Baltic Alliance

[chris N]

The late 1920's see the reemergance of Sweden in the Baltic. Its King is able to prode the government toward a new position Swedish co-operation with ith Finnish and Baltic States neighbors. Slowly the Swedish industry begins to establish relationships with Finland,Estonia, Latvia and Lithunania. It include trade and the beginnings off a co-operation in the military field. As the 1930's begin there is a far stronger relationship between the varios Baltic states military. Sweden's arms industry receives orders for new equipment thus beginning the modernization of the Baltic States defence forces. As a result the Soviets are facing a far strong opposition in 1939 to any agression by them from these member states.

 

[Peter Hillock]

It would have been very interesting if the Baltic states had cooperated and armed themselves as well as the Finns did. Though since the ultimatums of 1939 and 1940 were delivered to each country separately, I expect Stalin would have attacked each of the small countries at a time as well, beginning in September or October 1939 (if the ultimatums had been rejected).

My guess is that the Baltic countries would have fallen by spring, but that might well mean that Finland could have escaped without losing territory (perhaps even without being directly attacked, if the Baltics had occupied the Soviets' attention). Once Barbarossa began, the Soviets would be happy with a neutral, Swedish-allied Finland-- they wouldn't have a Karelian front to deal with. Interesting to consider what a non-"Finlandized" Finland would have looked like during the Cold War, especially if the Nazis and Soviets had permitted it to sit out 1941-45.

My understanding, though, is that the petty nationalistic behavior of many of the countries doomed all attempts at alliance. Meierovics of Latvia hoped for a Baltic entente, but Lithuania and Poland were too at odds over Vilna/Vilnius, Estonia wanted to cooperate with Scandinavians only, etc.. That understanding probably reflects the bias of the people I grew up around, though. But I don't see that Sweden could have overcome such problems unless they coducted some brilliant diplomacy.

 

[chris N]

The problem as I see it is that the Baltic States seperately lacked the resources to stand up to the Soviet Union but if they allied together they would be far stronger. Its understanable that the Estonians have more of a feeling for the scandinavian countries as Estonia is ethnicly related to the Finns and was at one point part of the old Swedish Empire. If the three smaller states co-operated with Fibland and Sweden the odds would shift toward the Soviet Union leaving them alone.

 

[Prinz Richard Eugen]

What would the population of these states be? 15 or 20 million? Spread out over a huge area and, once the Baltic is no longer under their control, unable to move troops from one place to the other. When the Siviets or the Germans - the most likely oponents of such an alliance - are successful, the entire group falls in their contriol. The prize is Sweeden, the industrialized member. There is also foodstuffs (fish, diary, and meat, raw materials (iron ore, nickel, and the oil sands of Estonia) and large amounts of shipping. The only chance this grouping has to exist is to ally themselves with either Germany or Russia. In this manner, they may actually be the balance of power in Eastern Europe.

 

[Berra]

Why would Sweden go along with it. Neutrality worked during WWI.

 

[chris N]

Sweden was looking at the possibility of an aaliance of scandinavian countries before world war two broke out. It is a possibility that in the interest of a possible threat from the east that all five nations could have come together. An added advantage would be that the germans would not allow the soviets to take Sweden. In such an alliance Sweden would have to be considered the suppilier of weapons and of other support. By gathering together they would all have a better equiped military at lower cost. It is highly unlikely that the soviets could do any better against Finland with the full support of Sweden and if all of the Baltic states military was better equipped then any attack on them would result in crippling loses for the soviet union.

 

[Peter Hillock]

Being a pessimist, I still think the three Baltic states would have fallen, even with a solid Swedish-led alliance.

Remember that the ultimatums of 1939 were first made to each of the three Baltic states, which accepted them, and only then to Finland. With such an alliance in existence, I think the ultimatums would have been offered in the same order, and if the Baltics rejected them (being stronger militarily), the Winter War attacks likewise would have swept from south to north.

A key question is whether Sweden and Finland would have been willing and able to commit large forces across the Baltic if the Soviet offensive had begun there. If so, a Baltic War could have dragged out through 1940. If not, it seems that Sweden (and Finland) would have to accept an armistice once the Baltics were occupied.

In any event, it seems likely that the Soviets would have delayed attacking Finland at all until the Baltics were captured, so if their fiascoes and humiliating losses had happened from December 1939 to March 1940 (or later) against the Baltics instead of against the Finns, the Finnish campaign might never have happened at all.

An interesting note is that an earlier version of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement actually gave Lithuania to Germany. If a Baltic alliance had held militarily for the first stages of a Soviet attack, might the Nazis have attacked Lithuania from behind? Stalin might have even accepted such a development, if he thought he wouldn’t get Estonia and Latvia (much less Finland) without it.

Part of my pessimism stems from the naiveté prevailing about the true nature of the Stalinist regime, and part from how little solidarity there was between the small countries. In Latvia in 1939-40, for example (this is anecdotal, I confess), there was a widespread sense of relief that the government had acted sensibly by granting the Soviets bases and not being stubborn as the Poles and Finns had been. The Ulmanis regime did nothing to dispel such illusions.

Even if the Baltics fell, though, this scenario leads to other possible after-effects: (1) Sweden, like Finland, is no longer neutral but sides with Germany against the Soviets—especially if they suffered losses in a Baltic War. (2) With no charade of having joined the USSR “voluntarily”, the Baltics, if occupied in 1944-5, become satellites like the other eastern European countries, and avoid being crammed full of Russian colonists.

It’s hard to resist the temptation to keep spinning out possibilities!

 

[chris N]

It would seem to me that much would depend upon the military co-operation between the member nations. If the military of the three smaller Baltic states was able to be better equipped and there was a greater deal of co-operation then they might have resisted especially if they knew that the other two members would back them up. It is true that the combined population of the 5 member states was a little over 16,295,000 in 1939 compared to the Soviet Union which had a population of 180.000,000 but if properly armed and fortified the Baltic alliance could cause a lot of destruction to the poorly trained Red Army. It is unlikely that Hitler would have attacked Lithunania as he hated the Soviets and might even have been willing to allow aid to be sent to the alliance from Italy.