Germany. The northern blockade would be much more effective with British bases on the Norwegian coast. While Churchill hoped that the Scandinavian countries would resist a direct German attack and become part of the Allied camp, he was not overly concerned if, instead, there was a hostile reaction by these countries to British actions and a request from them for German assistance. While the cabinet members were impressed with Churchill’s arguments, they made no decision.
The military Chiefs of Staff, with Air Chief Marshal Sir Cyril Newall as spokesman, advised against Churchill’s proposal on January 2 when they presented the plan they had developed. They reasoned that Churchill’s plan could lead to German countermeasures that would jeopardize the larger project—the seizure of Narvik and the Swedish iron ore districts. This was in accordance with views expressed by Ironside at the War Cabinet meeting on December 22. Furthermore, the army was not prepared to counter a German move against southern Norway. While expressing favor for Churchill’s project, Chamberlain used the Chiefs of Staff’s objections to delay any actions except for the dispatch of a note to Norway.
The minutes of the meeting on January 2 clearly indicate that there was no realistic understanding of possible Swedish, Norwegian, and German reaction to an Allied entry into northern Scandinavia. They also demonstrate lack of under standing for the complexities of operations in a rugged, road less arctic wilder ness. Churchill maintained that Allied forces were sufficient to seize the iron ore districts regardless of Norwegian and Swedish reactions. The Dominions Secretary, Anthony Eden, suggested that 5,000–7,000 Canadians could be available for the operation in March. When it was pointed out that the Canadians were not trained on skis, General Ironside noted that they had snowshoes, and felt that was sufficient. The lack of reality of these and other assumptions by Allied leaders was quickly demonstrated when they sent forces to Norway in April.
British Note to Norway on January 6, 1940
Lord Halifax delivered the British diplomatic note to the Norwegian Ambass
ador in London, Erik Colban, on the evening of January 6. The note used the sinking of one Greek and two British merchant ships in 1939—Thomas Walton on December 8, Garoufalia on December 11, and Deptford on December 13—as examples of Norwegian failures to prevent the misuse of its territorial waters.12 The note, a copy of which was provided to Sweden, stated it would be necessary in the future to permit British warships to operate in Norwegian waters because the Germans had turned them into an operational area.
The Norwegian reaction was stronger than the British had anticipated. The Norwegians viewed the note as the most serious threat yet against their neutrality. They were probably aware that some British officials, Churchill among them, were hoping for a German reaction. In Churchill’s view, the Scandinavian countries were afraid of Germany and they would react favorably to Allied demands only if they were more afraid of them than the Germans. Foreign Minister Koht probably selected his words deliberately when he voiced the suspicion “that the British Government’s goal was to bring Norway into the war.”13 To the Norwegians, the note sounded suspiciously like the unreasonable accusations that sometimes preceded action by major powers. In addition, they felt particularly offended that this note was directed at a nation that had lost many lives and much property bringing supplies and foodstuffs to Great Britain through the German blockade.
The Norwegian government viewed the British threat so seriously that they prevailed on King Håkon VII to send a telegram on January 7 to his nephew, King George VI, asking for his personal intervention. George VI answered that it was necessary in this period for his country to defend its interests. The official Norwegian protest pointed out that British actions of the type threatened would lead to German counter-measures, and that the Norwegian Navy had orders to repel any violations of Norwegian neutrality by all means, regardless of the perpetrator’s nationality.
At least one writer claims that the exchange of letters between the two monarchs had a significant impact. Kersaudy writes, “Actually, the intervention of such an eminent personality as King Haakon of Norway was more than enough for Neville Chamberlain to give up even the semblance of any warlike initiative.”14 It is more likely that Chamberlain and Halifax used the strong Norwegian response to the British note, along with a very negative response from Sweden, as reasons to put the brakes on Churchill’s plans.15 In the middle of January, the British government shelved Churchill’s plan for immediate action against the iron ore traffic.
There followed over the next month a series of note exchanges between the British and Norwegians. Lord Halifax suggested to the Norwegian Ambassador that Norway take steps to close its waters, and an aide memoir of January 22 made the same suggestion. The Norwegian answer in early February stated that the Norwegian government would examine measures to protect its territorial waters, including mining. It was not until March 20 that the Norwegian Defense Ministry was asked to examine the possibility of mining specific points along the coast. Rear Admiral Henry E. Diesen, Commander-in-Chief of the Norwegian Navy, recommended on April 2 that if the government deemed it necessary, mine barriers should be laid south of Stadt. The Allies did not wait for the Norwegians to make a final decision.
Allied Military Plans
The British and French military staffs presented their plans to the Allied Supreme War Council in Paris on February 5, 1940. The War Council, based on these plans, approved a British motion to prepare and dispatch a military expeditionary force of several brigades of British, French, and Polish troops to the Finnish front. The expedition would be under British command. The primary objective of this force, which was to proceed to the Finnish front through Norway and Sweden, is actually found in another plan, code-named Avonmouth. The iron ore mines were included in the objectives of the expeditionary force.
The plan required Allied forces to land in Narvik and advance along the railroad to Kiruna and Gällivare, and on to Luleå on the Baltic. It was planned that the brigades would be positioned along this line before the middle of April, when Luleå would again be free from ice and open to German ore traffic. The unreasonableness of the assumption that Allied forces would be able to accomplish this in the roadless arctic wilderness was confirmed when elite British troops proved unable to undertake any off-road operations, and French Alpine troops were deemed unsuited for operations in the mountains around Narvik by their commander as late as May. Only part of the expeditionary force would proceed to Finland, and there is no doubt that the main objective was to halt the export of iron ore to Germany under the guise of helping the Finns.
The Allied plan anticipated a strong German reaction to the occupation of parts of northern Norway and Sweden. However, the planners did not expect Ger many to be in a position to act effectively until late spring when the Baltic was ice-free. Nevertheless, to meet possible German countermoves, the Allied plans called for the occupation of the cities of Trondheim, Namsos, Bergen, and Stavanger by five British territorial brigades. This part of the operation was codenamed Stratford. The occupation of these cities would provide bases from which to defend Norway, and open an alternate route to Finland via Trondheim. That city, along with Namsos, would serve as the main Allied base. Bergen would be an important secondary base and serve as the eastern terminal of a planned North Sea mine barrier. The planned operation against Stavanger can best be characterized as a raid. The city was to be held only long enough to destroy the Sola Airfield in order to deny its use by the Luftwaffe.
The plan for actions in Norway and Sweden called for reinforcements to be sent via Trondheim to take part in possible operations against Germans in southern Sweden, code-named Plymouth. These forces would consist of about 100,000 British and 50,000 French troops. Two British divisions due to embark for France were held back in Britain to be available for the Scandinavian operations. The port facilities in Trondheim were limited and it was estimated that it would take one month to get about 24,000 combat troops to link up with Swedish forces in positions to oppose a German advance. The rest of the force was needed to hold bases and keep lines of communications open. Over 40 destroyers were required as close-in escorts for the troop transports. The mission of the Home Fleet, strengthened by units of the French fleet, was to protect the transports against attacks by enemy surface units and the Luftwaffe. The air force contingent consisted of only six and one-half squadrons, three of which were fighters. In addition, four squadrons of heavy land-based bombers were placed at the disposal of the operation. While these were large commitments at this stage of the war, their inadequacy is confirmed by Britain’s own intelligence estimate, mentioned earlier, of what the Germans needed to carry out a similar operation. Derry maintains that these commitments were not large if the military chiefs were right in their opinion that it was their first and best chance to grab the initiative and shorten the war.
Even if the military chiefs were right in their assessment of the effects on the German war effort, the resources were inadequate against the logical reactions of the two Scandinavian countries, and particularly against the probable reactions by Germany and the Soviet Union. The issue of what to do if Norway and Sweden resisted, a probability Churchill claims to have recognized, was never faced by the Supreme War Council.
Preliminary requests to Norway and Sweden on March 2, 1940 about free passage of Allied troops to Finland were rejected quickly and firmly. In spite of this refusal and strong indications that Sweden and Norway would resist, the planners made no increase in the planned force levels. The likelihood of Norwegian resistance was eventually accepted, but the operation proceeded despite this probability. The military planners questioned what to do if the Norwegians and Swedes resisted, but the issue was studiously avoided by decision-makers. A note in Ironside’s diary is illustrative.
As the attitude of the Norwegians was in doubt, the commanders were instructed to land provided there was no serious fighting. The British had no intention of fighting their way through Norway and into Sweden. On the other hand, the commanders were not to be d
eterred by a show of resistance.16
Another astonishing excerpt from the instructions to the commanders was:
It is not the intention of this government that the force should fight its way through either Sweden or Norway. Nonetheless, should you find your way barred by Swedish forces, you should demand passage from the Swedish commander with the utmost energy.17
These were early examples of the many muddled statements and directives that were to emanate from the British command authorities during the Norwegian campaign. Chief Air Marshal Newall was on the mark when he said at the time, “I think the whole thing is hare brained.”18
The Altmark Incident
On February 16, 1940 an episode occurred that proved tailor-made for Churchill’s plans. At the same time, the outcome was such that future violations of Norwegian neutrality by the Allies would be viewed with greater understanding both domestically and in neutral countries. The episode involved violations of Norwegian neutrality by both the German and British navies, and the Norwegians can certainly be blamed for not enforcing their own rules and for handling the incident in a clumsy manner.
The German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee had raided shipping in the South Atlantic before it was scuttled off Uruguay’s Platte River on December 17, 1939. Survivors from merchant ships she had sunk had been transferred to one of her supply ships—Altmark—before the pocket battleship encountered the Royal Navy. The Altmark, commanded by Captain Heinrich Dau, headed back to Germany with its cargo of prisoners after the demise of the Admiral Graf Spee and entered Norwegian territorial waters on February 14.
Hitler’s Pre-Emptive War: The Battle for Norway, 1940 Page 4
