Central powers victorious Sweden, do they gain Finland?

Well, Sweden just should be ready and willingful crush any resistance in Finland after few years warring against Russia. And one thing is that them have occupy the country too. Unlike Norway and Korea, Finland had already developed nationalism and institutions. Finland was too economically and in industrial level pretty same as Sweden. So good luck for annexation. And Swedes too should wan thtat but with my knowledge there wasn't much willinful do that.

And in OTL Sweden perhaps could had to crush independent movement in Norway but there was too strong nationalism so they decided that it wouldn't be worth of that.
 
I wonder what happens in this WW1, but as mentioned above, there seems to be no territorial expansion for Sweden after the war, since there is nothing to actually keep by a democratic state, which Sweden OTL became in around 1920. One possibility would be a Slesvigian border change (where language-minorities are minimised) with Finland, where the Finnish areas around Tornedalen are given to Finland, while the Swedish-majority areas in Finland are given to Sweden, but why would the Finnish government want such a border change?

Of course it would be fun if Brest-Litovsk included Sweden getting back Finland, Ingria, Estonia and Latvia, as some kind of northern Yugoslavia or Austria-Hungary, or rather a northern Switzerland with five major languages and a number of smaller ones, but the 1930s and 1940s might not be kind to such a state, even if it weathers the 1910s and 1920s. If there was a will and efficiency, such a state would have been fully viable, but we know that things are not optimal in reality.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What would be the czar's motivation for attacking Sweden? The 'best' result for Sweden might actually be if this led to a world war or pan-European war earlier than the OTL WWI.

Let's say that the POD is that in this timeline, the ATL 'Dogger Bank incident' occurs earlier in the Skagerrak or just east thereof, with the Russian Baltic Fleet instead mistaking small fishing ships or other civilian vessels from Germany for Japanese torpedo boats. In the ensuing blind-firing, they hit one another as OTL in addition to sinking some German vessels.

Unlike OTL, when the Russians gave in to the British demands in a limited way and gave up some of the officers responsible and paid reparations, their admiralty might in this timeline opt to save face and insist that they did fight torpedo boats and claim that either Germany was harbouring Japanese torpedo boats or that it was German vessels they had fought.

During the ensuing standoff between the two empires, the captain of a Russian destroyer or torpedo boat mistakes the Norwegian naval jack of a vessel heading for Sweden's Berga naval base for the flag of the Kaiserliche Marine in the twilight. Believing that this is a German ship clearly out of German waters and part of a battlegroup preparing to attack St Petersburg while the bulk of the Baltic fleet is gone, he opens fire. Due to a combination of not expecting to be hit and sheer (bad) luck, the vessel starts sinking, but manages to radio for help. Nearby Swedish ships arrive in time to save at least some of the crew and some of them pursue the russian vessel to impound it and demand an answer. The belligerent captain instead decides to fight them, in the end being sunk after inflicting more damage.

With the first casualties being Norwegian, the war might breathe life into the personal union at least long enough that another personal union with Finland would at least be seriously considered.

Yes, this scenario requires the Russians to hold tightly onto an idiot ball, but in my defense their naval officers really did so OTL.

A Russian Admiral thought about attacking Sweden on his own Authority IOTL.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I wonder what happens in this WW1, but as mentioned above, there seems to be no territorial expansion for Sweden after the war, since there is nothing to actually keep by a democratic state, which Sweden OTL became in around 1920. One possibility would be a Slesvigian border change (where language-minorities are minimised) with Finland, where the Finnish areas around Tornedalen are given to Finland, while the Swedish-majority areas in Finland are given to Sweden, but why would the Finnish government want such a border change?

Of course it would be fun if Brest-Litovsk included Sweden getting back Finland, Ingria, Estonia and Latvia, as some kind of northern Yugoslavia or Austria-Hungary, or rather a northern Switzerland with five major languages and a number of smaller ones, but the 1930s and 1940s might not be kind to such a state, even if it weathers the 1910s and 1920s. If there was a will and efficiency, such a state would have been fully viable, but we know that things are not optimal in reality.

I think butterflies are pretty certain to prevent a Brest-Litovsk type situation. Sweden in the war will cause Russia to fair much poorer than OTL, and Russia might even seek peace early enough to save the Tsar or the Whites. We have had threads on this before, and gone into some detail on how ready the Swedish Army really was. And how aggressive the Swedish effort in the war will be. These details will be huge in determining how the Finns view the Swedes and how Russia fails. So to roughly outline from memory.

1) In all scenarios, Russia is doing a lot worse against A-H than OTL. After the disasters of OTL to the Russian 1st and 2nd Army, the forces in Finland were stripped to reinforce against Germany. Seems like a half army or more. Sweden in the war will force the Russians to keep the troops in NW coastal Sweden, more around Helsinki, and more around St. Petersburg. The only realistic place to pull these troops from is the army deepest in Poland. We have just give A-H a lot more room to maneuver. It will have profound but complicated to model benefits for the CP.

2) It is possible that Sweden will move before Winter 14/15 into Finland. Sweden has the free troops, Germany has the ships. Aggressive attacks by Sweden early in the war will really complicate the Russian strategic situation. i.e. might force Russia to go on the defensive.

3) In 1915 Sweden might only use troops against Russians in Finland. Or hold them at home to defend against other threats.

4) Or we might see Swedish Armies fighting along side the Germans in Poland/Prussia.

This is a bit long way to say that what happens 4 years after a major POD is HUGELY impacted by the layered butterflies we so often ignore. The range of options run from Sweden having a very small impact in the war and largely having inactive Army units to Sweden spending the entire war trying to liberate Finland to Swedish Army mucking around Minsk for the entire war. So Sweden might well get no new land and the Finns might well feel slightly betrayed by the Swedes. Or the Swedes could be the liberators of Finland where a Swedish Monarch and a close alliance with Sweden seems very natural. We can also end up with a Finland about OTL size or maybe up to twice the land area.
 
If Sweden is taking part of a WW1 that resembles OTL otherwise, then there might be a revolution in Sweden (which was narrowly avoided OTL) and perhaps that revolution makes the reds win in Finland too, and Communism is not limited to Russia.
 
If Sweden is taking part of a WW1 that resembles OTL otherwise, then there might be a revolution in Sweden (which was narrowly avoided OTL) and perhaps that revolution makes the reds win in Finland too, and Communism is not limited to Russia.

Depends does CPs win the war or not. In Sweden entering to war USA might stay out. And even losing the war not mean succesful revolution in Sweden.
 
I think butterflies are pretty certain to prevent a Brest-Litovsk type situation. Sweden in the war will cause Russia to fair much poorer than OTL, and Russia might even seek peace early enough to save the Tsar or the Whites. We have had threads on this before, and gone into some detail on how ready the Swedish Army really was. And how aggressive the Swedish effort in the war will be. These details will be huge in determining how the Finns view the Swedes and how Russia fails. So to roughly outline from memory.

1) In all scenarios, Russia is doing a lot worse against A-H than OTL. After the disasters of OTL to the Russian 1st and 2nd Army, the forces in Finland were stripped to reinforce against Germany. Seems like a half army or more. Sweden in the war will force the Russians to keep the troops in NW coastal Sweden, more around Helsinki, and more around St. Petersburg. The only realistic place to pull these troops from is the army deepest in Poland. We have just give A-H a lot more room to maneuver. It will have profound but complicated to model benefits for the CP.

2) It is possible that Sweden will move before Winter 14/15 into Finland. Sweden has the free troops, Germany has the ships. Aggressive attacks by Sweden early in the war will really complicate the Russian strategic situation. i.e. might force Russia to go on the defensive.

3) In 1915 Sweden might only use troops against Russians in Finland. Or hold them at home to defend against other threats.

4) Or we might see Swedish Armies fighting along side the Germans in Poland/Prussia.

This is a bit long way to say that what happens 4 years after a major POD is HUGELY impacted by the layered butterflies we so often ignore. The range of options run from Sweden having a very small impact in the war and largely having inactive Army units to Sweden spending the entire war trying to liberate Finland to Swedish Army mucking around Minsk for the entire war. So Sweden might well get no new land and the Finns might well feel slightly betrayed by the Swedes. Or the Swedes could be the liberators of Finland where a Swedish Monarch and a close alliance with Sweden seems very natural. We can also end up with a Finland about OTL size or maybe up to twice the land area.

I remember us having this discussion before, and as I recall, my estimate then was that before 1915, Russia would not need to keep much more troops in Finland than IOTL: beginning with the Admiral Essen POD, it is rather unlikely that Sweden would have the time and political will to put together an invasion force to land in Finland in 1914 before the Baltic starts to ice up. Not only is the mobilization going to take time, but so is putting together the sea lift and making all the necessary plans. There would be some doubts about an invasion this soon in Sweden, anyway, and unwillingness among the Swedish military leadership to risk such a big operation immediately in the first months of hostilities. Also, landing in Finland in the fall, just before winter, would risk leaving the invasion force to wither on the vine during the winter months as the cold winter conditions would make it difficult to supply the sizable military force across the frozen Gulf of Bothnia and Archipelago Sea. Generally, then, I believe that it is most realistic to expect a Swedish amphibious operation against Finland in the summer of 1915 at the earliest.

As for 4), I believe the most common view in past threads has been that Sweden sending significant expeditionary forces to Poland (or anywhere outside Sweden, Finland and the Baltic islands) would be quite unlikely.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Well, Sweden just should be ready and willingful crush any resistance in Finland after few years warring against Russia. And one thing is that them have occupy the country too. Unlike Norway and Korea, Finland had already developed nationalism and institutions. Finland was too economically and in industrial level pretty same as Sweden. So good luck for annexation. And Swedes too should wan thtat but with my knowledge there wasn't much willinful do that.

And in OTL Sweden perhaps could had to crush independent movement in Norway but there was too strong nationalism so they decided that it wouldn't be worth of that.
I guess the PoD have to be Sweden crushing the Norwegian independence movement with military force in 1905, but then Sweden face another problem. They have now occupied a hostile territory in 10 years, do they even have military capacity to do much about Finland if they need to hold Norway down (and if the join Britain would happily aid a Norwegian rebellion).
 
I guess the PoD have to be Sweden crushing the Norwegian independence movement with military force in 1905, but then Sweden face another problem. They have now occupied a hostile territory in 10 years, do they even have military capacity to do much about Finland if they need to hold Norway down (and if the join Britain would happily aid a Norwegian rebellion).

That could be an interesting outcome. If the CP win the war; Sweden, who hasn't lost faith in Personal Unions, adds Finland to their Union. However British support for Norway would eventually make the Swedish accept their leave, as keeping them who be too expensive.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
That could be an interesting outcome. If the CP win the war; Sweden, who hasn't lost faith in Personal Unions, adds Finland to their Union. However British support for Norway would eventually make the Swedish accept their leave, as keeping them who be too expensive.
For this you'd need a authoritarian Sweden willing to spend military capacity to occupy hostile territory, basically a completely dofferent Sweden than OTL. Because Norway would have tied up much of the Swedish army. So would Finland. None of them would have been willing to be part of a Swedish empire anymore.
 
Top