Hitler’s Pre-Emptive War: The Battle for Norway, 1940 (8 page)

Churchill’s Mining Plan Approved

Plans for Allied action in Scandinavia, particularly in Norway, continued due to Churchill’s persistence. Information about Allied plans to help the Finns leaked to the press, and their failure to carry them out resulted in a storm of criticism directed at the governments in Britain and France. Daladier’s government fell, and the more aggressive Paul Reynaud replaced him as prime minister. The new French Prime Minister was more congenial to Churchill’s designs. He advocated an aggressive war effort and revisited the question of operations in Scandinavia, including taking control of the Norwegian coast.

Churchill and Reynaud had similar views as to the purpose of operations in Scandinavia, differing only when it came to details. Churchill’s primary goal was to entice the Germans into an area where British naval superiority could bring victories. In the process, the Allies would increase the effectiveness of the blockade, eliminate iron ore shipments to Germany via Norway, and possibly bring Sweden under their sway. This was only different from the views of Reynaud in scope and emphasis. He wanted to send an expedition into Norway in order “to create a new theater of war in which the Germans would use up their men, their materiel, and in particular their air force, and above all, their reserves, especially of petrol.”
²⁸
Chamberlain and Halifax were facing severe criticism in the press and from their colleagues, and it seems they were ready to do anything as long as it looked as if they were doing something.

Reynaud and his colleagues came to London on March 28, 1940 for a meeting of the Supreme War Council. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain finally threw his support behind Churchill’s long-standing proposal to cut Germany’s import of iron ore from Narvik. Reynaud readily agreed, and it was decided to mine Norwegian waters beginning April 5. The participants in the meeting agreed that a good pretext would have to be found to alleviate the adverse reactions such an operation would have in neutral countries, particularly in the United States. It was agreed that diplomatic notes should be sent to Norway and Sweden before the mining. These notes would state that the neutrality policies of the Scandinavian countries gave great comfort and help to Germany, and the Allies could not ignore these facts. In effect, this was tantamount to saying, “Either you are with us or against us.” They would remind the recipients that Hitler was diametrically opposed to the autonomy and rights of small nations, a cause for which the armies of both France and Britain were fighting.

The plan called for delivery of these notes to the Norwegian and Swedish governments on April 1 and 2. The mining operations, code-named
Wilfred
, were thereupon to proceed without further warning to the Norwegians. These operations were expected to result in German retaliation, and British and French troops were held in readiness for a rapid occupation of Narvik, Trondheim, Bergen, and Stavanger (Plan
R4
).

It was hoped that the Norwegians, who were expected to be aware of possible German counter-measures, would not resist the mining, and in fact might welcome the Allied action. The planners were less certain about the Swedish reaction. It was hoped that Allied troops in Narvik would be able to move against the iron ore mines in Sweden and be in position to help that country against a German attack. The plan also called for mining the Luleå harbor with aerial deployed mines.

There can be no doubt that the sympathies of Sweden and Norway were with the Allies; nevertheless, it was over-optimistic to hope that they would not resist an attack. A more pragmatic approach would have been to assume that Sweden, in the face of Allied landings in Narvik, their advance on the iron ore district, and the mining of Luleå, would have acquiesced to German assistance if they thought it necessary. The subsequent Allied operations in North Norway demonstrated clearly that they would have been incapable of reaching the Swedish iron ore districts if faced with Norwegian and Swedish resistance, so Sweden may not even have needed to call on Hitler’s help.

The propaganda value to the German leaders of an Allied attack on two small neutrals was obvious. The Allies may well have lost the moral high ground they had secured after the German aggressions against Czechoslovakia and Poland. Even Churchill’s eloquence may not have been able to overcome the negative effects among neutrals.

It is difficult to understand why such intelligent and experienced policy-makers and military planners could have been so confident of Norwegian and Swedish support for their proposed gross infringement of neutrality. One possible explanation is that the Allies were so captivated by the perceived advantages of widening the war that they glossed over any serious objections.

In order to disrupt river traffic, the Supreme War Council also agreed to drop mines in the Rhine River and its canals at the same time, in an operation code named
Royal Marine.

By including an attack directly against Germany as part of the plan, the Allies likely hoped to deflect some of the anticipated criticism that their first offensive operation of the war was carried out against a neutral country rather than the aggressor.

The French War Committee objected to Operation
Royal Marine
on April 3. Daladier, who was now Minister of Defense, argued that
Royal Marine
would lead to German reprisals against French industries. He pointed out that the fighter aircraft of the French Air Force would need three months before they were ready to protect French industries against German air attacks.

An irritated Chamberlain dispatched Churchill to Paris to try to convince the French to carry out both operations. In the meantime, however, those operations were put on hold. Churchill met Daladier on April 5. He was not particularly interested in
Royal Marine
and did not press Daladier to change his mind as Chamberlain had hoped. Churchill told Chamberlain and Halifax that the French arguments against
Royal Marine
were well grounded, but that the mining of Norwegian waters should proceed. Both the prime minister and his foreign secretary appear to have reached that decision even before Churchill’s return. The British War Cabinet decided to carry out Operation
Wilfred
in the early morning hours of April 8. Halifax favored proceeding with
Wilfred
since he feared that not doing so could cause the Reynaud government to fall. He realized that Reynaud’s resolute offensive spirit was largely motivated by a desire to avoid the fate of Daladier. The delay in launching the Allied operation from April 5 to April 8 had a huge effect on events in Norway.

The decision to proceed with the operations in Norway caused a feeling of relief and optimism among the people of London and Paris. The optimistic mood is reflected in Chamberlain’s speech to a gathering of conservative politicians and supporters on April 5. He pointed out to the audience that Hitler, in not going on the offensive over the past seven months, had failed to exploit his initial military superiority. He continued:

Chamberlain’s statement that Hitler had missed the bus was as ill advised as his claim of “peace in our time” after his earlier meeting with Hitler in Munich. As he addressed the House of Commons on May 7 in an emotionally charged atmosphere, when things were unraveling for the Allies in Norway, his speech was continually interrupted by shouts of “Hitler missed the bus!” and “Who missed the bus?”

To meet the contingency of a German reaction, Operation
Wilfred
had a complementary plan named
R4
. This was scheduled to go into operation when “the Germans set foot on Norwegian soil, or there was clear evidence that they intended to do so.”
³⁰
This plan included provisions for a British brigade (the 24th Guards) and a French contingent to be dispatched to Narvik to clear that port and advance to the Swedish border. Another five battalions were destined for Stavanger, Bergen, and Trondheim to deny those cities to the enemy. Plan
R4
was allocated no air support. It was apparently expected that the infantry units, once ashore, would be able to hold these cities against all threats. It was hoped that the Norwegians would welcome the British and French troops as allies. There were no contingencies covering the real possibility that the Norwegians would resist.

The primary objective of the expedition in Norway was Narvik and the railroad leading to the Swedish border. Later, as opportunity presented itself, the Allied troops were to advance into Sweden and occupy the iron ore districts of Kiruna and Gällivare. The brigade destined for Narvik was to be brought there in a transport escorted by two cruisers. These ships were to leave their debarkation port a few hours after the minefields were laid. It is evident from this timeline that a landing in Narvik was to take place even if there was no immediate German counter-move. A gradual buildup of forces in Narvik was anticipated until the strength of the units there reached approximately 18,000. This force would be composed for the most part of French alpine troops. If an advance into Sweden became an actuality, one squadron of fighters would support these troops. The plan—especially the assumptions and force allocation parts—strikes one as tentative, nonchalant, and unrealistic when compared to what the Germans were planning.

Allied Diplomatic Notes on April 5, 1940

The British and French notes were delivered to Norway and Sweden on the evening of April 5. The gist was contained in paragraph five of the documents:

Koht received the note as he was preparing to attend a dinner at the residence of the U.S. Ambassador, Mrs. Harrimann. He addressed the Norwegian Parliament with carefully chosen words to conceal his mixed feelings of fear and anger and to avoid creating a sense of alarm in the country. His speech was directed more at the diplomatic corps and the foreign press representatives than at the Norwegian people. He stressed that the Allies had nothing to gain by closing Norwegian waters since the country traded more with Great Britain than with Germany, and more iron ore from Narvik went to the Allies than to Germany. He reminded the listeners that the Allies had approved the trade agreements and signed treaties to that effect. To force Norway to abandon these agreements would be a breach of neutrality and Norway would find itself at war.

The British government had little information about Koht’s reaction to the note when some of the War Cabinet members met on Saturday, April 6. However, there was no doubt about the Swedish reaction. The Swedish ambassador to Great Britain had stated immediately that it could become necessary to reexamine the trade agreements between Sweden and England. The British ambassador in Stockholm reported that the Swedish Foreign Minister, Christian Günther, had stated that the notes brought his country to the edge of war. The British ambassador expected Sweden to mobilize the following day and had great difficulties persuading the foreign minister not to release the notes to the press. However, in a conversation with Koht, Günther opined that the notes were not as ominous as they sounded, and that they were probably designed to silence domestic critics in Great Britain and France.
³²

Chamberlain and Halifax decided to send a message to calm Swedish fears and anger. Despite the fact that British naval forces were already at sea, and troops were in the process of embarking for landings in Norway, the British message assured the Swedes that they had no intention of landing in Scandinavia unless they were forced to do so by a similar German action. This was also the day on which the British government approved military orders to execute the mining operations and the landing of troops in Narvik.

Allied Operations Begin

Four destroyers of the 20th Destroyer Flotilla, commanded by Captain Bickford, left Scapa Flow on April 5 with a course for Vestfjord, to lay a minefield. They were accompanied by four more destroyers of the 2nd Destroyer Flotilla, under the command of Captain Warburton-Lee. His mission was to cover Bickford’s destroyers during the mine-laying operation and later to guard the minefield. Another force left Scapa Flow on the same day. It consisted of the minelayer
Teviot Bank
, escorted by four destroyers under the command of Captain Tod. The mission of this force was to lay mines off Stadt (north of Bergen). British destroyers would also simulate laying a minefield near the town of Molde.

Chamberlain and Halifax were nervous about the possibility of armed conflict with the Norwegian Navy during the mining operations. An agitated Koht had recently protested to the British Embassy about continued British violations of Norwegian waters, and stated that such violations would no longer be tolerated. Henceforth, the Norwegians would use force. Admiral Pound explained that the British warships would not let themselves be chased away by Norwegian warships. The mines would be laid, but only minimum force would be used. He agreed there could be some exchange of fire since, according to recent intelligence, the Norwegian Navy had orders to use force against neutrality violations. However, the Norwegians had concentrated their naval forces near the larger cities, and since the minefields were located far from these cities, he did not anticipate a quick reaction.
³³