In accordance with their policy, Chamberlain and Halifax were eager to prevent the war from escalating to the point where it took on a life of its own. This view soon collided with that of Churchill, who pressed for action in Scandinavia, as well as with that of the French leadership, keen on distracting German attention from its own doorsteps.
It is impossible to understand Norwegian policies and actions in 1939–40 without considering how the country viewed its own interests as well as those of the belligerents. Great Britain enjoyed considerable good will among the Norwegians, who still attached some importance to their common historical heritage which dated back to the Scandinavian settlements in England and Scotland. They saw in the growth of British democracy over the preceding century a close parallel to developments in Norway during the same period. British support during the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian union in 1905 was not forgotten. The Norwegian royal family was closely related to the British royal family. King Håkon VII, who married his cousin Princess Maud, the youngest daughter of Edward VII and Queen Alexandra in 1896, was King George VI’s uncle.
The economic bonds to Britain were strong and the very survival of Norway’s large merchant fleet and its future as a trading nation were closely tied to British fortunes. Norway had the fourth largest merchant marine in the world. This fleet, in particular the modern tanker part of 1.5 million tons, was of vital importance to the Allies. The British needed iron ore that came through Narvik, as well as annual imports of 10,000 tons of aluminum and 70,000 tons of carbide from Norway. The Norwegian policy makers felt, therefore, that a war with England had to be avoided at all costs.
This feeling was well known to the British and that, plus the sorry state of Norwegian defenses, emboldened the Allies to violate Norwegian sovereignty. Rowland Kenney, the press attaché at the British Embassy,1 had a discussion with Finn Moe, a member of the Norwegian Labor Party. This was shortly after Foreign Minister Koht delivered a speech attacking the British. Finn Moe assured Kenney that the foreign minister was resolute in his view that if Norway entered the war, it had to be on the side of the Allies, something he could not say openly.2 While the statement appears to give a correct picture of Koht’s views, to provide this information to Kenney could only encourage the British leaders in their continued violations of Norwegian neutrality.
The friendship between Germany and Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century when Norway asserted its independence also had a tendency to cause anti-Swedish sentiments to take the form of friendship and sympathy for the British. The activities in Germany in the 1930s had created both disgust and alarm, and the Norwegian leaders took some actions that were sure to irritate the Germans. In 1935, the Nobel committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Carl von Ossietzky, who was in a German concentration camp when nominated. Four years later, Norway rejected a German offer of a non-aggression pact. The historical relationship with Great Britain and Germany and the policies of the latter’s government go a long way to explain the consensus in Norwegian political circles in 1940 that a war with Great Britain had to be avoided.
Most members of the Norwegian government were ill equipped to deal with the events that unfolded in 1939 and 1940. Most had little interest in military affairs and foreign policy. Prime Minister Johan Nygaardsvold was a former lumberjack and labor union offical, Minister of Justice Trygve Lie was also a former labor union official, and Minister of Defense Carl F. Monsen was a conscientious objector and had been arrested for pacifist agitation. Foreign Minister Koht was a professor of history and well qualified for his job, but in this, he was a lone figure among his colleagues.
To understand the magnitude and difficulties faced by anyone undertaking military operations in Norway, it is important to keep the country’s geography in mind. Norway is slightly larger in area than Great Britain but over 95 percent of the country consists of mountains, deep valleys, extensive forests, and thousands of islands along the coast. These features resulted in enormous internal communications problems. The population, which was slightly over three million in 1940, was concentrated in a few cities, the main valleys in the eastern part of the country, and along a narrow strip of coastline.
Cold and heavy snow is the normal winter climate in the eastern and internal portions of central Norway. The coastal areas of western and northern Norway, in contrast, have relatively mild winters because of the Gulf Stream. However, the darkness, frequent and violent storms, and the spring thaw complicate both military and civilian movement.
The primary means of communications was by sea, or by the railroad system that had not yet reached Narvik. The road network was susceptible to interdiction in the narrow, precipitous valleys, in the mountains, and along the coast where the use of ferries was required to cross the numerous fjords. There were no roads linking Narvik and the two northern provinces, Troms and Finnmark, to the rest of the country.
The rough geography and severe climate, while presenting an invader with serious problems, encouraged the belief that the country was easy to defend. This belief, in turn, contributed to the scarcity of resources allocated for defense.
Norwegian policies and the level of preparedness of her armed forces in 1940 can be explained partly by the country’s experience in World War I, or rather by the failure of its leaders to interpret correctly the reasons for that experience. While the country managed to avoid direct involvement in that conflict, the Norwegian merchant marine, mostly in the service of the Allies, suffered losses that were proportionally greater than those suffered by the British. More than half of the Norwgian merchant fleet and 2,000 sailors were lost, primarily to German submarine warfare. Although the country had to endure severe blockade measures and the war involved great costs to the Norwegian population, Norwegian companies, industrialists, and shipping magnates reaped huge economic benefits.
Johan Nygaardsvold and his government hoped to remain neutral in World War II, and perhaps to reap similar economic benefits. However, Norway’s strategic and economic importance for the belligerents had increased during the inter-war period because of the German need for iron ore. In addition, air power had come of age. There were also other important differences between the situation in 1914 and that in 1939.
The Norwegian armed forces were modern and well trained in World War I, following a deliberate program of force build-up and modernization in preparation for the separation from Sweden only nine years earlier. One reason for scrupulously defending Norwegian neutrality in World War I had to do with the likelihood that Norway and Sweden, if involved in the war, would be on opposite sides.
By 1940, the situation in the armed forces was completely different. Norwegians were caught up in the general pacifist feelings prevailing in much of Europe and the expression that World War I was “the war to end all wars” was more than a slogan. Norwegians were ardent supporters of the newly formed League of Nations and some even viewed that institution as a substitute for national defense. High unemployment levels in the 1920s and 1930s, up to 42% among organized labor in 1932, also contributed to a general unwillingness to increase spending on defense.
These pacifist feelings and severe economic conditions were contem poraneous with the rise of the Labor Party, which viewed the professionals in the military services as opponents of its social service programs. Annual defense expenditure had fallen to less than $9 million in 1935. Thereafter, it increased but even the 1938 budget allocated only $12 million, supplemented by a $13 million loan, to the armed forces. However, the scarcity in the defense budget was only part of the problem. This is demonstrated by the fact that almost $10 million were on hand and unused when war broke out. Much of the materials needed to rearm and modernize came from sources outside Norway and these became more and more difficult to acquire.