Internal assessment

History SL

Research question: Why did Germany choose to occupy Norway during the Second World War?

Name: Sigurd Thaule

Word count: 1855

A. Plan of the Investigation.

During World War 1, Norway declared themselves neutral and sold goods to both sides of the war. However, during World War 2, this changed and Norway was occupied by Germany. 372,000 German soldiers were garrisoned in Norway at the end of the war, which was approximately 12% of the Norwegian population. This essay will focus on why Germany chose to occupy Norway during World War 2, and why Norway was so important to Germany. I chose a variety of books, such that this essay will give a view of the matter from different perspectives. The sources picked for this essay; Kapplpet om Norge: Det allierte felttoget I 1940 by Francois Kersaudy, Quisling: -En studie I landssvik by Oddvar Hidal, Norge I krig (Bind 1): Overfall by Ole Kristian Grimnes, Operasjon weserbung: Vidkun Quisling og forspillet til 9. april 1940 by Asbjrn ksendal. The sources will be read throughout and a summary of events will be made, to get a full picture of the matter, then the sources will be evaluated for origins, purposes, values and limitations.

B. Summary of evidence.
Prior to the eruption of the Great War, Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Johanssn Quisling visited Germany to present his idea, that the German-Soviet non aggression pact could not remain, and that Germany should attack Soviet the first coming spring.1 German admiral Erich Raeder was interested in talking to the Norwegians as he wanted an invasion of Norway, because Trondheims harbor filled all the demand for a German navy support point.2 However a military operation for winning this support point against Norways will, could meet extraordinary difficulties as this could only be accomplished from the sea.3 Hitler originally said no to invade Norway, as Hitler meant that one had to count on Scandinavia to remain neutral.4 There is currently no evidence saying that Raeder did not get his idea for a naval base in Trondheim from Quisling through the line of connection: Schreiber-Scheidt-Hagelin-Quisling.5 However Hitlers conclusion was about to change, after Hagelin Schickedanz delivered a 4 paged letter claiming that England was about to pull Norway into a war against Germany.6 It also said that Germanys faith is also ours, and that Quisling and Hagelin would put all their knowledge to Germanys disposal to ensure their victory. 5th of February the western powers got together, here matters such as a landing in Narvik were discussed. Then it would not be far to help finland in their war. However the main priority would have to be securing the Swedish iron ore. The conclusion was therefore to land in Narvik, move east to secure the large iron ore fields in northern Sweden. This way they could stop all iron ore transport from Sweden to Germany, both that going through Narvik and that going through Sweden to the Baltic. Then some troops would be sent to aid Finland.7 On the 16th of December 1939 Churchill presented a memorandum to the war cabinet, saying that the stopping of the Norwegian iron ore
1 2

Page 262, Oddvar Hidal (19XX), Quisling: -En studie I landssvik by Page 20, Asbjrn ksendal (19XX), Operasjon weserbung: Vidkun Quisling og forspillet til 9. april 1940 3 Page 20, Asbjrn ksendal (19XX), Operasjon weserbung: Vidkun Quisling og forspillet til 9. april 1940 4 Page 21, Asbjrn ksendal (19XX), Operasjon weserbung: Vidkun Quisling og forspillet til 9. april 1940 5 Page 21, Asbjrn ksendal (19XX), Operasjon weserbung: Vidkun Quisling og forspillet til 9. april 1940 6 Page 22, Asbjrn ksendal (19XX), Operasjon weserbung: Vidkun Quisling og forspillet til 9. april 1940 7 Page 31, Ole Kristian Grimnes (19XX), Norge I krig (Bind 1): Overfall

delivery to Germany ranking as an important offensive operation of war. This would be a good opportunity to reduce the waste, destruction, and slaughter when the two main armies collide. The solution was that The iron ore from Narvik must be stopped by laying a number of minor minefields in Norwegian territorial waters () such that the ships carrying iron ore to Germany will be forced to leave territorial waters and out into the open sea, where they will be taken as prices if they were German, or taken under our command if they are neutral.8 Germany knew that if Norway was to fall under British control, this would be a good strategic location for point of departure for attacks on German targets.9 This would cause the German navy to no longer being able to operate freely in the North-sea. This would ruin Raeders plan of building a navy that could match the British Navy.10 A British controlled Norway would also stop the transportation of iron ore to Germany from Sweden. Germany got 41% of their iron ore from Sweden, and could not afford to lose this.11 Eventually this would mean that the war could spread to the Baltic, giving Britain access to the hearth of Germany.

C. Evaluation of sources.
Source 1: Kapplpet om Norge: Det allierte felttoget I 1940 by Francois Kersaudy, and published in 1990 by Grndahl & Sn Forlag A.s, Oslo. This source translated to The race for Norway: The allied crusade in 1940 gives a step by step explanation of what happened before the Second World War, and mainly the events taking place in 1940. The purpose of this history book is clearly to inform the reader of the importance of the events occurring around Norway in 1939-1940. However most of the facts are presented in such a way, that you feel that England is all good and Germany all bad, which gives the wrong impression in many cases. For example when Churchill proposes to lie mines along the Norwegian coast, it is talked of in such a way that you only see the good side, which was forcing the German ship out in open waters, and not the fact that this will be a lasting problem for Norway.12 This can be said to be an English mistake, but in this source it is said to be the efficient stopping of Norwegian iron ore transport to Germany. The presenting of England as the good side is natural when you look at the origins of the book; As Francois Kersaudy was a French professor at Oxford University it would be expected to be presented in such a way. Yet it presents the facts for both sides, and will still give you a good picture of the situation. Source 2: Operasjon Weserbung: Vidkun Quisling og forspillet til 9. april 1940 by Asbjrn ksendal, and published in 1981 by Det Nordenfjelske Forlag, Trondheim. Source 2 translates to Operation Weserbung: Vidkun Quisling and the prologue until 9. April 1940. This author of this book was born in 1922, so that he was 18 years when nazi Germany invaded Norway. This will make the literature about the negotiations leading to the occupation of Norway
8 9

Kapplpet om norge side 20 Landssvik side 267 10 Vidkun landssvik side 263 11 Norge i rkig side 26 12 Kapplpet om norge side 20

more valuable in the aspect of it being more focused on Norway. The purpose of this source is to entertain while using historical facts, such that it becomes informative as well. However the fact that it is written like a story, where you at times are told what Quisling thinks, makes it lose some of its credibility. The source shows much of the negotiations Quisling had with the Germans, and you get an insight in what Hitlers and his generals and admirals plans were The fact that ksendal do not write anything from about what the British though about, and what their plans were, is a limitation with this source. These two sources combined can give a good full picture of the situation around Norway just before the invasion. A combination of these sources will also show you the plans of both the Germans and the British. With a purely factual analysis of both you can look aside from the biased parts and those who are just for entertainment and have two reliable sources.

D. Analysis.
During the Second World War 372,000 German troops were stationed in Norway. This clearly indicates the magnitude of importance ensuring Norway was, and as mentioned there was more to this than the obvious causes like geographical position etc. It is obvious that the Swedish iron ore was of great importance to Germany, seeing that it was the source of 41% of the iron Germany used. However this was not let alone the reason that Germany chose to occupy Norway, as Hitler would rather have Norway and Scandinavia to stay neutral in the war. Neither was it to prevent the English from gaining iron ore from Sweden for this same reason. However there were many other reasons as to why Germany would have such great interest in Norway, like the geographical position of Norway. Norway has a very long coast line that would allow Germany to gain more dominance at sea, building a navy that could match that of the English. However there were just as many reasons as for why England would want to gain control of Norway. Firstly it would give the British access to the Baltic, which was rather limited at the time. Also Norway would also be a natural location for England to build air bases, used to bomb Germany further more. In addition it would give the British a natural attack point, as it would be open way to the hearth of Germany. Also they wanted to halt the transportation of iron ore to Germany, making it more difficult to produce heavy machinery at the same rate they were at the time being. Seeing that Germany never built any navy that matched the English navy, shows that this cannot have been the main priority. Also there is more evidence pointing in the direction of Germany occupying Norway to prevent them from siding with the British. Hence Germany had more to lose not occupying Norway than they would gain on this action. Then the question remains what was it that made Hitler change his mind of occupying Norway? Vidkun Quisling has been said to be a contributing factor, but not as often to what extent he was responsible. The first time Quisling went to Germany to meet der Fhrer, he was not heard in his plea for German help in Norway to protect from Soviet, England and their influence on the Norwegian politics. However it is not very likely that Hitler was not already to some extent aware of this, so it can be discussed how much influence Vidkun had. However the English pressure on Norway to stop trading with Germany was something Hitler could not risk, for previously mentioned reasons.

E. Conclusion.
Based on evidence found in the used sources, Germany invaded Norway to prevent England from gaining control or too much influence. This fear was a result of the pressure from the British on the Norwegian, like not trading with Germany and such. Also this appears to be the reasonable thing to do, if seen from Germanys point of view, as she could not risk British access to the Baltic, as well as access to the hearth of Germany. Even though the strategic position geographically of Norway is apparent, it was not as important as the fact that Norway could not be allied with Britain. These sources, gives what seems to be a reasonable explanation as to why Germany chose to keep 372,000 troops in Norway. Showing that it was a way for Hitler could ensure that Norway would not fall under British control, and at the same time leading to further safety to Germany.