Running head: THE INVASION OF NORWAY

The Invasion of Norway
[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]

The Invasion of Norway 1940

In order to understand the political situation in Norway and what preceded the German invasion it is necessary to have some idea of the main currents of public opinion in the country and the relative strength of the political parties. Norway has no two-party system, but proportional representation. The whole country is not one constituency but is divided into eighteen provinces and eleven groups of towns with proportional representation within each separate constituency. Since the last Great War no party has commanded an absolute majority in the national parliament, called the Storting, and no government has been a majority government. This means that generally the administration has not been very strong. There was a Left Government which lasted over the elections of 1918 and resigned in June, 1920, to be followed by a Conservative Government under Otto B. Halvorsen. This lasted exactly one year, to be fol lowed by another Left Government which lasted until March, 1923, when Otto Halvorsen again came to power. He died on May 30th the same year and was succeeded by Mr. Abraham Berge, whose Cabinet had to resign on July 25, 1924, and was succeeded by a Left Cabinet under Mr. J. L. Mowinckel. His Government fell on March 5, 1926, and the Conservatives once more came to power with Mr. Ivar Lykke (March, 1926January, 1928).

Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany on April 9th 1940.  Hitler had issued the order for the invasion of Norway on March 1st under the code word “Weserübung”. The order also included the invasion and occupation of Denmark. It was the start of war in  Western  Europe - and an end to the 'Phoney War'. Why was Hitler interested in Norway? Control of Norway’s extensive coastline would have been very important in the battle for control of the North Sea and easing the passage of German warships and submarines into the Atlantic. The control of Norway would also aid Germany’s ability to import iron ore from Sweden. Before the invasion of France, U-boats had to either travel via the Straits of Dover or north of Scotland. Either route was fraught with danger. A port in northern Norway would have eased this – though by no means would it have ended the problem of getting into the Atlantic. In 1929, Vice-Admiral Wegener had published a book (“The Sea Strategy of the World War”) that stated that Germany should seize Norway in a future war so that the German Navy of the future would have an easier time getting to the Atlantic. The commander of the German Navy (Raeder) did not agree with his theory but it did attract the attention and support of many other German naval officers. (historylearningsite.co.uk/)

Now, until the general elections of 1927 the Conservatives had been the greatest group in Parliament and, with the Farmers' Party generally supporting them, commanded a majority of 2 in the Storting (76 as against 74 members). But in 1927 the Labor Party came in as by far the greatest group, with 59 representatives against 31 Conservatives, 31 Left, 26 Farmers' Party, and 3 Communists. And when Mr. Lykke resigned, the old leader of the Labor Party, Mr. Chr. Hornsrud, was called to form the new Government ( January 28, 1928). But the declaration this Government gave to the Storting was found to be far too Red; and the Government had to disappear, after seventeen days, on February 15, 1928. Then Mr. Mowinckel once more formed a Government of the Left.

In the general elections in 1930 the Com munists disappeared. They have not since been represented in Parliament. The Labor Party lost 12 seats; the Conservatives gained 13, the Left gained 3 and the Farmers' Party lost 1 -- with the result that Conservatives and Left had a combined majority of 4 (77 as against 73). And the Conservatives supported Mr. Mowinckel as the lesser evil. But he was deserted by a few of the most radical members of his own party and had to resign on May 12, 1931. He was succeeded by a Government of the small Farmers' Party under Mr. Per Kolstad, who died in March, 1932, and was succeeded by Mr. Jens Hundseid, who was in turn outmanœuvred by Mr. Mowinckel after less than one year. The general elections of 1933 once more returned the Labor Party as by far the strongest group (69 as against 31 Conservatives, 25 Left, 23 Farmers' Party and 2 "wild" members). On March 30, 1935, Mowinckel resigned and was succeeded by the popular leader of the Labor Party, Mr. Johan Nygaardsvold, who has since been Prime Minister. (Moeller, Felix 1998)

The general elections of 1936 did not materially alter the situation in Parliment. The Labor Party had a gain of 1 seat; the Conservatives had a gain of 5; the Left lost 2 seats, the Farmers' Party 5, and the "wilds" came in with 3 members (not all belonging to the same variety of "wild").

It can safely be said that Mr. Nygaardsvold's Government enjoyed the confidence of the nation. Every year the Conservatives proposed a vote of censure on two grounds: financial extravagance in general and unwillingness to make the necessary sacrifices for national defense. But neither the Left nor the Farmers' Party were willing to vote down the Government. After the outbreak of the new Great War the Conservatives pressed for a national Government, but Mr. Nygaardsvold did not believe in unity. And on the other hand it must be admitted that after the outbreak of the war in September, 1939, and especially after the Finnish-Russian War, the Government was wanting (too late, it proved) to give to national defense anything that might be demanded, so much, indeed, that an old pacifist member of the Labor Party bolted and joined the number of "wilds." (Welch, David 2001)

There had been during the last few years a good deal of what might be called philosophical unrest, especially among young men. Communism had been on the wane, but -- especially under the influence of developments in Italy and Germany -- there had been a growing demand for "strong men," for "Führers," for sweeping meas ures. There was a feeling that political institutions and procedures had not been readjusted to meet modern conditions; in many quarters there was a craving for "more business in politics and less politics in business." Certain sections in the press were constantly trying to ridicule the Storting and the whole political system as not efficient enough. And the complex party situation called for a thorough discussion of the very principles of our parliamentary system.

But anybody taking this as an evidence of budding sympathy for a totalitarian system of government would have been entirely mistaken. It was rather evidence of a growing realization of the waste of energy in party strife, of a groping toward new means of minimizing the costs of friction in public life, of a realization of the fact that national politics does not mean merely fighting -- fighting other parties and platforms and their political ideas and conceptions, but that it means also (and in daily routine more than anything else) coöperation and coördination. The whole system of proportional representation, carried through in any town council, in any appointment of committees by Government or Parliament, reducing any possibility of a political "spoils system," had tended to make political life less dramatic and more tolerant – a development which was a thorn in the flesh of old diehards and young hotspurs.
Some people discussed what was called "political fatigue"; but the fact is that an active political interest has never been more manifest in Norway than it has been in recent years.

Of all those who had the suffrage, 77.55 per cent voted at the elections of 1930; in 1933, the percentage was 76.36 and in 1936, 84.02 per cent, the highest percentage since the introduction of universal suffrage. (Giesen, Rolf. 2003)

But even if the craving for a "Führer" did not go very deep or amount to very much materially, there is little doubt that if the Conservatives had not taken a very strong stand against any movement opposing democracy, and if the potential Führers had not been so ridiculous and so ridiculously unimportant, the movement might have gained momentum in Norway.

But Norwegians have a keen sense of humor. They do not like Swedish arm-gymnastics outside the gymnasiums and they do not admire colored shirts. When Mr. Quisling tried to start his Nazi Party in 1933 and dress up his young followers in imitation brown shirts with imitation swastika armlets and similar paraphernalia, and when the Communists tried to do the same thing in red, a law was passed strictly forbidding anybody but the police and the soldiers of the Army and Navy to wear uniforms. (Hake, Sabine 2001)

At the start of the war, Germany imported about 10 million tons of iron ore from Sweden. Therefore it was important for Germany’s war effort. Nine million tons of this came from north Sweden via the port of Luleå. However, this port freezes over for the winter months and the Norwegian port of Narvik does not. Therefore control of Narvik, in the north of Norway, would have been very important to the Germans in easing the movement of iron ore to Germany.

Rather than seize Norway, Raeder wanted to rely on Norway remaining neutral in the war and the Allies respecting this neutrality. The Norwegians also believed that the British Navy would be available to them if the Germans attempted to invade. As late as March 1940, British chiefs-of-staff believed that a German invasion of Norway via the sea would not work. Churchill, however, wanted a more resolute policy towards Norway. He was aware that the iron ore shipments to Germany via Narvik were important to Germany’s war effort. On September 19th, 1939, he told the Cabinet led by Chamberlain that the transportation of iron ore had to be stopped. On September 29th, he proposed that the water around Narvik should be mined if iron ore transportation started up again – it had been suspended at the very start of the war. The Cabinet failed to support Churchill on this, as they did not want to breach Norway’s neutrality. Regardless of this, Churchill continued to press for it. (historylearningsite.co.uk/)

And when the new party under the alluring name of Nasjonal Samling (meaning national unity, but spelling national socialism) made overtures to the Conservatives for some kind of mutual support, the Executive Committee of the Conservative Party unanimously decided that any Conservative who had dealings with the Nazis should be expelled from the party.

There were some unsophisticated sympathizers among business men, to a limited extent in the Army and among college boys. There has always been a good deal'of truth in the saying of Taine's: "To any intelligent young man of twenty the world seems a great scandal." And the would-be Nazi leaders of Norway set out to preach this gospel. Young boys love the feeling of being in a conspiracy and having the full and wonderful confidence of their elders. But when one asked about the constructive ideas of the new party, no clear or intelligent answer could be given. What was, was inefficient, but that was not novel, and the appeal to anti-Semitism was also ridiculous in Norway, where there has never been any Jewish problem. Until the Constitution had been amended in 1851, Jews could not enter Norway; since then there have been no restrictions, but the total number of Jews in Norway never exceeded 1,500 (at the census of 1930, 1,359), and of those none have been very prominent or very rich. There is not a single Jewish banker or financier in Norway. Mr. Quisling, without any original idea in his at first only mildly confused brain, aping Julius Streicher and Goebbels, had to call any man whom he did not like "a Jew," especially every leading politician. There was not a single "Jew" among them, although a very few had drops of Jewish blood. They were "pure Aryans" even after the laws of Germany. But Mr. Quisling's followers invented -- and that is their only original contribution -- a new term, "spiritual Jews": some leaders were "Jews in flesh" and some "Jews in spirit." So they were all equally bad. (Leiser, Erwin 1975)

People had some difficulty in taking Mr. Quisling and his teaching seriously, so the electorate in Norway did not respond to the appeal of "Nasjonal Samling." (Ohm Kruger 1985)

The German invasion of Norway prompted the Anglo-French Supreme War Council to launch a British destroyer flotilla against German forces in Narvik on 10 April. The next day, the newspaper, The Toronto Star, reported: "While officials remained silent, military circles in London confirmed an earlier report that troops were among the forces Britain has sent to fight in Norway. It is possible that some s saw action yesterday when Allied troops and marines drove the Germans out of Narvik." This attack was soon followed by an Allied landing at Namsos on 14 April. This force was commanded by British MGen Carton de Wiart. (Hoffmann, Hilmar 1997)

On 16 April the newspaper The Journal reported, "There is no comment whatever from the Department" regarding reports of troop involvement in the British Expeditionary Force in Norway. On the evening of 16 April 1940, however, the BBC" officially confirmed that  troops are with the British and French forces in Norway." Reuters also issued a report stating it "understands that a number of troops are included in the British Expeditionary Force in Norway." The Ottawa Citizen picked up on the story the next day stating," A fully equipped force with tanks and guns-including s...was hurriedly concentrated at various eastern ports of the United Kingdom, placed in convoy and secretly carried four hundred miles across the North Sea." (Rentschler. Eric 1996)
Notwithstanding the dearth of information supporting the presence of  troops on Norwegian soil, Reuters confirmed, on 20 April 1940, that  troops had taken part in an Allied landing off Andalsnes, Norway on 18 April and where "fighting is expected to break out shortly in this region..." By 23 April 1940, the media (the Press Association and the French news agency called Havas) reported that  troops along with French chasseurs alpins had formed the "spearhead of an Allied army driving southward along the railway running from Namsos to German-held Trondheim."

Soon thereafter, Germany's ministry of propaganda also began to boast about  troops in Norway. On 24 April 1940, Nazi officials informed CP-Berlin that " troops had been taken prisoner in the fighting in the Lillehammer area northwest of Hamar."

Interestingly, this same CP report also noted, "Apparently these sources (German) had not at that time learned-as officially announced in Ottawa and London-that there are no  units in Norway." Although it may not have been planned for at the time, the German announcement followed by the  denial was a major coup for the German propaganda machine because it compelled the enemy to forego its lies and "tie himself up in denials."

By 25 April 1940, confusion about the presence of troops in Norway was reaching alarming proportions and several media outlets began voicing their dismay, much to the satisfaction of the German propaganda machine. The Journal, for example, stated, "this is all part of an extraordinary picture we do not understand and cannot explain."

When confronted with this dichotomy, one military official in London stated, "any information about troop movements will be given when it is safe to do so-not before. Composition of the British Expeditionary Force in Norway must for the present remain a closely guarded secret. Furthermore, it isn't a bad idea to keep the enemy guessing until such time as our troops are firmly established and ready for the next stage."

Still, while Mr. Power claimed there were no troops in Norway, and several media outlets were voicing their dismay, the Canadian Globe and Mail reported on 26 April 1940 that a soldier had died while serving in Norway. Harry B. Wilson of the PPCLI, was believed to have been killed in action somewhere near Lillehammer, Norway the day before. (Albrecht. Gerd. 1969)

When the media spoke with Wilson's father in Albuquerque, New Mexico, however, he did not "know where the word came from." He said he presumed it came from the British War Office but there was no information about what unit Wilson had belonged to and where Wilson's mother, who actually received the cable, was now living because the family was divorced and she now lived somewhere in California. Notwithstanding the dearth of evidence to support the death of Harry B. Wilson, the Globe and Mail printed the story.

As the German Armies entered Norway and Denmark, German memoranda were handed to the Norwegian and Danish Governments which gave the assurance that the German troops did not come as enemies, that they did not intend to make use of the points occupied by German troops as bases for operations against England, as long as they were not forced to do so by measures taken by England and France, and that they had come to protect the North against the proposed occupation of Norwegian strong points by English-French forces. The memoranda added that Germany had no intention of infringing upon the territorial integrity and political independence of the Kingdom of Norway then or in the future. Nevertheless, on 6/3/1940, a German naval memorandum discussed the use to be made of Norway and Denmark, and put forward one solution for consideration, that the territories of Denmark and Norway acquired during the course of the war should continue to be occupied and organized so that they could in the future be considered as German possessions. In the light of all the available evidence it is impossible to accept the contention that the invasions of Denmark and Norway were defensive, and in the opinion of the Tribunal they were acts of aggressive war. (nizkor.org)

On 10 May 1940, Germany officially ended the Phoney War when the Wehrmacht launched its western offensive known as operation "Sichelschnitt" (Sickle Stroke) against Belgium, Holland and France. The German offensive, combined with the Norwegian fiasco, also lead to the resignation of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on that same day.

Only with the end of the Norwegian campaign in sight, combined with the resignation of the British Prime Minister and the collapse of the Allied front in France, did the media begin reporting on Its actual contribution to the Norwegian campaign. On 20 May 1940, The Journal reported that privates Arni Johannson and Gustav Hansen, both from the Saskatoon Light infantry (M.G.) had volunteered to serve as interpreters and they had been detailed to an anonymous British unit (later revealed to be the 1st Battalion of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry) to fight in Norway. In conclusion, the contribution of two interpreters was a far cry from troops spearheading the assault by an Allied Army on Trondheim. Yet even this admission of its true involvement in Norway was cushioned with a suggestion the Germans may be resorting to gas attacks reminiscent of WWI. This assertion of a potential use of gas only confirmed many critics who had suggested that, during the Phony War, the media, like many other news mediums, contributed to one of the war's first casualties-truth!

References
Albrecht. Gerd. Nationalsozialistische Filmpolitik: Eine soziologische Filmuntersuchung uber die Spielfilme des Dritten Reiches. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1969.

Giesen, Rolf. Nazi Propaganda Films: A History and Filmography. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2003.
Hake, Sabine. Popular Cinema of the Third Reich. Austin: U of Texas P, 2001.
Hoffmann, Hilmar. The Triumph of Propaganda: Film and National Socialism. 1933-1945. Trans. John A. Broadwin and V. R. Berghahn. Providence, RI: Berghahn. 1997.
Leiser, Erwin. Nazi Cinema. Trans. Gertrud Mander and David Wilson. New York: Collier, 1975.
Moeller, Felix. Der Filmminister: Goebbels und der Film im Dritten Reich. Berlin: Henschel, 1998.
Ohm Kruger. Dir. Hans Steinhoff. Chicago: International Historic Films, 1985.
Rentschler. Eric. The Ministry of Illusion: Nazi Cinema and Its Afterlife. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. 1996.
The invasion of Norway 1940, March 21, 2008
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/invasion_of_norway_1940.htm
The Invasion Of Denmark And Norway (Part 2 of 2), March 21, 2008
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-invasion-denmark-norway-02.html
Through Enemy Eyes: A Newsreel History of the Third Reich at War 1-4. Chicago: International Historic Films, 1994.