Russia conquers the whole Sweden
- Thread starter Guy2
- Start date
This couldn't have happened long before the 1800s due to a lack of power projection on the Russian side. I doubt that it would have been possible to support such an army going through little-developed Finland (which would have had to be conquered first a well - only being ceded to Russia in 1809). Thus, we need a Russia with a proper fleet in the Baltic.
If Sweden supported Napoleon in 1812 (and failed), we might see the Russians going to Stockholm in revenge. But would why should Sweden be stupid enough NOT to make peace early enough. Even Russia needs every man against Boney up until 1814.
Annexation of Sweden, though, would have to be sanctioned at the Vienna congress. I doubt that Britain would like that. Russia would have to give up something else - maybe Congress Poland to Prussia and Austria.
Simple land-grabbing adventures in the 19th century would have led to a kind of Crimean War analogue, I am sure. Russian bases in Malmo and Karlskrona wouldn't have pleased either Prussia/Germany nor Great Britain.
WW1? In case of a Russian-Swedish conflict, Sweden would probably conquer Finland by late 1916.
Best shot, IMHO: an Axis Sweden which fights on until too late and forces Finland to do so as well. But the question is - at what point would Stalin divert the necessary forces to conquer Scandinavia?
If Sweden supported Napoleon in 1812 (and failed), we might see the Russians going to Stockholm in revenge. But would why should Sweden be stupid enough NOT to make peace early enough. Even Russia needs every man against Boney up until 1814.
Annexation of Sweden, though, would have to be sanctioned at the Vienna congress. I doubt that Britain would like that. Russia would have to give up something else - maybe Congress Poland to Prussia and Austria.
Simple land-grabbing adventures in the 19th century would have led to a kind of Crimean War analogue, I am sure. Russian bases in Malmo and Karlskrona wouldn't have pleased either Prussia/Germany nor Great Britain.
WW1? In case of a Russian-Swedish conflict, Sweden would probably conquer Finland by late 1916.
Best shot, IMHO: an Axis Sweden which fights on until too late and forces Finland to do so as well. But the question is - at what point would Stalin divert the necessary forces to conquer Scandinavia?
Old Airman
Banned
So, I would say 1809? Actually, lack of powerful Russian Baltic fleet was more of political decision than economic or logistical one. Russia was satisfied with what it got in 1721 and didn't want more (annexation of Finland, which had been invaded by Russian army and returned to Sweden every time in every Russo-Swedish war only happened when Russians grew tired of repeated Swidish attacks). It concentrated on Southern policy, carving pieces out of Ottomans. Adequate Baltic naval capacity could have been built up in decade or two, with arbitrarily start date after 1720.
I think British opposition is the most impotant here. Prussia had been a junior partner in very tight Russo-Prussian alliance up until 1850 or so. They wouldn't be pleased, but are no more in position to stop Russia than Britain today in position to stop whatever adventure Americans decide to undertake.
[sarcasm]I understand that proper Western army would wipe the floor with bearded Russian muzhiki without working up sweat[/sarcasm] However, I'm curious about any material proof of such martial prowess for Royal Swedish forces. IOTL, despite pretty fluid Eastern Front frontline, only Germans managed to push Russian army out of it's territory. Neither Hapsburgs nor Ottomans could do it.
Russia could easily have proper fleet earlier. They just have to defeat Poland-Lithuania during Livonian War in late XVIth century.
I am seriously underinformed here - at what point of time did the Swedish navy lose its status as a force to reckon with?
I absolutely agree. However, I assume that taking Sweden would alienate Prussia away from Russia (and into the British camp, where there are also historical ties of an alliance) in the time afterwards.
The Balkan is far away, Sweden is not.
I absolutely see your point. No, the Russians would put up a harsh fight at these remote frontlines for years. But the Germans would, if needed, reinforce the Swedish as they reinforced the k.k.-Forces. It would be worth the reserves as the Russian army needs to distract forces from the main front as well.
And that is the point. I didn't assume the Swedish progress would be easy or homemade. But in the larger context of the Eastern Front, as long as there are no unforeseen butterflies which backfire on the CP in case of Sweden siding with them, Germans and Swedes would cooperate to gain control of as much of the Baltic region as possible. Given OTL German advances, I assume that Sweden would also make their gains on the Northern Front - or else the Germans would have an easier time paid with Swedish blood.
We could speculate about British engagement in Scandinavia in this case though and make things really complicated.
It didn't, but Russia purposely let its fleet stangate or outright reduced it several times in the 18th c - South First policy, yes, but also fiscal decision.
If the government was focused on building one, they could have achieved it, and as to wars on land - Finland could have been taken and kept several times, but the potential political repercussions were not worth it. If there's enough political incentive, that could change ever so quickly.
Redbeard
Banned
Peter the Great at some time in early 18th century was conspiring with Denmark-Norway about invading Sweden.
I don't recall why it wasn't carried out in OTL, but I suppose a batch of healthy butterflies could have a Danish-Norwegian navy land a huge Russian army in Sweden.
Denmark-Norway get back what they lost in 1656 and Russia gets the rest.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
I don't recall why it wasn't carried out in OTL, but I suppose a batch of healthy butterflies could have a Danish-Norwegian navy land a huge Russian army in Sweden.
Denmark-Norway get back what they lost in 1656 and Russia gets the rest.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Is it just me or was anyone else thinking that Russia would need some AlkaSeltzer?
Russia: I can't believe I ate the whole Sweden!
Poland: Where have I heard that before?
Russia: I can't believe I ate the whole Sweden!
Poland: Okay, I ate it!
Russia: I can't believe I ate the whole Sweden!
Poland: Take your AlkaSeltzer already!
Russia: I can't believe I ate the whole Sweden!
Poland: Where have I heard that before?
Russia: I can't believe I ate the whole Sweden!
Poland: Okay, I ate it!
Russia: I can't believe I ate the whole Sweden!
Poland: Take your AlkaSeltzer already!
Old Airman
Banned
Would you check history of last years of the Northern War, you would discover that Russians largely eliminated the Swedish naval threat (at least as far as Finnish coast-Aland route to Swedish shores is concerned) by 1719. Russian galley fleets landed thousands of infantry and Cossack (with their horses, mind you) troops plus artillery (effectively, small armies) on Swedish coast. It happened barely 15 years after Russians, who didn't have any naval cadre to speak of in the beginning, got access to Baltic coast. IMHO it proves that 10-15 years of very energetic effort, buttressed by existing shipbuilding capacity of Russian Baltic coast, could secure safe road for Russian invasion force to Swedish coast at any point after 1720.
Agree. Prussians would not be thrilled. However, if they're afraid of Russians, there's long land border to worry about and Russian cossacks are way scarier than Russian sailors anyway. Besides, don't forget that all Prussian experiences to fight Russia pre-1914 were disasters (Russians occupied Berlin during 7 years war and Prussian corps dragooned by Napoleon suffered miserable fate).
Austrian experience was exactly the reason for my doubts. Despite all German reinforcements, Russians still owned more Austrian territory in January 1917 than Austrians owned Russian (I'm too lazy to check but I'm not sure Austrians had any at all). So, it is far from certain that Swedes would do any better. There're couple of other points to consider:
1. Germany would need to pull troops from frontline to send reinforcements to Sweden, it didn't have any spare troops. On the flip side, Russia did keep tens of thousands troops in Finland during the war, so it would be less distraction for Russian Empire than for German one.
2. Russians are very good in Northern fighting. Swedes are good too, but Germans not so much. I can see savage guerilla-style forest war between Russian, Swedish and Finnish raiding parties in Southern Finland, with Germans reduced to a role of cannon fodder, being teared apart by Russian plastun raiders.
3. What direction would Finns go? IOTL they somewhat leaned to Germany, hoping that Finland is a "bridge too far" for the Germans and they would have no sensible choice but to grant independence. ITTL Swedes (who're ruled Finland as colony but a century ago in a way that Finnish status within Russian Empire was a marked improvement) are coming (undoubtedly, waving flags of return to former glory, otherwise what's the point for Swedes to enter the bloody mess). And Finns might be just less than thrilled of becoming Swedish province (instead of self-governed territory, with own currency, laws, police, Parliament and custom border with Russian Empire proper) again. And Finns are a force to be reckoned with in their forests.
