Scandinavia in the First World War

[Thande]

In WW1, Germany's war effort relied upon shipments of iron ore from Sweden and nickel from Norway. Any Allied attempt to intercept such convoys was difficult, because the Danes had mined the Skagerak (fearing that the Germans would violate their neutrality if they failed to) and the Russians did not have naval superiority over the Germans in the Baltic.

Could the Allies have attempted a land expedition to get around this? Either an invasion of Denmark, or of Sweden/Norway? And would it have stood any chances of success?

(I believe the Denmark question has come up before, but not Sweden/Norway)

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I would think Britain would have to deal with the German navy before they could launch any amphibious operations against Scandinavia. Britain has the numbers to win unless Germany does extremely well, but taking down the High Seas Fleet is going to cost Britain a fair number of their ships.

Assuming Britain can weaken the German Fleet enough to feel safe launching an invasion across the North Sea, how they do depends on how much warning their target has. If they manage to land more or less unexpected then they might manage some major gains before their target finishes mobilizing. However, given the massive preparation required for an overseas invasion and the need to confront the German fleet beforehand, I think Britain would have a hard time concealing their intentions, so most likely whichever scandinavian state they attack has at least some warning. That risks turning the operation into another Gallipoli.

Attacking one or more of the scandinavian neutrals would also hurt the Allied cause abroad; by attacking a neutral power they lose some of the goodwill the German attack on Belgium gained them, as now both sides are guilty of the same crime. I am not sure what shape the scandinavian armies are in, but given the attritional nature of World War I I would think any added manpower would help.

 

[Oddball]

In WW1, Germany's war effort relied upon shipments of iron ore from Sweden and nickel from Norway.

OTOH Britain depended parly on Noregian shipping to supply the home islands

IMHO the entente (Britain) has more to lose regarding Norway than Germany.

And Germany OTL had zero projection of power along the Norwegian west and north coast besides submarines. Thus if the entente wanted it, Norway could be invaded at will. That is beside the Norwegian forces wich actualy were partly mobilized and relativly strong during ww1.

And ofcourse Sweden is imposible witout Norway first...

 

[Redbeard]

The British will definately be able to both control the North Sea and land an army in Norway. The Hoch See Flotte trying to intervene outside the minebelts of the Baltic entrances would be an ideal situation for the Grande Fleet to take home a decisive victory.

The Germans will probably instead put tremendous pressure on Sweden, which clearly will be inside German striking distance and outside effective reach of UK. My guess is the Swedes would give in and join the Germans, and any British Expedition Force in Norway is toast soon after.

Had the war started later, longer into the Russian naval rearmamnent programme, the strategic situation in the Baltic might be different, and Russia capable of interferring in Sweden, but no way in OTL WWI. IMHO another example of how Germany's strategic situation was deteriorating in early 20th century.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[zoomar]

For a purely military perspective, the High Seas Fleet was not disposed to prevent a British invasion of Norway. However, once the invasion was underway, German naval efforts might be more aggressive and focused to inderdict resupply and reinforcement convoys crossing the north sea. This would certainly result in more engagements between the HSF and RN than occurred in OTL. I am not so sure this would inevitably lead to a catastrophic defeat for the HSF. More likely, the Germans might send out small BC groups supported by CL and zep recon to raid the convoys. Some would be sucessful, perhaps more not, but this would not be catastrophic. An intersting possibility is that the u-boat effort might be redirected from the North Atlantic to the North Sea with significant effect. I also agree that German pressure, as well as Sweden's own inclination, might lead Sweden to join Germany. I am not sure this would necessarily doom the British invasion. Militarily, Sweden is less of a valuable ally to Germany than the Ottoman Empire. More likely it would tie down Britain until they decided on their own to withdraw.

I think the real effect would be diplomatic. A British invasion of Norway would seem little different to the world (esp the USA) from the German invasion of Belgium - thus depriving the allies of moral high ground. Plus, if it resulted in u-boat efforts directed to the north sea, Germany may have been unable to pursue the its unrestricted submarine campaign in the Atlantic to full effect. This would also have reduced a major causus belli for eventual US entry into the conflict.

Bottom line: Britain is tied down in another costly marginal front, the USA remains neutral, Russia still collapses on cue in 1917 and the Central Powers force France and Britain to the negotiating table in 1918.

 

[1940LaSalle]

I think the real effect would be diplomatic. A British invasion of Norway would seem little different to the world (esp the USA) from the German invasion of Belgium - thus depriving the allies of moral high ground. Plus, if it resulted in u-boat efforts directed to the north sea, Germany may have been unable to pursue the its unrestricted submarine campaign in the Atlantic to full effect. This would also have reduced a major causus belli for eventual US entry into the conflict.

Bottom line: Britain is tied down in another costly marginal front, the USA remains neutral, Russia still collapses on cue in 1917 and the Central Powers force France and Britain to the negotiating table in 1918.

Interesting point indeed: had Britain invaded Norway, suddenly the congressional delegations of Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota would have been essentially unanimous against joining the allied side (as would a sizable fraction of the Washington, Iowa and Michigan delegations). Combine that with anti-British sentiment already prevalent on the Atlantic Seabord in the Irish-American communities, and Wilson would be hard-pressed to get a clear mandate for war. (I think this invasion would butterfly the Zimmermann telegram, since there would be no need to do something to balance the potential US involvement.)

All of this suggests a thoroughly isolationist US in the second decade of the 20th century, plus a war of attrition that likely drags on well into 1919, if not 1920 before both sides declare a stalemate and prevail upon third parties to broker a peace treaty.

While we're at it, the aforementioned isolationism is likely to last for at least a generation. It's debatable whether in this scenario Hitler could have risen, since much of his political hay was based on Germany's defeat. If they came away with a draw...Hitler remains merely a noisy annoyance who would probably have a rap sheet full of two-bit stuff like disturbing the peace, which in turn would probably lead him to emigrate from Germany to either the Netherlands or Switzerland in the late 1920s, where he would fade into near-complete obscurity. It would also remove much, if not all, of the driving force for Mussolini. Subtract those two, and another war in Europe doesn't seem all that likely. About the only thing that would shake the US out of its isolationist ivory tower would be a war with Japan, which likely would have happened anyhow.

 

[MrP]

All of this suggests a thoroughly isolationist US in the second decade of the 20th century, plus a war of attrition that likely drags on well into 1919, if not 1920 before both sides declare a stalemate and prevail upon third parties to broker a peace treaty.

I seem to recall that Wozza has mentioned before that German rubber stocks were insufficient to provide minimum requirements for 1919. That said, that's predicated on the war being the OTL one. I don't recall his source, and have no sources of my own for Norwegian or Swedish rubber production during WWI.

And I feel almost like this conversation is teetering on the edge of fetish wear. Yes, I do blame myself for drawing that connection.

Or possibly Thande for starting the topic.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

To clarify, I would agree that the High Seas Fleet would probably not be able to prevent an initial invasion of Norway, but I think Britain would see weakening the German Fleet as a pre-requisite to an invasion of Scandinavia. As zoomar pointed out the HSF can cause all kinds of problems for supply lines between Britain and Norway, and if the HSF manages to win a major engagement Britain could risk having their supply lines cut completely. If the British army in Norway runs out of ammunition before supply lines can be restored... Considering the risks, I think Britain would not launch an amphibious operation in the North Sea while there is a relatively intact HSF that can threaten their supply lines.

 

[Berra]

Wouldn't a Russian invasion from Finland make more sence? Or just sending some British submarines operating from Finland. Or what about planes. I dont know the range or if they could do some damage against a ship back then but they might do some recon.

 

[Oddball]

Wouldn't a Russian invasion from Finland make more sence? Or just sending some British submarines operating from Finland. Or what about planes. I dont know the range or if they could do some damage against a ship back then but they might do some recon.

Logistics would be a problem. Absolutly horrible infrastructure.

You defenetly need some kind of naval aspect in a campain against Norway, but also against Sweden

 

[Johnnyreb]

Were not the Furious, Couragious and Glorious (subsequently completed as carriers) originally built as light battleships, with a view to intervention in the Baltic?

The High Seas Fleet would have been foolish to intervene in force, but there was no reason why they could not raid very effectively, with limited losses. I seem to recall an OTL (post Jutland) raid against the North Sea mining flotillas when the exotically named DDs Mary Rose and Strongbow were lost.

Nonetheless, the soldiers, Haig etc, were convinced that the issue would be decided on the Western Front (quite correctly, as it turned out.) So anything else was a sideshow. So, no more Gallipolis.