Possible US invasion in Norway and Finland simultaneously with Normandy

[Jopa79]

*This is an independent thread and isn't related with the thread, "If the UK loses the Battle of Britain where would the US concentrate its troops?"
**This is an article based on a third party further research, not an opinion

The 5th President of Finland, Risto Ryti (left picture) and the 16th Prime Minister of FInland, Edwin Linkomies (shaking hands with Mannerheim on the right picture) proposed the US about occupying Finland and making an invasion in Norway. Both pictures, SA-kuva.

According to a new research, published in Finland spring 2020, the Finnish government proposed for the US and asked for US occupation of Finland and making an Allied invasion in Norway. The source is Risto Ryti's personal diary, but also the documents of the foreign administration of the US.

The negotiations were done in secrecy 1943, in the capital of Portugal, Lisbon, the US was represented by counselor George Kennan and the OSS-intelligence representative, Robert Solberg, Finland was represented by a temporary ambassador of the Finnish Embassy, Taavi Pohjanpalo. A conversation about Finland to work herself loose of the WWII began maybe already after the failed Operation Barbarossa, but was confirmed after the German defeat in Stalingrad 1942-1943. The proposal was based on the idea that the US occupation might prevent the highly-like coming Soviet offensive against Finland, enabling the Finnish exit of the WWII and secure the Finnish independence, probably wishing to retain the 1939 borders. Further adding, knowing today the actual things, to avoid the reality which happened in the Baltic States after the WWII.

The research reveals that the US genuinely considered the Finnish proposal - it wasn't just "diplomatic soundings" and the Finnish opinion was absolutely genuine in this matter. Still, the US rejected the proposal, by setting it into a "bigger picture", estimating the other war theaters as well, planning the Normandy Invasion and the Pacific War.

A view from an US landing craft at the beaches of Normandy.

The US council estimated that an invasion in the German occupied Northern Norway and transporting the US occupation force further to Finland was too risky. The council also estimated that the German troops would retreat from Norway and this reserve was to be re-located at the Atlantic Wall making the already daring Normandy Invasion even harder. It was better for the Allies if the German Army was in Norway and not strengthening the Atlantic Wall. The US council added that the Soviet Union still might not give up its plans considering Finland while the possible US occupation, but increase its manpower on the Finnish Front and making the assault anyway.

The new information helps in valuating the freedom in which the Finnish government was able to make decisions in the WWII, also making it clear, how far the government would go while trying to beat the "hard times" - between the pressure from the Soviets and the Germans and not accepted by the Allies. The Soviet Union didn't want to negotiate, the Germans didn't like Finland making a separate peace. In principle, throughout the WWII, Franklin Roosevelt and the US had supported Finland to make out of the war, but the Finnish proposal came in wrong time - during the Allied preparation for the Normandy.

While the 1944 Normandy Invasion began, the Soviet Union simultaneously launched the assault on Finland, which was barely repelled with the new German anti-tank weapons. After repelling the Soviet offensive of 1944, Finland and Soviet Union signed a peace in autumn 1944.

 

[LizarDAMN]

I really would liked the be a fly in the room in Moscow when Stalin is told that there are dozen allied divisions in Finland.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Norway I could maybe see (at least Narvik to hurt German resource transportation), but Finland, even with a supportive Finnish government would have been tough to invade/liberate. Petsamo couldn’t exactly supply all that much (and afaik pretty much nothing during winter), would be difficult to cover by air without Soviet cooperation, and the Germans still had significant forces in the country to defend it (which would later fight in the Lapland War). While America and the British would have loved such a scheme were it possible, but I‘d be very surprised if it was seriously considered just due to viability/practicality.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

This is a great idea, but Two problems: Battery Vara and the Luftwaffe.

how does an Allied fleet enter the Baltic and run Battery Vara and Luftwaffe operating close to their own bases the entire length of the run.

Also. It is remote. Nazi forces in Norway not only don’t surrender when Germany does. Week after Germany's formal surrender the UK is openly bombing the Uboat / seaplane facility in Narvik known to be operating as the Northern Ratline for high priority individuals heading to Peron’s welcoming arms.

George Keenan, however, is a major player and will formulate the Containment doctrine that will be completely ignored and rewritten by the Hawks.

 

[Jopa79]

This is a great idea, but Two problems: Battery Vara and the Luftwaffe.

how does an Allied fleet enter the Baltic and run Battery Vara and Luftwaffe operating close to their own bases the entire length of the run.

The actual Finnish proposal was that the US/Allied fleet would not enter the Baltic Sea, but via the Arctic Sea the invasion force would land in Northern Norway and make its way through Norway to Finland.

The Baltic Sea route was definitely too risky for operations like this, but as well the US considered the Arctic Sea route too hazardous. Infrastructure was nonexistence in Northern Norway and Northern Finland. Further adding, the US estimated that Germany would give up in Norway, retreating its troops and making the Atlantic Wall stronger and the future daring Normandy Invasion even more risky for the Allies.

The US abandoned the Finnish proposal also while doubting that the Soviets would make the offensive against Finland anyway, even while the US forces were present and this would set the US - Soviet relations in danger, even starting a conflict in Scandinavia between the US and the Soviet Union - an unnecessary new theater of war.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

The actual Finnish proposal was that the US/Allied fleet would not enter the Baltic Sea, but via the Arctic Sea the invasion force would land in Northern Norway and make its way through Norway to Finland.

The Baltic Sea route was definitely too risky for operations like this, but as well the US considered the Arctic Sea route too hazardous. Infrastructure was nonexistence in Northern Norway and Northern Finland. Further adding, the US estimated that Germany would give up in Norway, retreating its troops and making the Atlantic Wall stronger and the future daring Normandy Invasion even more risky for the Allies.

The US abandoned the Finnish proposal also while doubting that the Soviets would make the offensive against Finland anyway, even while the US forces were present and this would set the US - Soviet relations in danger, even starting a conflict in Scandinavia between the US and the Soviet Union - an unnecessary new theater of war.

Yes, this makes a great deal of sense. The Finns would have walked the Americans into position from the north, but I've tried to take Archangel for decades in wargames and the infrastructure up there, as you describe, is very problematic. A swift move would be successful, but the delay involved would raise Stalin's hackles and it was a problem the West didn't need.

And, the Americans almost made a habit of underestimating Soviet intentions at the end of the war. Roosevelt merely wanted peace before he died, Truman is not my idea of a leader. And Churchill never forgave England for turning its back on his ancestor, John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough, and England was never that fond of Winston's gravely ways. They know they owe him a massive debt of gratitude, they still don't seem to like him very much.

Finland, like Poland, got the shaft imho.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I really would liked the be a fly in the room in Moscow when Stalin is told that there are dozen allied divisions in Finland.

I could not agree more. The tantrum would be epic. Someone would be executed simply because it made him feel better.

 

[Director]

It wasn't possible. The Allies were focused on D-Day, with a simultaneous landing in the south of France. There was such a shortfall of landing craft (and amphib equipment in general) that Anzio was curtailed and the Mediterranean landings in France postponed until well after D-day. The Allies considered the landings in southern France to be an urgent and immediate necessity, which could not be undertaken for lack of resources, so if there was nothing to spare for that, everything else was off the table.

After D-Day, most of the amphib equipment was devoted to running supplies and more troops over the beaches while the Allies tried to take a port - any port. There were going to be no troops, no aircraft, no supplies and no amphib equipment diverted until SHAEF was convinced the landings were secure and the Germans, at the very least, driven out of France. And any troops that could be spared would be moved into Western Europe, not diverted to Scandinavia.

Some small demonstration against northern Norway might have been made, of brigade level or so, though even Churchill never seriously proposed it - and bear in mind he proposed every other sideshow except a lunar excursion. The Allies were well aware of the large numbers of German troops in Norway and painfully aware of the difficulty of supplying even a small force in northern Norway, much less trying to liberate Norway, Denmark and Finland. You can't get to Finland in any reasonable force without controlling Denmark and the Baltic. The route over northern Norway into Finland is just impossible - as has been said above, the infrastructure is 'problematic'. I'd have said completely lacking and modified by terrain into a negative, but you get the idea. Maybe a ski regiment could make it - but it is a very long way to go with no support or supply.

So the best way to defeat Germany was to liberate France and occupy Germany, leaving the large enemy forces in Scandinavia alone. As Napoleon said, "Never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake."

 

[Rubidium]

Yeah, this sounds like an idea that would be great for the Finns (drive out the Germans, keep out the Soviets, and maybe even keep pre-war boundaries) but offers essentially nothing for the Allies. I can see why the Finns would have proposed it, but it's also quite obvious why the Allies said "no."

Logistically it would be a nightmare (and unlike Normandy, they wouldn't even have air superiority), the gains for the greater war effort would be minimal (they clear sparsely populated and largely strategically irrelevant Norway/Finland, at the cost of alienating the Soviets and allowing the Germans to redeploy their useless Norwegian garrison to an actually useful front).

As noted, not even Churchill (who had an unhealthy obsession with launching pointless peripheral invasions throughout both World Wars, up to and including a plan to invade neutral Denmark during WWI in order to threaten Germany from the north) was interested, which should tell you something.

 

[Director]

And then, of course, there is the likelihood of Stalin reacting badly, as mentioned above. Totalitarian dictators may throw fits but they also throw tanks. An invasion of Finland by the Western Allies would be a good way to turn WW2 into a three-cornered free-for-all.

So... no.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

And then, of course, there is the likelihood of Stalin reacting badly, as mentioned above. Totalitarian dictators may throw fits but they also throw tanks. An invasion of Finland by the Western Allies would be a good way to turn WW2 into a three-cornered free-for-all.

So... no.

Stalin isn’t going to declare on/attack the Allies over this - the Red Army was already committed), but he will react in other ways. For instance, probably refusing to leave/annexing areas of Finland the Red Army controls (and not stopping advancing against Finland until Allied units are directly in the way) and probably playing less nice in other theatres (for example refusing to withdraw from Iran and/or settiping up a Kurdish communist puppet there after WWII).

 

[LizarDAMN]

Finns would take it, it would be better than the eventual peace terms.

 

[Director]

The Russians were already fighting the Finns. All he'd have to do is make them a higher priority and warn the Allies against letting their brigade-or-so get hit by 'friendly fire'.