A Pro-defence government in Denmark in 1930s

Redbeard

Banned
Probably not I guess - the foundation for its decision was laid before WWI.

And on the British saying that Denmark should not expect any help in case of German agression. After that the partly mobilised army (Sikringsstyrken) was sent home again in Febeurary 1940 and only a diminiutive 3000 men left under arms.

The British being a little more "Churchillian" a few month in advance could very well have the Danish Government decide to keep Sikringsstyrken mobilsied and mobilise the rest on indications of a comming German operation. I would not hold it impossible, that some German circles perhaps delibetrately would leak information of the German attack, incl. the importance of Aalborg. BTW German naval units and transports had been observed going north through the Danish straits in the days preceeding the attack, and in combination with reports of German concentrations south of the D-G border, it ought not be that difficult to figure out, that both Norway was a target and that a Danish airport in operational reach of Norway (i.e. Aalborg) would be a likely high priority object of a German attack on Denmark.

Fully mobilsed the 1940 OTL army would have comprised two relatively large Divisions (12+ inf. battalions), one on Zealand and one in Jutland. That would probably have been more than the German forces allocated in OTL could have handled, but of course the Germans could have found two extra Divisiosn from the strategic reserve and so have taken Jutland, but not necessarily in time for the needs of the Norwegian campaign.

AFAIK the 1932 reduction were done in the light of failed negotiations over a Nordic alliance. But what if the negotiations are more like inconclusive (still with a hope) until say 1936-37, when they are given up. Then we have a 5+ Division (IIRC 55 inf. battalions in all) structure on which to modernise when the realities of Hitler's regime become obvious. All other things being equal that ought to increase the chance of the British promising some kind of assistance.

If the Germans still allocate the forces to attack, would it be ASB that the Briotish and French decide to go for a second front on Germany by deploying a force similar to that sent to Norway in OTL 1940? The Germans really can't touch Zealand, certainly not if the British intervene, and Jutland is too narrow to deploy the overwhelming power of the German army in. The same problem is of course present for someone planning to attack Germany from Jutland, but Jutland/Denmark being in enemy hands would be a intolerable thorn in the German flesh.

All in all my best guess is that the Germans would have left Denmark and Norway alone and instead went for a WWI model, where Denmark de facto was a German flank guard vs. British intervention in the Baltic. That of course required strong armed forces, but that was convenientkly forgotten in thye interwar years, when bloodily naive ideas about pacifism, international law etc. prevailed.

Even seen from the perspective of the "Keep Denmark out of the war" school, a non-disarmament TL would have been better, as it at least would have provided the possibility of making some real fortunes on genuinely selling foodstuff to the Germans like in WWI, and not just handing it over as in OTL WWII (The Danish government paid the farmers for the stuff sent to Germany, but nationally that of course was bad business).

So I guess we can repeat the old saying: Every country has an army, either its own, or that of another country!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Even seen from the perspective of the "Keep Denmark out of the war" school, a non-disarmament TL would have been better, as it at least would have provided the possibility of making some real fortunes on genuinely selling foodstuff to the Germans like in WWI, and not just handing it over as in OTL WWII (The Danish government paid the farmers for the stuff sent to Germany, but nationally that of course was bad business).

Let's say that Denmark manages to keep herself neutral, but Norway is conquered, say, just after the Battle of France. Will Denmark which has managed to keep herself neutral through two world wars opt for neutrality or Nordic alliance instead of NATO?
 
Let's say that Denmark manages to keep herself neutral, but Norway is conquered, say, just after the Battle of France. Will Denmark which has managed to keep herself neutral through two world wars opt for neutrality or Nordic alliance instead of NATO?

If able to stay neutral in WWI and II both neutrality or Nordic alliance would be a viable alternative to NATO. If neutrality had worked why opt for NATO?
 

bard32

Banned
A pro-defense government in Denmark in the 1930s

That's a thought but you must remember that Denmark wasn't the only
country with an anti-defense government. Britain had one and we had one.
Besides, in the 1930s, there was a worldwide downturn known as the Great
Depression. TGD was responsible for most countries, except France and Germany, for example, from providing for their own defense. France built the
Maginot Line, and Germany built the Siegfried Line. Denmark, under the
rule of King Christian IX, was like a sheep to a hungry wolf. It didn't stand a
snowball's chance in hell against Hitler.
 

Redbeard

Banned
That's a thought but you must remember that Denmark wasn't the only
country with an anti-defense government. Britain had one and we had one.
Besides, in the 1930s, there was a worldwide downturn known as the Great
Depression. TGD was responsible for most countries, except France and Germany, for example, from providing for their own defense. France built the
Maginot Line, and Germany built the Siegfried Line. Denmark, under the
rule of King Christian IX, was like a sheep to a hungry wolf. It didn't stand a
snowball's chance in hell against Hitler.

Christian IX died in 1901, at which time Hitler was just a big boy, I guess we could manage him then ;)

I guess you mean Christian X, who was King of Denmark during all of Hitler's reign in Germany, but anyway I'll maintain that a Denmark defended more in accordance with the potential Denmark had, very well could have been the snowball Hitler would have choked on.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Markus

Banned
The Germans really can't touch Zealand, certainly not if the British intervene, and Jutland is too narrow to deploy the overwhelming power of the German army in. The same problem is of course present for someone planning to attack Germany from Jutland, but Jutland/Denmark being in enemy hands would be a intolerable thorn in the German flesh.

Too narrow? At the border the peninsula is 50km wide. IIRC the typical frontage of a division was around 5km. There´s planty of room and why can´t Germany invade the islands? If the RN decides to send ships into the Baltic that would end very bad for the RN. Germany has air supremacy.


All in all my best guess is that the Germans would have left Denmark and Norway alone and instead went for a WWI model, where Denmark de facto was a German flank guard vs. British intervention in the Baltic. That of course required strong armed forces, but that was convenientkly forgotten in thye interwar years, when bloodily naive ideas about pacifism, international law etc. prevailed.
They would have liked nothing more. It was the allied incursions into Norwegians waters and Norways inability to stop them, that forced Germany to take action to secure the vital iron ore supply.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Too narrow? At the border the peninsula is 50km wide. IIRC the typical frontage of a division was around 5km. There´s planty of room and why can´t Germany invade the islands? If the RN decides to send ships into the Baltic that would end very bad for the RN. Germany has air supremacy.


They would have liked nothing more. It was the allied incursions into Norwegians waters and Norways inability to stop them, that forced Germany to take action to secure the vital iron ore supply.

Various terrain features , not at least fiords, snmall rivers and bogs give a number of natural dfencelines. A typical Divisional frontage on the defence was 10-20km, sometimes more, but then the defender typically had problems. On attack you could squeeze in a Division on about half that frontage, but it would be impossible to supply and manoeuvre that many Divisions for an advance outside the artillery range from the starting position. That makes it difficult to make a very swift advance to Aalborg against an enemy that makes a fighting withdrawal.

Against a fully mobilsed Danish defence, you couldn't perform the coup like event of OTL, but the by spring 1940 Germany had practically no amphibious capacity. The Danish straits would anyway have been heavily mined and it would have taken both time and casualties to clear them. The best option would have been to ferry two-three Divisions across the narrow strait between Lollan-falster and N.Germany while simultaneously taking the bridge between Falster and Zealand. AFAIK that bridge would have been defended by a reinforced battalion, and the operation would thus require a large part of the 1940 German airborne assets. But even if it all goes well you will still have a long way to Copenhagen and there will be a major battle at a defensive line going from Roskilde Fjord to Køge Bay. If German I would leave Zealand.

I doubt if the RN would send ships into the Baltic itself, but more like the RN and RAF taking part in defending the minefields in the Danish Straits.

By April 1940 the aipower threat to surface ships still wasn't fully acknowledged, and I could imagine some RN admirals being surprised at the cost of such an operation, but OTOH this is before the fall of France and I can only see that it would be very tempting to open a "second front" on Germany. With British and French war production accelerating at this time (and German stagnating) this might actually turn out as a big advantage to the allies. With combat still going on in Denmark the Germans can't attack France, and long time after losses will have to be replaced. This might give the allies the attritional war they planned for, as the Germans will have to postpone Blitzkrieg until it is too late.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Markus

Banned
A typical Divisional frontage on the defence was 10-20km, sometimes more, but then the defender typically had problems

If German I would leave Zealand.

With combat still going on in Denmark the Germans can't attack France, and long time after losses will have to be replaced. This might give the allies the attritional war they planned for, as the Germans will have to postpone Blitzkrieg until it is too late.

Divisions often had to defend frontages of more than 10km, but they were supposed to defend no more than 5 to 7km.

Certainly, Denmark is not the target, it´s just on the way/in the way. Like Belgium in WW1, so why bother with Zealand? Bypass and mop up later.

The two operations are independant and both have to be conducted. In OTL the Allies were clearly gaining the upper hand in northern Norway, before the collapse in the west forced them to withdraw.
In the NTL Danish resistance is highly unlikely to achieve more than save Norway, France will be attacked -maybe with less infrantry divisions- but most german infrantry division did not fight in Fall Gelb anyway. The Fall of France can´t be prevented that way, however Germany still needs to take Norway!

I guess there will be no BoB and no Sealion-bluff, but a second Battle of Norway. That could be tricky. The Norwegians have 110,000 regulars and up to 200,000 militia, the Brits have a lot of airpower and some ground tropps to send to Norway, they clearly control the SLOCs and "neutral" Sweden will have everything and anybody mobilized and (secretly) coordinate with the Allies.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Divisions often had to defend frontages of more than 10km, but they were supposed to defend no more than 5 to 7km.

Certainly, Denmark is not the target, it´s just on the way/in the way. Like Belgium in WW1, so why bother with Zealand? Bypass and mop up later.

The two operations are independant and both have to be conducted. In OTL the Allies were clearly gaining the upper hand in northern Norway, before the collapse in the west forced them to withdraw.
In the NTL Danish resistance is highly unlikely to achieve more than save Norway, France will be attacked -maybe with less infrantry divisions- but most german infrantry division did not fight in Fall Gelb anyway. The Fall of France can´t be prevented that way, however Germany still needs to take Norway!

I guess there will be no BoB and no Sealion-bluff, but a second Battle of Norway. That could be tricky. The Norwegians have 110,000 regulars and up to 200,000 militia, the Brits have a lot of airpower and some ground tropps to send to Norway, they clearly control the SLOCs and "neutral" Sweden will have everything and anybody mobilized and (secretly) coordinate with the Allies.

You would in WWII very rarely find fronts with a Division pr. 5 or 7 km of frontline. The Soviets would probably be the biggest exception, but then a Soviet Rifle Division usually in size resembled more a Brigade or Regiment of other armies.

With less infantry Divisions available I'm sure the German high command and not at least Hitler would have been much more nervous than in OTL. They anytime expected the big French counterattack, and for that needed to keep a big reserve of Infantry Divisions. For each Division less the chance of Hitler haltning (or postponing) the Blitzkrieg is increased, and if that happens the German offensive is likely to bog down for good.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Markus

Banned
With less infantry Divisions available I'm sure the German high command and not at least Hitler would have been much more nervous than in OTL. They anytime expected the big French counterattack, and for that needed to keep a big reserve of Infantry Divisions. For each Division less the chance of Hitler haltning (or postponing) the Blitzkrieg is increased, and if that happens the German offensive is likely to bog down for good.

Actually it´s not the number, but the location of the infantry divisions. Since the infantry divisions were mot motorized they could not keep up with armour and that triggered the Stop-orders.
And quite frankly, the Allies screwed up waaaaay to hard much to often for half a dozen fewer division in the second or third german wave to save them from their own inaction and tardiness.
 
Actually it´s not the number, but the location of the infantry divisions. Since the infantry divisions were mot motorized they could not keep up with armour and that triggered the Stop-orders.
And quite frankly, the Allies screwed up waaaaay to hard much to often for half a dozen fewer division in the second or third german wave to save them from their own inaction and tardiness.

Considering the poor state of training of German forces in April 1940 I would think that German Army would need at least 1:3 force advantage against Denmark or deployment of vital armored forces to Jutland (deployment of armored forces to Sjaelland is ASB). Thus, assuming OTL possible two large divisions on Jutland (24 battalions), German Army would need to deploy some 8 divisions (72 battalions), which is not an inconsiderable amount.

If Denmark decides to invest heavily on defense, Finnish style, then the amount of forces Germany has to deploy will be really significant.
 
I doubt if the RN would send ships into the Baltic itself, but more like the RN and RAF taking part in defending the minefields in the Danish Straits.

By April 1940 the aipower threat to surface ships still wasn't fully acknowledged, and I could imagine some RN admirals being surprised at the cost of such an operation, but OTOH this is before the fall of France and I can only see that it would be very tempting to open a "second front" on Germany.

On the other hand one has to remember that pre-Fall of France deploying forces to Denmark means a total blockade of German navy, in essence a possibility of ending the naval war against Germany with a single, swift stroke. There's also the possibility of cutting German iron ore transportation and forcing Germans to keep at least minor forces in Baltic coastal defense.

In case of submarines there's the historic case of RN's succesful submarine operations in the Baltic during the First World War.
 
Going back to the initial question - A Pro-defence government in Denmark in 1930s - how to achieve that?
Probably there is no way to change the 1929 elections outcome - Stauning is going to be PM and 1932 army-navy law to come into being, limiting the size of Danish armed forces.

BUT have increased Nazi propaganda in Denmark in 1937 onwards coupled with much increase in Nazi terrorist actions - more bombs against members of government and the blanks in the Folketing 1938 against the Minister of Justice being live...
The National Commissioners of Police was set up in 1937 to coordinate all police forces of the country. It was realized that something had to be done in the grave situation.

Or have Hitler NOT dissolve the Stormtroopers in Southern Jutland in 1934, giving the Danish government time to rethink its position which could very well result in a stronger resolve to defend Denmark against the Nazies. And perhaps a more unstable political situation in Denmark with uniformed Nazis, Conservatives, Communists and Social democrats fighting each other in the streets.
This situation could have triggered stronger fortifications at least on the seaside to defend Danish territorial waters.
Even the Danish Social democrats at this time argued that the international situation didn't warrant further disarmament!

That might have triggered an elections 1938 as a protest against the Nazis with a landslide Conservative win bringing John Christmas Moeller into the PM seat.
A little late for doing something serious like enlarging the army or navy out of proportion but enough to ensure the call up of Sikringsstyrken AND keeping it under arms.
Problem is this don't give us the 5 inf. divs of 1914 but should man the 2 1940 divs to close on full strenght with modern equipment. This might just accelerate the buying of aircraft and local licence manufacture of more.
More important it would make the coastal defences of Copenhagen being manned i.e. no Hansestad Rostock going unopposed into Copenhagen port, the Masnedoe fort manned - fortress overlooking the brigde from Falster to Sjaelland and have the forces in southern Jutland consist of more than a hogde-pogde of units amounting to battalion strenght and two schools of NCOs (though this kind of units usually proved themselves elite in France and Russia!) with prepared positions at important road junctions or places to stop an advancing enemy.

Still I don't think this would change much (oh it might make the Germans ajust their plans of Weserübung Süd - going just for Jutland and Aalborg) at least in the realization of the value of Aalborg, except - and this is important that the Danish battalion commander in North Jutland just might in this case go for retaking the airport and then fortify it. This puts it out of action for the duration of the fighting and perhaps some days following.
But the alert might just go off as early as March 30, when the German preparations in Baltic ports were known - a determined stance might have been that the Danish government laid mines in the Sound and Baelts and guarded them with warships to ensure no misuse of either warring party of Danish Neutral waters. Of course the Sound was a difficult area due to the right of sailing through established 1857 and half of it being Swedish territorial waters.

Important points is that Christmas Moeller was pro-defence, the Army wanted to show it really ment to fight i.e. a defence of survival to the last round, the Navy would surely in the best tradition fire at anybody not obeying its orders be it RN or Kriegsmarine.

But the impotant point is the political arena in Denmark. Only by gaining a absolute majority and that would mean Conservative and Liberal party probably with the Peasant's Party and perhaps the Danish Legal union (Retsforbundet) being part of a coalition could such a change be implemented. And even the Social democratic Party might have been a Danish party at this stage going for defending Danish democracy! and thus supporting government.

Real rearmament should be begun in the early part of the 1930'ies to build up the Army and Navy with a professional officers corps.

Hm, would make for an interesting TL...:cool:
 
Top