Militaristic, Nationalistic Scandinavia

It has been said that Sweden was initially quite sympathetic to Germany during the opening years of the First World War and that Swedish entry into the war was not completely implausible.

What might have been the long term effects of Swedish entry into the war? Could this have drawn in Norway and Denmark as well? I could see Denmark entering on the Allies' side because of recent troubles with Prussia/Germany and older conflicts with Sweden over Skana. Norway might have had reason to go either way. Had WW1 expanded to Scandinavia, it is interesting to speculate what the long term effects might have been on the growth of Scadinavian exceptionalism, pacificism, and liberalism in the mid-late 20th century. Would a Sweden which lost WW1 along with the rest of the central powers become a revisionist fascist or semi-facsist state like Germany, Hungary, or Austria in the l1930s? Would a Sweden which won WW1 allied with the authoritarian German Empire, carve out some of the Finno-Baltic area as a new empire of its own?

What would Europe and the world be like today without the so-called "Scandinavian Model" of neutralism, liberalism, and social democracy?
 
Scandinavian ATLs

As I recall, Finland was under Russian rule in 1914 and would be free in 1917. Denmark was, as you say, defeated by Prussia in 1864 and that defeat had caused a resurgence of a Danish nationalism of a rather romantic kind rather than overtly militaristic. I'm sure that had Germany and Sweden joined forces, Denmark would have resisted but ultimately been overrun.

Norway broke free from Sweden in 1905 and it's possible the Swedes might have seen the reconquest of Oslo as part of its strategy for Scandinavian dominance. On the other hand, the Norwegians, as 1940 showed, are fiercely determined to fight and in the absence of the kind of military technology available in 1940, the Swedes might have occupied Oslo and some other cities but would have encountered resistance in the Norwegian mountains.

Indeed, I would venture that the British could have sent troops to Norway via Scapa Flow and this might have been an alternative strategy to the Gallipoli landings in 1915. If the British and Commonwealth troops do land at Bergen in the summer of 1915, they would have fought and I believe ultimately pushed back the Swedes.

I see no reason why the eventual outcome of WW1 would be any different and in August 1918 allied troops invade Sweden from Norway and reach Gothenburg before Sweden collapses in late October 1918.

So what shape will post-WW1 Scandinavia take ? Denmark will presumably agitate for the return of the territory lost in 1864 and may get it while for the first time in centuries, Norway and Denmark will dominate Scandinavia with Sweden eclipsed and Finland independent.

I suspect that by the 30s, Denmark and Norway will be allied with Britain and France but Hitler may seek a rapprochement with Copenhagen after 1933. Sweden will perhaps move closer to Russia and seek to regain influence over Finland. Indeed, the Russo-Swedish Alliance makes short work of Finland in the 1939 War. Denmark and Norway invite British troops to support their native armies in the early months of 1940. However, on April 9th, the Germans strike hard as do the Swedes and both Norway and Denmark are rapidly occupied.

However, in May 1941, Hitler negotiates a deal with Stockholm and Sweden joins the Axis in exchange for Scandinavian domination and favourable trade terms. Many Swedes join the Waffen -SS and fight bravely on the Russian Front. However, by late 1944, Russian forces are poised to invade Northern Sweden and the collapse of Germany in May 1945 leaves Soviet forces in control of most of the country.

The British ensure Norway and Denmark remain in the western camp and the Cold War gains a long new northern frontier. In 1989, the Swedish Socialist Republic collapses and, after a referendum in 1992, Carl Gustaf V is returned to the Swedish throne. Unlike her wealthy neighbours Norway and Denmark, Sweden needs billions of pounds of investment but many western companies are eager to exploit this new Nordic market. Indeed, the early years of the 21st Century see a revival in Nordic culture and tradition which becomes a touchstone of European culture by 2004.
 
I suspect that by the 30s, Denmark and Norway will be allied with Britain and France but Hitler may seek a rapprochement with Copenhagen after 1933. Sweden will perhaps move closer to Russia and seek to regain influence over Finland. Indeed, the Russo-Swedish Alliance makes short work of Finland in the 1939 War. Denmark and Norway invite British troops to support their native armies in the early months of 1940. However, on April 9th, the Germans strike hard as do the Swedes and both Norway and Denmark are rapidly occupied.
This is just entirely implausible. Finland at the time were practically ruled by Swedes, most of the Finnish upper class were Swedish, Mannerheim was Swedish, 10% of the population were Swedish and Finland had been a part of Sweden for 700 year before it fell to the Russia. Russia, which are and has always been the Archenemy. No chance on earth that Sweden would ally with the Soviets to finish off or own brothers. Historically we sent 10 000 volunteers and lots of equipment in the fight against the Red Hordes, we were even close to go to war. I don't see why a Sweden fighting on the German side in WW1 would suddenly become communist loving traitors. A more possible scenario is that Sweden, because of the defeat in the Great War more fascist and more revansionist, goes to war to help our Brothers in the east resulting in a longer Winter war killing off even bigger scores of Communist Imperialists.

However, in May 1941, Hitler negotiates a deal with Stockholm and Sweden joins the Axis in exchange for Scandinavian domination and favourable trade terms. Many Swedes join the Waffen -SS and fight bravely on the Russian Front. However, by late 1944, Russian forces are poised to invade Northern Sweden and the collapse of Germany in May 1945 leaves Soviet forces in control of most of the country.
The finns managed to hold of the Communist offensive towards Helsinki in 1944 and thereby saving Finland from Communism. With twice the population, the same terrain, a shorter frontier and all that fighting experience four years of war give you we could easily do the same with the same result. Sweden becomes neutral (although Soviet-leaning during the first half of the Cold War).
 
stodge said:
Denmark was, as you say, defeated by Prussia in 1864 and that defeat had caused a resurgence of a Danish nationalism of a rather romantic kind rather than overtly militaristic. I'm sure that had Germany and Sweden joined forces, Denmark would have resisted but ultimately been overrun.
Around the wars of '48 and '64 Sweden and Denmark was actually very close as Skandinavisme was quite popular. Somekind of introverted patriotism might better describe the situation in Denmark then Nationalism. "Hvad er udad tabt, må indad vindes" (what is lost outwards, must be won inwards) is a famous Danish quote from around 1864. We Danes knew from 1864 and onwards that we had to march to the German drumbeat, no two ways about it. Had the choice between Germany on one side and Britain on the other been presented to the Danish government, they would have chosen the Germans. Eventhough they, and most Danes, would rather have sided with the British. It's somewhat like during the Napoleonic wars, most Danes probably had little faith in Napoleon, but the master of continental Europa is the master of Denmark, so we joined the French and lost everything... again...

stodge said:
So what shape will post-WW1 Scandinavia take ? Denmark will presumably agitate for the return of the territory lost in 1864 and may get it while for the first time in centuries, Norway and Denmark will dominate Scandinavia with Sweden eclipsed and Finland independent.
I don't think we would claim lost territories. Denmark got the chance after both World Wars, you know, and more or less declined both times. There was a referendum in Schleswig and that was that.

Had the Germans pressured us hard enough in 1914, we would have caved in and joined the Central Powers. The German however had more use for us as neutral. Actually I think a Danish entrance in WW1 on the German side might have been close to disastrous for the Germans. We had no chance of preventing the British (or French) from landing on our shores and thus giving the Germans all sorts of new trouble, besides the obvious one regarding lesser agricultural products being available from a partially or wholly occupied Denmark.

The best chance of a more militant Scandinavia would have been for an alliance of sorts in 1864. The Swedish King was all for, but the Swedish parliament turned it down. If we can manipulate the situation a bit and have Swedish and perhaps Norwegian troops land in numbers in Denmark and join the fighting in Sønderjylland (southern Jutland), then we might be on our way. The escalation and rising difficulty in Scandinavia forces a widening of the rift between Austria and Prussia. In 1865 after a bloody stalemate in Jutland and an ill-begotten invasion of Als, Austria signs a peace as they have seen no gains, but only loses (the Danes had blown a part of their fleet out of the water), and take most of the smaller Germans states with them. Prussia alone can't overcome the Scandinavians and a humiliating peace is signed. The Prussian King never becomes Emperor and the Scandinavians bask in their newfound glory. Sometime in the next ten or twenty years the Kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark unite via marriage. Norway joins the two in first a custom and monetary union, later a military union and so forth. A more aggressive Scandinavia is thus born!

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.
 
Peter said:
This is just entirely implausible. (...) A more possible scenario is that Sweden, because of the defeat in the Great War more fascist and more revansionist, goes to war to help our Brothers in the east resulting in a longer Winter war killing off even bigger scores of Communist Imperialists.
I just can't see the Swedes backstabbing their Finnish neighbours. As Peter states the Swedes did everything besides declaring war on the USSR to aid the Finns in their heroic struggle with Stalins Hordes in the Winter War! It's my impression that parts of the Swedish upper class and the military establishment (not to mention quite a few ordinary Swedes) was in favour of a more direct support to the Finns, but I might be wrong about that!

Considering the situation in Denmark in the time leading up to World War 2 and the pro-German attitude in Swden in the early forties, it's not that hard to imagine a more fascist Sweden. I think the possibilty for some kind of right wing, perhaps even outright fascist, government exist. Especially, if, as Peter mentiones, the Swedes was among the losers of WW1.

Uh, it just breaks my poor patriotic Danish heart to agree with a Swede... ;)

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.
 
by Peter
This is just entirely implausible. Finland at the time were practically ruled by Swedes, most of the Finnish upper class were Swedish, Mannerheim was Swedish, 10% of the population were Swedish and Finland had been a part of Sweden for 700 year before it fell to the Russia. Russia, which are and has always been the Archenemy. No chance on earth that Sweden would ally with the Soviets to finish off or own brothers. Historically we sent 10 000 volunteers and lots of equipment in the fight against the Red Hordes, we were even close to go to war. I don't see why a Sweden fighting on the German side in WW1 would suddenly become communist loving traitors. A more possible scenario is that Sweden, because of the defeat in the Great War more fascist and more revansionist, goes to war to help our Brothers in the east resulting in a longer Winter war killing off even bigger scores of Communist Imperialists.
and by Mr. Bluenote
I just can't see the Swedes backstabbing their Finnish neighbours. As Peter states the Swedes did everything besides declaring war on the USSR to aid the Finns in their heroic struggle with Stalins Hordes in the Winter War! It's my impression that parts of the Swedish upper class and the military establishment (not to mention quite a few ordinary Swedes) was in favour of a more direct support to the Finns, but I might be wrong about that!
Now fellas, I know we all have no wish to see our own countries do something like stab neighbours in the back, but it seems a bit odd that you can both agree that a fascist government could come to power in the Sweden of stodges TL and yet the Swedes would still have the same sentiment towards the Finns (who are as much linguistic brothers to the Swedes as they are to the Poles) and Finland. A fascist government in Sweden (which had lost WWI) would probably be more like Italy than Spain and will dream of a renewed Swedish Empire surrounding most of the Baltic. An independent Finland is very unlikely to figure in those plans(and the Finns were conquered by Sweden for the 700 years of Swedish rule, they didn't exactly enter voluntarily into the Kingdom with any acts of union). In addition, why is it impossible for a fascist Sweden to cut a deal with the USSR over Finland, when the Nazis (who undoubtedly hated the Soviets more than the Swedes ever could- to the point of not considering any of the Soviet peoples as human (except for the Volga Germans of course)) easily made a deal with the USSR over Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland. The Nazis made such a deal, but anyone considering the Nazis as "communist-loving traitors" would most certainly have been called crazy by the Nazis and would have been proven wrong in any event by 1941.
Is it so difficult to see a deal, whereby the USSR obtains sections of Karelia, all of Petsamo and maybe a few more border territories than in OTL whilst Sweden annexes the Aland Islands and large sections of the Finnish coast and thus "bring all Swedish brothers back into the fold"? The fascist government of Sweden is unlikely to trumpet about "Finnish brothers" when the Finns were not even fascist (or at least fascist allied) until 1941 and especially considering that Finnish is closest to Hungarian and other Ural-Altaic languages rather than to Russian (Slavic) or Swedish (Germanic). The Swedish fascists are also likely to be influenced/polluted by the Nazis ideals of a Germanic super-race (and of course Hungarians and Finns (Ural-Altaics) and Latins were not nearly as pure or great as the Germanic super-race. The Slavs were not even fully human according the Nazis). So the Finns will probably be seen more like the Hungarians to the Swedish government in TTL and be used as a Hungary-Poland hybrid: an ally in the future war against the USSR, but until then acting as a Swedish controlled puppet-buffer state rather like Poland to Germany). A puppet Finnish state is also more likely to be figured into plans for the renewed "Germanic Swedish Empire" as a subservient area which will eventually be "Swedenized" by the elimination of the Finnish language (the assimilation of the Finns by forcing Swedish on them) and mainly by the settlement of Swedes (and maybe Norwegians once they have rejoined the Swedish Empire, heck maybe even Danes as well).

The finns managed to hold of the Communist offensive towards Helsinki in 1944 and thereby saving Finland from Communism. With twice the population, the same terrain, a shorter frontier and all that fighting experience four years of war give you we could easily do the same with the same result. Sweden becomes neutral (although Soviet-leaning during the first half of the Cold War).
Huh? How do the Finns manage to hold off the Soviets in 1944? Even the Wermacht was barely holding off the Soviets in early 1944 and by late 1944 and 1945 they couldn't keep the Soviets from reaching Berlin, so I don't see how the Finns keep the Soviets out of Helsinki unless helped by little bats from space. In OTL the Finns sensibly threw in the towel at the right time to save themselves from a Soviet-imposed government.
And how can you have Sweden be Soviet-leaning in the first half of the Cold War when Russia is the apparent present and past Archenemy? This seems to contradict your comments earlier about Sweden never making a deal with the Soviets.

by Mr. Bluenote
I don't think we would claim lost territories. Denmark got the chance after both World Wars, you know, and more or less declined both times. There was a referendum in Schleswig and that was that.
Again, people are applying OTL sentiments to an ATL in which events may radically alter perceptions. If Denmark was occupied in WWI and WWII might they not make some claims on Germany as recompense for the occupations? Look on Belgium, she made some claims on Germany (and even the Netherlands) and got through, but only for a couple minor border territories.
The Netherlands after WWII made some rather extravagant claims on Germany but were only allowed to annex a few border towns which they returned to Germany by the 1950s/1960s anyway.
Denmark in stodges TL may very well try to reclaim all of Schleswig, but what would prevent her acquiring all of it would probably be Wilson and his points on self-determination. I could only see Denmark obtain the Danish section of Schleswig, plus a few German border towns not unlike Eupen-Malmedy for Belgium.
 

Redbeard

Banned
By WWI Denmark in anything but formalities was a close German ally, as the defeat in 1864 had lead to recognition (resignation) of the fact that Germany set the agenda of Danish foreign policy. The Danish armed forces were much stronger than by WWII, and had as their main purpose to keep the British out of the Baltic. For that purpose Copenhagen and the Oresund was very heavily fortified, and the Oresund and the belts also mined (in 1914 on German request). The army had been partly mobilised, and a force of 60.000 men was stationed around Copenhagen. The fortifications were finished just before WWI and contained 100’s of guns, the biggest of 14†calibre. The rest of the country was only thinly garrisoned, but in Jutland/Schleswig just south of the border to Germany (60-80 km further north than today) the Germans had built a defensive line against possible British landings in Jutland.

The Danish navy had as its main purpose to lay minefields and defend them. Apart from four (very) small coastal battleships the main force was some 20 torpedoboats and 15 coastal subs. The seas around Denmark provide ideal conditions for TB’s and small subs to perform ambushes.

I agree that had the Germans pressed for it, Denmark would probably have had no choice but to follow Germany into the war, but the Danish Government succeeded in avoiding such demands by obliging to all German requests of mining and in keeping up a creditable defence of the Baltic entrances. I actually think that a British attempt to force their way into the Baltic would have had Dardanelles look like kindergarten. The British can land in Jutland and on Zealand, but without controlling Copenhagen they can’t get into the Baltic, and as long as they aren’t in the Baltic the Germans can freely reinforce Copenhagen.

I believe there is some creditability in Sweden being also a potential ally to Germany, and there have been persistent rumours about a secret Swedish/German agreement about considering a partition of Denmark. Such an agreement would have been very unpopular though, also in Sweden, as pan-Scandinavism was very strong in these years. Anyway the policy of the WWI Danish Government gave the Germans no motivation to change things radically.

Norway had been in a rather loose union with Sweden from 1814 to 1905, and by its physical position and trade relations was much closer to UK. The British could anytime project power to Norway, but Denmark and Sweden clearly was in arms length of Germany. If the partition of Sweden and Norway in 1905 had been less peaceful or yet unsolved, I could imagine Norway being a cause of disagreement/war with the Central powers supporting Sweden and UK/France/Russia Norway. In such a stride 99% of all Danes would wholeheartedly support the Norwegians, and the Danish Government is in a very difficult situation not capable of both fulfilling its "realpolitik" obligations towards Germany and staying in power. I could imagine the Germans now choosing to partition Denmark with Sweden.

If such a war ends with defeat for Germany/Sweden I guess the Danish demands will be much greedier than after OTL WWI, as Denmark now has been actively involved and has the legitimacy of a true victim. In OTL WWI Denmark made a lot of money in selling food to Germany. I could even imagine the old Danish lands east of Oeresund being on the agenda together with all of Schleswig (20-30 km further south than the contemporary border). I doubt demands will be made for Holstein as that was regarded as historically German.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
The Danes didn't take the lost territorys after our world war 1 however if they had been fighting and dying I think they would have taken it at that time.

If Denmark was in a war against Sweden I wonder if they would take the southern tip of Sweden which used to be Danish (I've forgot the name of the place though I do know it in the back of my head), I have heard that even today there are some people in that area wanting to join Denmark.
 
How about going further back for some changes?

In the Napoleonic Wars Finland was lost to Russia but the fight was actually pretty close. Sweden won seven out of the eight battles, and Helsinki was lost, with a frightening percentage of Sweden-Finland's artillery after a suspiciously poor performence by the commander, who was widely reported to have taken Russian bribes for the surrender.

Has anyone settled that, by the way?

Meanwhile, due to the dying king being mentally ill, England was not allowed to intervene. And the French/Danish invasion fell apart when the Spanish revolted over recent activities in Spain, forcing the diversion of much of the French and German units involved.

Later, on the death of the king, Marshall Bernadotte of France assumed the throne...

Let's rewrite this so that when the commander in Helsinki attempts to surrender some patriot or suspicious(or ambitious) officer shoots him, and a relief force drives back the Russians. Under pressure and pleadings, the king let's the British in, and the combination not only seizes or destroys Denmark's fleet but this, coupled with the Spanish explosion, convinces the Tsar that this operation just isn't going well and Russia fades from the deal.
Thousands of Spanish soldiers are rescued and returned to Spain while Norway falls to England's General Moore, and a small force lands in Iceland. Then, his health invigorated by the victory, the king lives slightly longer, just in time for Napoleon's disastrous defeat at Moscow and wise Swedes decide that something other than a French general should be considered. They invite the crown prince of Denmark, who was, according to some, a fairly effective and dynamic leader and Scandinavia is reunited.

Perhaps a slice of Karelia as reparations too? Or possibly the Mecklenburg duchies are joined with Swedish Pomerania?

Needless to say, grabbling Schleswig-Holstein is now a more serious matter and...
 
Sean: You don't know about the closeness between ua and the Finns at the time. I can barely imagine greater-Swedes attacking Finland, but there si no chance that they would do so in alliance with the Enemy. That would be like Germany partitioning East Prussia with Russia. Won't happen.

Your remarks suggest that Finns were in some way oppressed but Swden. Not so. Sure conquerd them by force, but over the centuries they intergrated and by the Swedish Great Power Era they were firmly intergrated and loyal to the Crown. They were npt like the peoples in the oversea provinces, not like the Pommerians or the Livonians or the Estonians, they were a part of the Heartland. The loss of them in the War of 1809 were as catastrophic as losing any other Swedish Landskap.

The Finns did stop the Ruskies in 1944. Not because of ASB, but because of bravery, self-sacrifice, courage and competence. Just like in 1940. Believe it or not.

4. The Russian offensive in 1944

Stalin had decided to solve the question of Finland and then continue towards Berlin. The offensive began on 9th June 1944, and took Finnish army by surprise. The artillery bombardment was one of the heaviest in the WWII.

4.1 The retreat from Carelian Insthmus

The main direction of Soviet assault was in Carelian Isthmus, where the Soviet 30th Guards Corps and other elite troops were deployed. The 10th Division lines broke at Valkeasaari (Beloostrov) on 10th June. Finnish forces redeployed themselves to so called VT-line, and the Armoured Division was sent to help. This was in vain, as the Armoured Division and 3rd Division were unable to stop Soviets in battle of Kuuterselkä. 2nd Division held her positions at Siiranmäki, but had to retreat after Finnish loss of Kuuterselkä exposed her flank.
After that the retreat to VKT-line was very fast, taking only about a week. On 20th June the newly arrived 20th Brigade from Eastern Carelia as reinforcement took charge of the defense of Viborg. The Brigade lost the town the same day in a debacle, which caused the brigade commander to be court-martialed later.

4.1.1 The Battle of Ihantala

After the retreat to VKT-line was complete, the Finnish forces began to make serious resistance. Lots of reinforcements were hurled in, like 6th Division from Lapland and several divisions from Eastern Carelia. The decisive battle was fought in the ending days of June and earliest days of July. It was the largest battle ever fought in the Nordic countries of Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Finns had massed a massive artillery there, and sometimes it blew Russians apart when they were only preparing
to launch the first wave. Also new anti-tank weapons were provided by Germany, which proved to be effective. Hitler also sent a flight group, Gefechtverband Kuhlmey, composed of Fw-190's and Stuka's to help. Also
German 303th Assault Gun Brigade was at Ihantala. The Russian plan had called them to be by the Kymi River at this time, but
they were still more than 120 km from it. Russians admitted their failure, and began to move troops to the Belorussian front, so that Allies do not get first to Berlin.

4.1.2 The battle of Vuosalmi

After Russians saw that they had failed in Ihantala, they tried to break Finnish positions in Vuosalmi and encircle the left part of Finnish forces in the Isthmus. Finnish positions were in a very unfavourable place in the
ridge of Äyräpää, the wide river Vuoksi behind. Russian 115th Corps soon forced Finns across the river, but despite the
fields on the other side, which were advantageous to Russian armor, they made no further advances. The depleted Armoured Division was sent to help the 2nd Division, as the situation in Ihantala had become more stabile. Russians had lost massive losses, there are more than 15000 Russians buried in the ridge of Äyräpää alone. Finnish counterattacks had no success and the both sides were on defensive in mid-July.

4.1.3 The other battles in the Carelian Isthmus

The Russians tried to cross the Gulf of Viborg south of the town in early July. They managed to take islands on the Gulf, but landings on the other side were repelled. Here the Finnish forces were helped by the German
122nd Division. In the northern part of the Isthmus the 15th Division and 19th Brigade repelled all attacks made against the VKT-line.

4.2 The retreat from the Eastern Carelia

The Eastern Carelia was thought of being lesser value, and Marshall Mannerheim decided to withdraw units from there while slowing the Russians down. The retreat began on 20th June. The Russians however made a landing in Tuulos beach in the rear of the Finnish and the retreat nearly failed. After the retreat the Finnish forces occupied the U-line in the mid-July. There 5th Division stopped Russians in the battle of Nietjärvi. The last Russian offesive action in the Continuation War was in the Ilomantsi, the only place were Russians were able to cross over the 1940 border line, only to get destroyed. Finnish mixed forces of 21st Brigade, Cavalry Brigade and other units encircled Soviet 176th and 289th Divisions. Russians lost all their heavy equipment and divisions retreated through the woods in the early August. This battle is called as "the last lesson from an old motti master". The motti tactic was the one used when encircling Soviets in the WWII. The Rukajärvi sector was the only one where the Russians made no attempts to advance. There the 14th Division waited until armistice. Russians were
on defense also in the German sector of the front until Finland had made the armistice.
Finally, the Soviets were the #1 enemy of Finland, still they were Soviet leaning. Why? Out of neccesite.
 
Grimm Reaper said:
How about going further back for some changes?

In the Napoleonic Wars Finland was lost to Russia but the fight was actually pretty close. Sweden won seven out of the eight battles, and Helsinki was lost, with a frightening percentage of Sweden-Finland's artillery after a suspiciously poor performence by the commander, who was widely reported to have taken Russian bribes for the surrender.

Has anyone settled that, by the way?

Meanwhile, due to the dying king being mentally ill, England was not allowed to intervene. And the French/Danish invasion fell apart when the Spanish revolted over recent activities in Spain, forcing the diversion of much of the French and German units involved.

Later, on the death of the king, Marshall Bernadotte of France assumed the throne...

Let's rewrite this so that when the commander in Helsinki attempts to surrender some patriot or suspicious(or ambitious) officer shoots him, and a relief force drives back the Russians. Under pressure and pleadings, the king let's the British in, and the combination not only seizes or destroys Denmark's fleet but this, coupled with the Spanish explosion, convinces the Tsar that this operation just isn't going well and Russia fades from the deal.
Thousands of Spanish soldiers are rescued and returned to Spain while Norway falls to England's General Moore, and a small force lands in Iceland. Then, his health invigorated by the victory, the king lives slightly longer, just in time for Napoleon's disastrous defeat at Moscow and wise Swedes decide that something other than a French general should be considered. They invite the crown prince of Denmark, who was, according to some, a fairly effective and dynamic leader and Scandinavia is reunited.

Perhaps a slice of Karelia as reparations too? Or possibly the Mecklenburg duchies are joined with Swedish Pomerania?

Needless to say, grabbling Schleswig-Holstein is now a more serious matter and...
The king was not insane. He didn't die but was overthrow in a military coup. His brother took over after him, however he had no child so the French Marshall Bernadotte was made heir instead. I don’t know where you got that insanity stuff from.

There was a Swedish fortification, Sveaborg, in Helsinki which was supposed to be on fo the strongest in the world and had 7000 soldier it. Sweden had totally 22 000 soldiers in Finland, the Russians had 24 000, however the Swedish believed they faced 60 000 men.
Sveaborgs treacherous commander surrendered to the Russians when he could easily have defeated the besiegers (only 2000 man) and recaptured Helsinki. This was a catastrophe since it secured the Russian flank and led to the loss of 7000 man, 2000 cannons, lots of equipment and a big part of the fleet in this part of the Baltic.
General Klingspor, commander of the Finnish army, believing that the he was outnumbered didn't continue to pursue the enemy after winning several battles April 1809. Say that he does and manages to defeat the Russian main army while Cromstedt (commander of Sveaborg) breaks the siege and recapture Helsinki. With the additional Swedish forces sent in 1809 Sweden defeats the Russians in a big battle and recaptures Finland. The Russians prepare a counter offensive. By now the Russians has suffered huge casualties, the new army and the remaining parts of the old one numbers totally 36 000 men. The Swedish forces in Finland, now 27 000 men (with 19 000 in the main army) decides that attack is the best defence and in a heroic battle that will go to history manages to defeat the enemy. Just like at Narva a hundred years earlier Sweden defeats a numerically very superior Russian army. Swedish forces, now reinforced begin to march towards St. Petersburg. The war would drag on until 1811 when the Russians signed a return to status quo so that they could focus all on the coming war with France. At the end of the Napoleon wars Sweden still gets Norway., This time however we do not accept partial Norwegian independence but (with greater force backing us up) defeats the Norwegians and firmly integrates it into Sweden leading to a Swedefication of Norway.
 
You don't know about the closeness between ua and the Finns at the time.
I don't have first hand knowledge about the relationship at the time, it is true, though unless you are 70 neither do you. Now why are people applying sentiments from OTL from 1918-1939 when in stodge's TL you have events which could very well alter perceptions? Does anyone think that German sentiment towards...say Britain would have been the same as it was in WWI if Germany and Britain had been allies or if they had not gone to war? Would the British and Germans see each other in the same light in 1939 if the Nazis had not hijacked Germany and went on to spout a racist and expansionist policy? If the answer to those questions is yes, then of course we can apply OTL Swedish sentiment to Finland to an ATL in which Sweden was a defeated power from WWI and probably had to make some territorial concessions to Denmark and maybe Finland (and maybe, just maybe Norway) and which had to make reparations to the allies that would probably have crippled its economy.

I can barely imagine greater-Swedes attacking Finland, but there si no chance that they would do so in alliance with the Enemy.
Why not? In 1918 Sweden occupied the Aland Islands, even though they were administered as part of Finland and were thus Finnish territory upon Finland's independence in 1918. And this was under the government of OTL. It is true that Sweden gave the islands back, but not out of kind-heartedness. They returned the islands only after Finland went to the League of Nations about it and in the early 1920s the League was more respected. So imagine a National Socialist/Fascist Swedish government. I imagine they would have been like the Dutch nazis who advocated the incorporation of Flanders from Belgium, even though Belgium and the Netherlands had gotten along reasonably well once the Netherlands got over the loss of Belgium.
Also take a look at the defeated powers of WWI:
1) Germany- well no need to elaborate here
2) Austria- the nazis here allowed it to become a part of Germany (see above)
3) Hungary- went on a campaign to regain Hungarian lands, especially those that were populated with Hungarians.
4) Bulgaria- also went on a campaign to recover lands lost in 1918 and took even more to boot.
5) Turkey- Did the smart thing and forced an early renegotiation of the peace treaty but whilst doing so recovered a number of lost territories.

Even Italy who was on the winning side became expansionist.

Normally "greater-place any European group here" do not tend to look out for countries other than their own and also tend to be inherently racist or supremacist. So I don't see how the Finns whose language is unlike that of Swedish are going to be spared by greater-Swedes. The greater-Dutch in the Dutch nazis didn't give a hoot about the Walloons and the greater-Germans of the Nazis only tolerated non-Germanic groups and just accepted Germanic groups whilst believing Germans to be the best of them all. They considered Danes, Dutchmen, Norwegians and so forth as Aryan stock and almost German, which made them acceptable.
If we apply this to Sweden's fascist then they will either advocate a greater Sweden (which would either annex Finland or subordinate it) or else they cannot be greater-Swedes (if they wished Finland to remain independent).

That would be like Germany partitioning East Prussia with Russia. Won't happen.
No, that's not a good example. East Prussia was German territory, it was one of the scattered places where the Prussians started and it was ethnically German. Your example if applied to Sweden and the USSR would mean Sweden and the USSR partitoning Svealand in central Sweden.
The Prussians in OTL held a sway over a larger section of Poland than what Germany from 1871-1918 and from 1939-1941 did. By the latter period, I exclude the General-Government and include those areas directly annexed to Germany. However, the Nazis had no trouble partitioning Poland and leaving out these areas from direct German rule, if only to further the cause of a fully united "Germany".


It could be entirely possible for Sweden to be a party to the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact which partitioned eastern europe. Sweden would of course understand that the rest of Finland would be regained later, just as how for Germany the rest of Poland was regained later.

And be careful about statements like "won't happen." People never though a Nazi-Soviet pact could happen, or that the people in general could become as barbaric as demonstrated by the Nazis towards the Jews in the Holocaust. Anything can happen given the right circumstances.

Sure conquerd them by force, but over the centuries they intergrated and by the Swedish Great Power Era they were firmly intergrated and loyal to the Crown.
That's true but it didn't mean that the Finns did not harbour nationalist ambitions. If they never did then Finland would have rejoined the Kingdom of Sweden after WWI and not gone independent. I didn't mean that they were oppressed, but I doubt the Finns consider themselves part of a Swedish heartland is all. More just a part of the Kingdom.

The Finns did stop the Ruskies in 1944. Not because of ASB, but because of bravery, self-sacrifice, courage and competence. Just like in 1940. Believe it or not.
Having done some more reading (nice quote by the way, what is the source?), I agree, although both your source and others noted that the Soviets had more important issue at the time like Berlin. Had the Soviets not had to focus on Berlin, then Finland would have had a worse time (though they probably would have made the Soviets pay a high price).

Finally, the Soviets were the #1 enemy of Finland, still they were Soviet leaning. Why? Out of neccesite.
So true, but apply it to Sweden and it breaks down because Sweden has no border with the USSR and so they can be more free to choose who to lean on, unless in the TL Finland is annexed to the USSR. In OTL Finland shared a border with the USSR which made accomodation with the USSR necessary. Also in the 1946 peace treaty
Russia imposed an ingenious stipulation that one third of the reparations [amounting to $100 million worth] were to be paid in machinery for which Finalnd had neither materials, plants, nor skilled labour. In September 1952 here reparations account was duly closed; but Finland was left with a new engineering industry which could not be scrapped and which was geared up entirely to Soviet needs and demands. Thus reparations were used as a way of perpetuating economic dependence.
that quote comes from Europe Since Napoleon by David Thomson, pg. 840.

So had this not happened the Finns could have stopped leaning so much on the Soviets from the 1950s and maintained a policy of strict neutrality, but as it was they were economically dependent on the USSR.
Sweden would have been buffered from the USSR by Finland which would probably have turned out like in OTL and thus Sweden would have no need to lean towards the Soviets unless they had something similar applied to them by the Soviets as was applied to Finland in the quote above.
 
For what it's worth, I think it very unlikely a fascist Sweden would turn on Finland in the Winter War, or later in WW2. The point was already made that much of the Finnish upper class, including Mannerheim, was Swedish. Also, there is nothing inconsistent with a fascist and expansionist Sweden defending Finland from Soviet conquest with the plan of incorporating Finland in a loose-based Swedish dominated Nordic/Baltic empire after the war (assuming they win, of course). It is also less than certain Finnish sentiment would oppose this, as anything which protected them from the hated Russians might be accepted even if if meant reduced national Suomi indentity.

It is also odd to assume that Sweden would become a subservient satellite of the USSR in the cold war if it had been allied with Germany in WW2 and lost. Also, I think it unlikely it would have been "Finlandized" - as the Finland of our TL. Rather, I would see the division of Scandinavia by the Iron Curtain, perhaps with Norway and Denmark in Nato, Sweden divided into occupation zones and perhaps formally divided as cold war Germany was, and Finland reabsorbed directly into the USSR as the Baltic Republics were. Whatever, Scandinavia would be culturally unrecognizeable as the Scandinavia of today.

By the way, the southern tip of Sweden is referred to as Skania (in English - I can't duplicate the Swedish letters). It was Danish until the 18th century, I believe, and remains culturally different from the rest of Sweden in some regards. I think it not unlikely that Denmark might have regained this area had Sweden been in WW1 and lost. It certainly would have made sense given the location of Copenhagen.
 
By the way, the southern tip of Sweden is referred to as Skania (in English - I can't duplicate the Swedish letters). It was Danish until the 18th century, I believe, and remains culturally different from the rest of Sweden in some regards. I think it not unlikely that Denmark might have regained this area had Sweden been in WW1 and lost. It certainly would have made sense given the location of Copenhagen.

Hate to be a pain in the ass but I don't think so. We pretty thoroughly Swedefied Skåne, Blekinge, Halland and Bohuslän (sometime referred collectively as Skåneland). Even though the people in Skåne like to believe they are different and even though some of them can actually understand what the Danes say when they speak (!) they are as much Swedes as the Texans are Americans. There are no separatist movements in Skåneland, no greater Denmark feelings.
Had Denmark been a dictatorship then this problem may have been overcome, however Denmark is not and I see it as highly unlikely that a Democratic Denmark would annex an area that is in most sense Swedish, espceially when you remember that they refused to annex the areas lost in the two wars with Prussia.
 
Peter said:
Hate to be a pain in the ass but I don't think so. We pretty thoroughly Swedefied Skåne, Blekinge, Halland and Bohuslän (sometime referred collectively as Skåneland). (...) and I see it as highly unlikely that a Democratic Denmark would annex an area that is in most sense Swedish, espceially when you remember that they refused to annex the areas lost in the two wars with Prussia.
Again I must agree! We Danes have long since accepted the loss of Skåne, and as Peter says, there are not that many "Danes" left in the area. A dirty genocidal campaign by the Swedes made sure of that (sorry, Peter, just couldn't resist the jab).
Regarding Schleswig and our lost land in what is now Northern Germany. Many Danes felt after WW1 that we should take the opportunity to grab what we could. Most people in power, Scavenius fx, thought rightly so otherwise. They knew, as Redbeard also stated, that Denmark was bound to Germany, and eventhough Germany was weak in the aftermatch of the Great War, then Germany would rise again and come looking for those who had wronged it!

In the period following the Napoleonic Wars we are not all in all that war-like and fiercely nationalistic in Scandinavia, so I think that we either go with my 1864 idea (Sweden, and perhaps Norway, actively joins Denmark under the aegis of Svandinavism), focus on the Napoleonic Wars (tweaking them a bit, so that Nappy send French or German troops to aid Denmark in its planed attack on Sweden, thus making it a succes instead of a spanish revolt - place a Danish prince on the swedish throne and viola the Kalmar Union is reborn... sort of...), or we go even further back. Let's say that the Danes capture Karl XII as he flees the besieged Stralsund in 1715. The Great Alliance of Denmark, Russia, Sachsen, Prussia and Hannover (King George I was duke(?) of Hannover, and fought the Swedes in that capacity, so the Brits would at least be neutral) completely dismembers the country. Frederik IV regains Skåne and Bohuslen and furthermore gain large parts of southern and western Sweden, while Russia more or less takes the rest. Svealand, the area around Stockholm is reborn as a duchy or some such thing under both Danish and Russian protection. Frederik IV has already occupied and suppressed Gottorp and continues to expand his influnce in Schleswig-Holstein. Colonization after the war continues with the expansion of the colonies in especially Tranqebar, Ghana and Ceylon (Tricomalee(?)). Sometime in the later 1700 the Danes fight a war or two in Northern Germany and perhaps one with Russia too over the Duchy of Svealand and supremacy over the Baltics. With the aid of the Danish Fleet under Olfert Fischer Napoleon is able to win the battle of Trafalgar etc etc...

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluneote.
 

Redbeard

Banned
In the context of a war where Sweden has taken actively part in a try to partition Denmark, but looses the war, I'm certain much will be different - and the restrained Danish attitude we know from OTL would be difficult to find. Scandinavians aren't by nature any more civilised than any other nation, but lately we haven't had any serious reasons/excuses not to be civilised. But after WWII it was by a close call that further territorial demands were given up in N. Germany.

Concerning Scania there is a separatist movement, although I wouldn't take it too serious. It appears like some old farts mainly focussing on the cheaper booze in Denmark. But that doesn't say there isn't any seperatism in Scania. Take a walk down the streets of Malmø, and you'll see more Scania flags than Swedish, and strangely enough the animosity between Scania and Stockholm seems two-sided. In my professional life I have a lot of contact with companies, authorities and persons from Scania, and again and again I'm surprised by the eagerness with which Scanians want to deepen the contacts with Denmark/Copenhagen. Not that anybody speaks about old fashioned things like moving national borders, but in extending economical, cultural and formal ties. After a hesitating start the bridge across the Oresund is now accelerating contacts and I will predict the Oresundregion in a few decades will be a coherrent region with the national borders only a funny left-over from a distant past. The only threat I can see against this is the very large and growing population of Mid-East immigrants in especially Malmoe - that could have Malmø be the next Beirut - but anyway - Sweden as a nation is loosing.

But back to the PoD of a 2nd Great Nordic war in first half of 20th century a Danish demand for and takeover of Scania will of course not be recieved with happyness everywhere. I guess it would cause bloody conflicts and eventually a 2nd but reversed process like the one in 17th century (I hesitate to call it genocide but it was at least a harsh ethnic cleansing). Don't take civilisation for granted, and it even appears like the consequences of lost civilsation is much worse when it is among peoples usually being very well organised!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Concerning Scania there is a separatist movement, although I wouldn't take it too serious. It appears like some old farts mainly focussing on the cheaper booze in Denmark. But that doesn't say there isn't any seperatism in Scania. Take a walk down the streets of Malmø, and you'll see more Scania flags than Swedish, and strangely enough the animosity between Scania and Stockholm seems two-sided. In my professional life I have a lot of contact with companies, authorities and persons from Scania, and again and again I'm surprised by the eagerness with which Scanians want to deepen the contacts with Denmark/Copenhagen. Not that anybody speaks about old fashioned things like moving national borders, but in extending economical, cultural and formal ties. After a hesitating start the bridge across the Oresund is now accelerating contacts and I will predict the Oresundregion in a few decades will be a coherrent region with the national borders only a funny left-over from a distant past. The only threat I can see against this is the very large and growing population of Mid-East immigrants in especially Malmoe - that could have Malmø be the next Beirut - but anyway - Sweden as a nation is loosing.
The separatist movement isn’t a serious one, at least if you consider Spettepartiet and their type serious one. The extension of cultural and economical ties is official Swedish policy and is not restricted to Denmark only. It’s called globalisation.

Your comment about Malmö and Beirut is, to be honest, ridiculous and a good manifestation of the widespread racism that can be found in Denmark. This is just normal Danske Folkeparti racist propaganda. I’m glad that don’t have scum like that in the Riksdag.

Sweden as a nation is not “loosingâ€. That’s as ridiculous as your previously comment. If you actually know any immigrants I’m sure you would change your conspiratorial ways and realize that Sweden will not become an Islamic state anytime soon.

However Western civilization is loosing, but that’s another subject not to be discussed here.

But back to the PoD of a 2nd Great Nordic war in first half of 20th century a Danish demand for and takeover of Scania will of course not be recieved with happyness everywhere. I guess it would cause bloody conflicts and eventually a 2nd but reversed process like the one in 17th century (I hesitate to call it genocide but it was at least a harsh ethnic cleansing). Don't take civilisation for granted, and it even appears like the consequences of lost civilsation is much worse when it is among peoples usually being very well organised.
A Danish POD! I don’t think so. A Swedish POD would be much more easier. A stalemate in the Finnish war would result in the old dynasty keeping power. When the French Empire finally comes crashing down Sweden is much stronger and decides to invade Norway instead of creating a loose Union. After the victory in Norway Sweden launch Swedezation similar to the one in Skåne a hundred years earlier (which was in no way genocidal or ethnical cleansing, we just forbade the Danish language :) ) Sweden comes to the help of Denmark in 1864, The Scandinavian alliance is triumphant and some time later the Nordic Union is created.

Sean: I will respond to your post later, don’t think I’ve given up!
 
Sean: I will respond to your post later, don’t think I’ve given up!
Huh? You make it sound like some kind of struggle.. It doesn't matter if you "give up". All that really matters is that you can respond to my postulations with sound reasons to the contrary. Saying that "Sweden would never do such a thing/ I can't imagine that.." or anything such as that doesn't count, that's only personal opinion. Presenting facts like with Finland in 1944 certainly counts, but if you can find any convincing arguments that contradict my reasoning and which do not seem to be heavily biased and viewed through rose-coloured glasses, then kudos to you. As Redbeard said and I agree :

In the context of a war where Sweden has taken actively part in a try to partition Denmark, but looses the war, I'm certain much will be different - and the restrained Danish attitude we know from OTL would be difficult to find. Scandinavians aren't by nature any more civilised than any other nation, but lately we haven't had any serious reasons/excuses not to be civilised. But after WWII it was by a close call that further territorial demands were given up in N. Germany.
As I noted before the Dutch made huge claims on north-west Germany after WWII and they had never even had a reason to have a beef with Germany and the Dutch are undeniable one of the most liberal societies in Europe, so there is nothing special about the Scandanavians in relation to the rest of their European neighbours. Germany never invaded them before, in fact they were only invaded by Germany in WWII. Granted Germany treated the Dutch more harshly initially (e.g. bombing Rotterdam) and the occupied Netherlands never had as much freedom as Denmark, but even so the Netherlands got off light in comparison to Czechoslovakia and that country only wished to reclaim its old borders.
This also brings up the fact that the German occupation of Denmark in WWII was also far more lenient than other occupation by the Germans during that time (except maybe Ital.....nah!). The fact that the occupation was lenient may also have contributed to the less vindictive attitude of the Danes after WWII, and even then as Redbeard stated it was a close call that further territorial demands were given up by Denmark.
Now imagine a WWI occupation of Denmark by Sweden and Germany....would it be as lenient as the OTL WWII one? If we use the German occupation of Belgium in WWI as a loose model, then no it would not be. This would probably cause the Danes to change their attitude and become more like the Dutch and might decide that they no longer need to march to Germany's tune since doing that only got them humilation by the Germans and the Swedes and thay instead they could turn to France and Britain, rather like Belgium did after WWI or like how the Netherlands and Belgium turned to the United States (and to a lesser extent the UK and France).
 

Redbeard

Banned
Peter wrote:
"Your comment about Malmö and Beirut is, to be honest, ridiculous and a good manifestation of the widespread racism that can be found in Denmark. This is just normal Danske Folkeparti racist propaganda. I’m glad that don’t have scum like that in the Riksdag."

This is absolutely unacceptable. I will not communicate with you any longer.

:mad:

Steffen Redbeard
 
Oh dear God help us all, racial hostility between Swedes and Danes has erupted on the board!

Everyone FLEE for your lives!!!

Yours truly,
Grimm Reaper
Honorary Finn, fourth class
 
Top