Soviet Scandinavia?

I've always found it fascinating the scramble over the corpse of the third reich between the soviets and allies near the end of world war II, particularly the consequences of Russia advancing further than they did OTL. I was just thinking about them perhaps conquering more of Germany and invading up through Denmark and into Norway. How plausible is that? What would happen to Sweden, being now completely surrounded by the iron curtain? How much worse off would Scandinavia be today? Your thoughts?
 
There's a chance that the Soviets take Denmark with a different Western Front, but not Sweden and Norway. I could see Norway maybe joining up with Sweden and Iceland in a Federation out of fear.
 
So like more Finlandization taking place?

You see, the problem with this is that the allies will never allow it. They retook Norway and Denmark, but as Sweden was neutral the allies would be ready for war with the soviets if they tried to take it.

So simply, Sweden was the barrier and the world would end if they tried it; or (if the soviets don't have nuclear weapons yet) the allies would declare war on the USSR; they already had plans for it.
 
what if the soviets took denmark from the south up through germany, but took norway, or atleast a good half of it or so, down through the north from murmansk? maybe the soviet navy takes svaldbard?
 
but took norway, or atleast a good half of it or so, down through the north from murmansk? maybe the soviet navy takes svaldbard?

That has been discussed before, and the major obstacle is that the logistics would be pure hell. Just look at the Norwegian coast south of Tromso: it is simply more trouble than it is worth.

If Stalin really wanted to keep any of Norway, he could have just held on to those parts in the north (Finnmark) that were in Soviet hands anyway, for a time. For example Eurofed has addressed this option in some of his timelines and scenarios.
 
Soviet forces occupied the Danish island of Bornholm until 1946.

The reason was that they regarded Denmark as "occupied" territory, not "liberated" as Denmark was seen to have cooperted with Germany.

When Germany surrendered pieces on 4 May to Monty, the surrendered areas were "Holland, North-West Germany and Denmark". Norway was not included in the German announcement. It was only a few days later that Norway was also surrendered.

Those few days could indeed have seen a further Soviet occupation of Norway.

Sweden, although neutral, could also have been occupied by Soviet forces. Stalin could have found some reasoins for it, but I believe he had plenty of other things on his plate in May 1945.

Finland would also have been a political problem.

With the German surrended on 4th May evening and the broadcast from London, there would not have been a reaqson to occupy Denmark.

HOWEVER, if Soviet forces had wanted to and had put serious naval forces behind it, they could have invaded Denmark probably from end April.

Whether the German forces would then have fought or not, is a good question.

Denmark had some 250,000 German refugees from the Baltic. My mom remembers that there were plenty of SS forces as well: Ukraine, ... and all kind of things. They would not have surrendered to Soviet forces.

I am not sure if Monty would have been in a position to prevent a seaborne invasion of Denmark in April.

After all, the Danish belts around the Danish islands were the bottle necks for any Baltic Soviet penetrations out in the Altantic on that side.

Ivan
 
What about the non-germanic nation, Finland? what would have happened had USSR seizes it after one or the two wars? They would have at least some excuse of 'agression' for the Continuation war maybe (did the finns started 'first'?), and could spin stuff around Nazis help...
 
The Soviets didn't seize Finland for several reasons.

1) If they did, it was going to create a lot of problems in the USSR's relations with the Allies. People must remember that few people foresaw the Cold War. Stalin saw a lot of advantages in continuing to work with the West (at least until the anticipated economic collapse that Stalin thought was a matter of time). There were still too many things to work out for the postwar world, and the Soviets needed Allied cooperation to legitimize Soviet plans.

2) The Finns were going to very troublesome to incorporate, and the Soviets were going to have enough trouble alone with the Baltics, the Ukrainian nationalists, Poland, and the other parts of Europe.

3) Ultimately, Finland was not vital to the Soviets - unlike Poland which was needed to maintain its occupation of Germany, and which was the traditional invasion route of Russia by western Europeans - so it was a small loss.

Norway would be even worse.

Soviet intransigence in Scandinavia would alert the Allies that any hopes for cooperation was doomed. Stalin might think he was clever because his army was needed to conquer Japan, but the moment the atomic bombs are dropped it'll be obvious he has no cards.

In the meantime, the Allies can cause the Soviets lots of initial headaches.

1) They can refuse to recognize Stalin's choice of Polish goverment (the Lublin group) and insist that the Polish government-in-exile is the actual government.

2) It will insist Soviet actions in Bulgaria and Romania are illegitimate and give at least vocal support to King Michael and Tsra Simeon and the non-Communist parties.

3) The Czechoslovakian government-in-exile may switch from being pro-Soviet to neutral or even anti-Soviet.

4) It will push Sweden into active opposition.

5) It ends any chance of economic aid or cooperation to help the Soviet Union recover from the war.

6) It also complicates Soviet intentions to eventually seize the straits by bullying Turkey with Western compliance (this never happened IOTL because the West moved decisively against the Soviets by then, and the Turks played their diplomacy very well).

The Soviet hold on Eastern Europe was greatly helped by the Allies deferring (even if reluctantly) to the actions of their Soviet ally. Stalin needed time to legitimize his occupation in the eyes of people he intended to rule. Otherwise, control would be impossible without the Red Army doing everything.

Furthermore, in 1945 the Red Army commanders are at the height of their power. Many hoped for a better life than what had happened under Stalin's earlier rule. If they thought Stalin was screwing it up and would lead to war with the West over invasion of Scandinavia, there is a chance - no matter how small - a coup might happen and a less deranged person take over who didn't insist on antagonzing the Allies over something of little benefit.

For all these reasons, Stalin choose to not antagonize the Allies with the hope that by accedding to their demands on critical areas (like Greece for the British) that the Allies would give Stalin the time he needed to legitimize his control over Eastern Europe and regain complete control over the Army.
 
Top