How would Sweden joining WWI affect the region?

But would the CP lose in a Sweden joins situation? That's another front for the Russians, and another route of supply by the allies to the east that is cut off.

Beyond that, why would Sweden joining the war in the Central Powers instantly lead to Denmark and Norway joining the allies? Denmark in particular was very much against antagonizing the Germans.

I didn't say Norway or Denmark would "join" the allies - although if Denmark felt it could get away with it they might. There was still bad blood over the Prussian/German annexation of its southern territory. Norway would more likely be occupied by Britain, since they would need a route to threaten Sweden.
 
I didn't say Norway or Denmark would "join" the allies - although if Denmark felt it could get away with it they might. There was still bad blood over the Prussian/German annexation of its southern territory. Norway would more likely be occupied by Britain, since they would need a route to threaten Sweden.

By bad blood you mean the Danes were bloody terrified of German aggression. The Second Schleswig War essentially drove Denmark into quasi-isolationism that became the standard of 'Nordic neutrality' as you put it. It would take much, much, more than Sweden joining the Central Powers for the Danes to take up the sword against the Germans once again.

As well, I'm not sure how strong of an argument you have for Norwegian involvement. You're positing that the British, after entering the war in protest of German violation of Belgium's neutrality in order to attack France now violate Norway's neutrality in order to attack Sweden. That seems... well, unlikely at the least, and certainly a route that would severely hamper both the Allied and British war effort. There would likely be some fairly large demonstrations in Britain if such an action were taken.

Finally, just to be clear on the subject, initiating conflict against the Central Powers is de-facto 'joining' the Allies.
 
Norway would more likely be occupied by Britain, since they would need a route to threaten Sweden.

That raises all kinds of questions. How many troops can the UK spare to occupy Norway and how would that effect other operations? How would Norway feel about it? Sure Norway was pro-British and more liberal than Sweden but being occupied by the UK might change their minds.

As I recall both sides modernized their border fortifications leading up to 1905. Couple that with winter settling in within a month or two of British landings then I can't see Norway as anything but a pissed off country with absolutely no way for the Brits to invade Sweden effectively.

However, how many Swedish troops would be diverted from Finland to the Norwegian border? Likewise how many Russian troops have to be diverted to Norway and to the Baltic coast to prevent landings?

Would the Royal Navy and the High Seas Fleet tangle it up off the coast of Norway? Southern Norway is more or less totally dominated by Sweden and Germany in terms of naval combat.

Assuming the Central Powers win for the moment, how much territory does Sweden want? Border adjustments in Norway & Finland as well as buffer Finland?


Hmm. I didn't even consider Sweden in the Futurist Manifesto. Shit.
 
You have one Dane and a number of non-Danes sanely argueing why Denmark wouldn't go against Germany/CP; she wouldn't! :mad:
Government had decided to lie dead till wars end AND Germany offering the North Schleswig/Sønderjylland to Denmark.
Only the Allied insistence and Liberal/Conservative pressure in parliament made the cabinet go for the referendum as described earlier.

So no way of Denmark joining up unless the CP forces her do so. Even in the event of Sweden joining the CP I would expect the OTL efforts by Denmark and Norway of trying to keep her from doing so.

Why should Germany want to invite the Allies into the bottleneck of Jutland?
Surely it had contingency plans for invasion of Norway and Denmark/Jutland but the North Sea Barrage and limited power projection capability should bar that effort; except of course in a Sweden goes CP TL where Norway may be invaded overland thus having the invader run headlong into Norwegian border fortifications the military value of just one proven during Weserübung.

Should the CP go for Norway and Denmark the first would recieve Allied reinforcements and resist invasion the latter be occupied for a year or two till wars end following some real fighting; at least if the Germans go for Sjaelland. But they may just end up with Fall J and go for Jutland leaving Sjaelland and the isles to rot.

Post war things become interesting with Sweden part of defeated coalition it may turn red or republican or red republic or whatever.
Denmark and Norway though is in an totally changed strategic situation with enemies south AND east!

ITTL Denmark (I don't know about Norway) would officially join the intervention of Russia and may even join up if intervention in Sweden happens... just to clear out the reds of course. :D

Denmark and Norway may still want to disarm during the interwar years but it will not be part of reality; a strong defence is still needed.
When Soviet and Swedish civil wars end the two may still cut back on armed forces but surely not as far as OTL.
 
WWII: Soviet forces did occupy Bornholm, part of Denmark.

They only moved out in 1946.

Soviet did not regard Denmark as "occupied" by Germany, treating Denmark as "conquered nation" not liberated.

It was based on the early occupation years of Danish cooperation with German occupation. Very sensitive even today, I think.

But Denmark joining anything in a WW1 setting? can't see it. 1864 beat anything warrior like out of Danish policy.

Ivan
 
That's fine, given Denmark's extremely exposed position it doesn't have to join; certainly the Netherlands didn't join either even though it's close enough to do so. Let us talk about Sweden and the effects on Finland (and/or Norway) instead.
 
Again, to clarify. I never indicated it was likely that either Norway or Denmark would "join" the allies or initiate hostilities against Germany if Sweden joined the Central Powers. I did speculate that Norway could be invaded by the Allies and by default become a theatre of the war - or as an occupied nation be forced to assist the allies. This is at least plausible given Churchill's penchant for using the RN's dominance to launch amphibious operations in marginal theatres. Also, British occupation of Norway - and basing RN units there - would make the blockade of the High Seas Fleet and German trade that more complete.

I offered a reason why Denmark would prefer the allies - but recognize that its location almost mandates its neutrality if it wants to avoid German occupation. So, as Strategos Risk says let's drop Denmark from the discussion. Norway, as well as Finland (and even the Karelia, the Baltic States, Poland, and OTL's East Prussia) remain fertile targets for speculation if Sweden joins the CP, win or lose.
 
zoomar, again, the idea of Norway joining the war is still fairly ASB though. If the POD is Admiral Essen preemptively attacking the Swedes, or the Germans being able to convince Sweden to join the fight, why would the British invade Norway in the first place?

Aside from violating the sovereignty of a neutral country, after entering the war in the first place in protest of the Central Powers doing the exact same thing, why would the Brits even invade Norway to get at Sweden? Its not like they need to; Götaland has an extensive coastline in the North Sea. Göteborg and Malmö are large and important Swedish cities along said coast that the British could attempt to take, especially the more northerly Göteborg; which incidentally to get to Strategos' Risk question regarding the effects on the war would likely force the German High Seas Fleet out into the open long before OTL Jutland.

Long story short there's simply no compelling reason for Britain to invade Norway after a 'Sweden joins the Central Powers' scenario; beyond the fact that is completely out of character for the British government of the time to do so.
 
I'd like to add that getting to Sweden from Norway is by no means an easy task. The border territory between the two countries is rugged, hilly and mountainous terrain. The reason the border is like it is isn't due to chance: it's because it's a natural border.

And back in WW1 the infrastructure was even worse, so getting to Sweden by going the land route through Norway would only be an exercise in attrition.
 
I'd like to add that getting to Sweden from Norway is by no means an easy task. The border territory between the two countries is rugged, hilly and mountainous terrain. The reason the border is like it is isn't due to chance: it's because it's a natural border.

And back in WW1 the infrastructure was even worse, so getting to Sweden by going the land route through Norway would only be an exercise in attrition.

Plus, as previously mentioned, the border was somewhat fortified as well thanks to the tensions surrounding Norway going independent.

However, I'm not sure how viable a move against Goteborg or especially Malmo would be. Mining the Skaggerak-Kattegat wouldn't be that hard to pull off, and the supply line would be incredibly vulnerable to German interdiction. Also, a major operation in the Skag-Kat would subject Denmark to huge amounts of pressure to join the Central Powers.
 
Also, a major operation in the Skag-Kat would subject Denmark to huge amounts of pressure to join the Central Powers.

Probably would fail and this is where Fall J come into being; by occupying Jutland (J ;)) the CP would get whats needed and Denmark be isolated in the isles.
Denmark wouldn't resist occupation of Jutland; the entire reason for the OTL policies were to lie low and if Germany would want to occupy Jutland then the cabinet wouldn't intervene. Thats the reason too for the small number of troops in Jutland. Military planning centret on defence of Copenhagen in the perception that defence except in one strong point was bordering on the ridiculous thus this strong point was strengthened during the war years and nothing done to defend Jutland.

If anything could be done to satisfy German needs it would be done except going to war against Britain! Don't expect the Danes to go down fighting though except if the Germans choose to land on Sjaelland!
 
Probably would fail and this is where Fall J come into being; by occupying Jutland (J ;)) the CP would get whats needed and Denmark be isolated in the isles.
Denmark wouldn't resist occupation of Jutland; the entire reason for the OTL policies were to lie low and if Germany would want to occupy Jutland then the cabinet wouldn't intervene. Thats the reason too for the small number of troops in Jutland. Military planning centret on defence of Copenhagen in the perception that defence except in one strong point was bordering on the ridiculous thus this strong point was strengthened during the war years and nothing done to defend Jutland.

If anything could be done to satisfy German needs it would be done except going to war against Britain! Don't expect the Danes to go down fighting though except if the Germans choose to land on Sjaelland!
I'd agree that Denmark definitely wouldn't directly join the war voluntarily, but their general policy of giving Germany what it wants short of a declaration of war could put them in a very awkward position if Britain decides to take issue with Denmark being less than completely neutral.
 
Let's cut to the chase:

1. Would Sweden joining the Central Powers cause them to win?

2. In the event of their loss (which is more easy to extrapolate, since we live in such a world), how would Sweden be punished by the Allies?

3. How is Russia affected?

4. Does Sweden go red or brown by WWII?
 
1. Would Sweden joining the Central Powers cause them to win?
It's possible, especially if Sweden gets pulled in by the Admiral Essen PoD, which would also seriously hurt the Entente's image in neutral nations and use up most of the diplomatic/propaganda capital that was made off the invasion of Belgium OTL.

2. In the event of their loss (which is more easy to extrapolate, since we live in such a world), how would Sweden be punished by the Allies?
I don't see much happening; the USSR wouldn't be getting any territorial concessions, and no other Entente power would be in much of a position to claim territory. At most, Sweden has to pay reparations and give up any gains from a Brest-Litovsk parallel.

3. How is Russia affected?
It's another front they'll have to fight on, and they'll almost certainly have more internal trouble in Finland as well; odds are, IIRC, Sweden was fairly well regarded in a lot of Finland, and Russian rule wasn't that popular.

The Finnish front is going to be a bit paradoxical; on the one hand, Sweden isn't a major enough power by itself to seriously threaten Russia, which would make the war with them a fairly minor concern. However, if the Swedes start making serious progress, St. Petersburg will be threatened, which cannot be ignored.

Obviously, whether or not the other Entente powers try some sort of Baltic misadventure is also going to be important.

4. Does Sweden go red or brown by WWII?
I doubt it would go too extreme, just because it seems likely to me that Sweden would get a fairly lenient peace. However, if some sort of conflict resembling OTL World War II still happens, Sweden is a lot more likely to join or at least be sympathetic towards the Axis-equivalent.
 
What are the chances that Sweden goes fascist post-WWI? And not Italian Catholic-corporatist fascist, I'm talking about German Nordic Aryan race nuttery fascist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/18/racism-becoming-the-norm-sweden

Yeah that's what I'm wondering too, does Sweden enter the war on the side of the axis from 33-45? Would Sweden be skipped over like Spain was or would the allies dogpile on them like they did in Italy and Germany?
 
Top