yeah. That was sort of the point I was making that I missed in my earlier reply. The variables would increase, and Norway really is key to that. Thanks to the quick victory in the low country Hitler was able to shift forces used there quickly to help Dietl hold on until relieved from the south of Norway. That wouldn't have been able to happen and Fletcher's 6th Division (even with the inept coordination with French and English forces) would have overwhelmed Dietl changing the ballgame in that campaign completely. Due to the economics involved, not to mention the not small matter I touched on earlier that this was Hitler's baby, failure was NOT an option there. The Germans would have had to shift significant forces to complete the invasion. They would have had to and would have succeeded. Part of the dysfunction on the allied side was the failure of the English command structure to heed Norwegian advice to realize that Narvik was not the key to the campaign, but Trondheim. The Germans would have won that campaign, but in the NATO 1940 scenario, it would have taken much longer and required more forces than they had to historically take from the western campaign which was only one division, the 2nd Mountain.
Yeah I did toss the Soviets and Stalin into that equation but that is a subject, and a fascinating one, all in itself.