Battle For Norway

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24401, 30 October 1944, Page 4

Battle For Norway

As the battle for Norway opens, King Haakon has warned his people that they may be involved in fresh difficulties and sacrifices. The warning is prudent. It would be surprising indeed if the enemy surrendered Norway without a fight, as he is appaiently surrendering Greece. There are several reasons to forbid such a hope. In the first place the Allies face formidable handicaps. The terrain is extremely mountainous, with numerous lakes and short, turbulent rivers. Soviet communiques have already spoken of “difficult ’Polar conditions” and of “ trying conditions aggravated by “ the absence of roads”. Second, whatever hopes the enemy pins on his U-boats depend substantially I now on the use he can make of

bases along the Norwegian coast, j The recent report of U-boat attacks off the Canadian coast was a sharp [reminder that the U-boat is still a 'menace. Last month, according to Mr Roosevelt and Mr Churchill, there was a “ possibly seasonal ” lull jin U-boat activity. But, aS they observed, the offensive might be renewed in the autumn with new .types of U-boats; and “unceasing “ attention ” is essential to “ procure “ the comparative safety of our “shipping and the enemy’s scanty “success”. Third, the Arctic route to Russia remains the shortest supply line from Britain. So long as enemy air, surface, and underwater craft are based in Norway it will be a hazardous route and a drain on British naval escort strength. The sustained hammering of the Tirpitz is evidence that the hazards cannot be ignored. Finally, Norway has some economic importance. In particular, the output of iron ore, though comparatively small, has assumed greater significance since Sweden closed her ironore ports to German traffic. These are all solid reasons why the enemy should attempt to hold Norway. There may, of course, be an overriding need to concentrate strength nearer home. Wholesale withdrawals of German forces from Norway have been rumoured at various times and as often contradicted. The latest and best authenticated report suggests that the Germans have actually been- reinforcing in Norway, But even if the truth is as “ The Times ” balanced it in February, that there have been troop movements both to and from Norway and that, if the occupying force has not weakened in numbers, it has deteriorated in quality, the ' German position in Norway can still be very strong, as a glance at the map suggests. Except for a small area in the north, Norway’s eastern border rests against neutral Sweden, and any Soviet advance, for the 400 miles from Narvik to Trondheim, would be confined to a rugged corridor not more than 70 miles wide. South of this corridor is practically the whole of the main railway system, with communication between Norway and Germanheld Denmark broken only by the Skagerrak. There is, however, a critical weakness: the long coastline is peculiarly vulnerable to amphibious attack. Such an attack immediately preceded the German defeat at Petsamo. The assurance given to the Soviet by the Norwegian Government in London that its forces will “fully co-operate in “the battles to be fought in Nor- “ way ” suggests that the weakness will be exploited, and not only by the Russians.