Norway 1940

The French never SUCCESSFULLY invade England in the hundreds year war!
The only time England has been SUCCESSFULLY invaded were in the :
1066 invasion by the Normans
The Danish invasions in the 800s
Anglo Saxon invasions in the 600s
And the roman invasion in the 200s

Norway was a fine prize, doing the following for the Nazis (in what I consider the order of importance):

1)Protecting the Swedish imports of steel, etc.
2) Enabling air bombings on the Northern part of the British Isles (at the very minimum forcing the English to keep back critical planes from the air battle over the channel).
3) Provided industrial material to the Germans, including heavy water.  While it is not known what  the purpose of this was meant for, heavy water is useful for building nuclear weapons, and it is known that this was shipped to Germany during the war…
4) Norway provided a way for the Germans to squeeze the convoys to Russia.  Just not enough to affect the outcome on the Eastern front.

Besides all this, what is the opportunity cost?  These naval forces were never going to be sufficient to take on the British, and would have been very quickly sunk if they tried to break out and commence attacks on the merchant marine.  Most likely they would have simply rusted away at port instead.

Good point….  Baker street. :-)

The Tirpitz wasn’t completed until 1941.  By that time the age of the battleship was over, the Bismark was a potential threat, but other than sinking the WW I design battlecruiser Hood it didn’t do much other than tie up some resources for awhile.  Regardless of where it was based, a battleship without a supporting fleet and air cover is a liability.  The problems in Africa were not due to no resources to spare because of Norway, it was because of the planned and actual invasion of Russia that diverted resources.

The Luftwaffe present in Norway took away precious aircraft from other fronts: example North Africa. The Axis did not have enough aircraft to protect North African bound convoys, bomb Malta and support Rommel.
Norway give a good position during the battle of britain and later attack royal navy and convoy. More, the german presence in norway autotically closed the baltic sea to Royal Navy.

The German’s abilities in the Battle of the Atlantic were greatly damaged by Hilter’s fears of a British landing in Norway. In 1941 a large number of U-boats were sent into the Arctic which could have been better used else where. 38 U-boats were lost in the Arctic.
Yes and they lost much more in the atlantic!

German heavy warships were better suited breaking out into the Atlantic taking prizes and sinking Allied shipping rather than taking on heavy escorted Arctic convoys. The Battleship Tirpitz in the Atlantic would have been a great threat instead hiding in Norway. Norway cost German one battleship, one battle-cruiser, one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers, 13 destroyers, plus the U-boats already discussed.
Ah…and what about the Bismarck? without air support, Tirpitz and the other kriegsmarines warship would have been sunk.

Germany had huge amounts of man power in Norway, including elite mountain units, which were needed at every front.
Yes, because Hitler was afraid of seeing the british loading in Norway and attacking Germany by the north.

The Luftwaffe was fighting a 5 front war in 1941 and 1942, Western Europe, Home Defense, Norway, the Eastern front and North Africa. Norway seems the least important.  The X. Fliegerkorps under Generalleutnant Hans Geisler, was sent from the Northern Norway and the situation in North Africa improved for the Germans.
I agree. But axis lost the norh africa battle because Hitler refuse to send more troops to Rommel. Africa was a secondary front for him. USSR was more important.

Its worth noting that when Germany conquered Norway, it was thought the war would be shorter and less consuming than it was.  Certainly, the massive Russian front was not even considered possible at the time due to the treaty between Germany and Russia.

The forces used in holding Norway were insignificant compared to the other fronts (the Russian front especially), and keeping Norway did provide benefits.  I don’t think that simply leaving Norway (say in Spring 1942), even to reallocate the relatively meager resources,  would have been particularly appealing to the Nazi leadership…

Razor, you mentioned 10% of lend lease went through Murmansk, was curious about that.  75% of Lend lease went to England and a little less than 25% went to Russia.    I just read that 70% of Russian equipment did go through Persia, I didn’t know that!  The rest was split between the Pacific and Atlantic though they provided no break down in the article I read.  So it looks if an even split between the two its 50% of 30% of 25% roughly 4-5% went via Murmansk is about right?  I had though it a much much larger proportion!