Sweden and Italy on CPs side

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Unless Britain has plans to attack Sweden through Norway, ....

I basicaly agree with you. :)

Except for that Norway probably would be perfectly capable to hold its own against Sweden. And certainly if Sweden also were engaged versus Russia.

If Germany send forces via Sweden it would ofcourse be a whole different ballgame. But were should those divisions be taken from?
 
I basicaly agree with you. :)

Except for that Norway probably would be perfectly capable to hold its own against Sweden. And certainly if Sweden also were engaged versus Russia.

If Germany send forces via Sweden it would ofcourse be a whole different ballgame. But were should those divisions be taken from?

Germany never seemed to have a problem rustling up enough divisions for emergencies, so I reckon it could find a task force if necessary.

It also wouldn't need to be an attack only through Sweden as one half of the 1940 plan could still be used, a naval descent on the country

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Eurofed

Banned
Besides, Germany in this scenario does not NEED Japan at all, so it has far more to gain in the East by retaining a state of war until Japan's allies crash, then demanding its territory back at the general peace conference.

I would agree, but this reminds me of raising another point. I think that the most likely sequence ITTL sees Russia collapsing in revolution first in late 1915 to early-mid 1916, then France be overrun by overwhelming concentrated CP manpower, with coordinated German-Austrian offensives breaking out towards Paris and Italo-Austrian ones towards Marseilles in early to late 1916.

In your judgement, when France collapses, would the Marine Nationale surrender to the CPs as part of the armistice, or would it try and escape to Britain, or possibly would France collapse in revolution too like 1918 Germany ? Russian fleets most likely are swept in disarray by revolution and are unavailable to CPs and Entente alike until the RCW is settled one way or another. By the way, would the CPs still send Lenin to Russia ITTL ?

Since after France and Russia collapse, Britain almost surely swiftly asks for a compromise peace, otherwise in the long run the CPs could sweep British forces out of Africa and the Middle East and threaten India. Yet, combined CPs navies alone may or may not be able to blockade the British Isles, which would be necessary for the CPs to force through a really harsh peace. Possibly a substantial naval build-up program by the CPs would be necessary. So it is questionable whether the CP governments may afford to remain in a sate of war for the lengthy time necessary, or would settle for giving a relatively lenient peace to Britain, and spare the Brest-Litovsk/Reverse Versailles harsh stuff for France and Russia.

OTOH, if the CPs can seize the Russian, or, much more so, the French Navy, then surely combined with their own Navies they would have the means to blockade the British Isles and impose whatever harsh peace they fancy to Britain.

The same reasoning is valid, to a lesser degree, for Japan. Once the Entente powers are done away, one way or another, they would be forced to beg a peace, lest the combined CP naval might sweep them away, but if they beg a compromise peace after France falls, they might get a status quo ante peace, if they wait after UK falls, they would have to give more painful concessions (e.g. losing Formosa or Korea).

Romania was a vital economic asset to Germany, hence in OTL Mackensen ending up being based there to co-ordinate things despite his huge skills as a strategic commander in the field. If Romania throws in with the Central Powers (not certain, since there were very close Russian-Romanian ties at court level) then Germany gets a great boost from their economy fully joining the war effort.

About Romania, well, they waited a couple years before taking the Entente side, ITTL doing so after all of Turkey, Bulgaria, Sweden, Italy, and quite possibly Greece going CPs, if the same time schedule is kept (hard to see reasons why Romania would have to join the Entente quicker than OTL), would entail a serious mistake in judgement from Bucharest. Transylvania is surely enticing, but after Italy joins CPs, they shall have plenty of spare troops in the Balkans to overrun Romania even more quickly than OTL. May Romanian government be so overconfident as to be oblivious of this ? Would the ties you quote still be able to do it, or at least keep Romania neutral ? Since a CP victory at this point, even if Romania stays neutral, means they shall have to give back Dobruja to Bulgaria and forget any aspiration on Transylvania. OTOH, if they go CPs, they can at least have a realistic hope of regaining Bessarabia and chunks of Transinistria, so their own best self-interest would seem to join the CPs.

The harshness of the peace deal that Britain gets would vary according to the butterflies above, but I would expect defeated France and revolutionary Russia still to get a rather harsh Reverse Versailles/B-L deal. After all, even if TTL's WWI would be rather shorter than OTL (most likely, even Britain and Japan give up by late 1916 to early 1917), under the most likely PoDs (Italy joins in 1915 after successful negotiations with the CPs, or Germany goes East, UK stays neutral, and Italy joins in 1914) still it would entail 2-3 years of total war, most likely enough to harden CP public opinion substantially against the Entente powers.

However, ITTL Lenin may or may not go to Russia (without him, leadership of the Reds would likely default to Trotski), the B-L settlment would stick, and the CPs may or may not still have the energy to make a large-scale intervention in the RCW, and cast victory for the Whites.
 
Last edited:
Russia is a conundrum because I just don't see a POPULAR revolution within this timeframe, but a military or palace coup, that forces Nicholas out and installs Michael as Regent for Alexei whilst handing power to either the generals or a ramped-up Duma would make sense. THIS regime can then either stand or fall in the years to come.

Regarding Romania, I don't think the ties would have them join at all on the Entente side, since it would look even more like suicide IMHO. It might keep them neutral, but if things go worse for Russia, then even Ferdinand might be tempted to throw in his lot and go for Bessarabia.

Sorry can't write more, but the computer is about to be shutdown for the night!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
It also wouldn't need to be an attack only through Sweden as one half of the 1940 plan could still be used, a naval descent on the country

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I doubt the success of such scheme. Norway was actualy very well prepared at the start of ww1. We had ample forces and mobilized them rather quickly, both naval and army.

The reason for this was the short timeframe since our independence from Sweden in 1905. Military Norway was relativly strong in 1914.

The disaster in 1940 came after an almost complete demilitarization during the 1930's :mad:
 
I was talking to my Swedish uncle the other day and he said that while he was in the Army all he did was sit on a mountain and watch Norway. They even gave him a bell he could ring if the Norwegians started to invade. (Joke)

Did Sweden and Norway come close to conflict around the Great War?
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
I was talking to my Swedish uncle the other day and he said that while he was in the Army all he did was sit on a mountain and watch Norway. They even gave him a bell he could ring if the Norwegians started to invade. (Joke)

When was this :confused:


Did Sweden and Norway come close to conflict around the Great War?

Nope. Not even the slightest :)
We came close in 1905. Never again.

It would be more apropriate to say thet Norway and Sweden came close to be allies a few times after 1905, but we didnt realy do that either :p:D
 
I must say that from what I was told by someone from Norway the Kaiser and Germany was well liked by the people of that country. When one of the towns that the Kaiser visited suffered a damaging fire destroying most of the place the Kaiser sent people to help design replacement buildings and money to pay for it. Thus if the British invaded the country to get at Sweden or at German forces attacking Russia they would face stiff resistance.
Perhaps it might be as bad as the mess that Churchill created in 1915.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
I must say that from what I was told by someone from Norway the Kaiser and Germany was well liked by the people of that country. When one of the towns that the Kaiser visited suffered a damaging fire destroying most of the place the Kaiser sent people to help design replacement buildings and money to pay for it.

This is correct.

The Kaiser had a "thing" :D for Norway. And he personaly was quite popular, just as you said. Tough the love for the Kaiser faded quite fast as the Norwegian Merchant Marine started to take loss from German subs.

But at no point did this "personal" relationship in anyway change the fact that Norway was a client state of GB.

Thus if the British invaded the country to get at Sweden or at German forces attacking Russia they would face stiff resistance.

Only if they seized/destroyed the Norwegian Merchant Marine first. Otherwise GB could pressure the Norwegian governmet to accept any demad they made, thus no resistance at all...
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
But at no point did this "personal" relationship in anyway change the fact that Norway was a client state of GB.

Only if they seized/destroyed the Norwegian Merchant Marine first. Otherwise GB could pressure the Norwegian governmet to accept any demad they made, thus no resistance at all...

The client state relationship is very true, and surely trumps "personal" relationships, but as several posters have remarked, there are compelling reasons that would discourage the Norwegian government from openly taking the side of Britain, such as giving free passage to Entente troops, or allowing the Entente to occupy Norway without resistance.

Sweden and Germany would surely react by invading Norway, which would become a battlefied. Moreover, Norwegian independence was still a recent thing in 1914, and joining the Entente could put it in serious danger if the CP won. The victorious CPs could easily decide to punish an Entente Norway by forcing it back under union with Sweden at the peace table.

Therefore, would client relationship be so strong as to override Norway's best self-interest toward neutrality ?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Russia is a conundrum because I just don't see a POPULAR revolution within this timeframe, but a military or palace coup, that forces Nicholas out and installs Michael as Regent for Alexei whilst handing power to either the generals or a ramped-up Duma would make sense. THIS regime can then either stand or fall in the years to come.

Hmm, would you kindly elaborate your thought on this issue ? Would this post-coup regime still beg a peace from the CPs ? IMO they would have to, if they want to avoid a full-fledged revolution. Moreover, would the CPs give the new Russian government a more lenient peace, or it would be the Brest-Litovsk deal all over again (IMO, the latter, whatever the leadership, the CPs would still want to diminish the potential threat of Russia by removing non-Russian territoriews from its control).

Regarding Romania, I don't think the ties would have them join at all on the Entente side, since it would look even more like suicide IMHO. It might keep them neutral, but if things go worse for Russia, then even Ferdinand might be tempted to throw in his lot and go for Bessarabia.

This seems reasonable.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Sweden and Germany would surely react by invading Norway, which would become a battlefied. Moreover, Norwegian independence was still a recent thing in 1914, and joining the Entente could put it in serious danger if the CP won. The victorious CPs could easily decide to punish an Entente Norway by forcing it back under union with Sweden at the peace table.

This is difficult. I think you need to flesh out why and how Sweden got into the CPs in the first place. The one thing Im counting on, is that Sweden is with the CPs, but:

-Sweden in the CP befor ww1 starts?
-Swedish attack on Russia?
-Russian attack on Sweden?

Therefore, would client relationship be so strong as to override Norway's best self-interest toward neutrality ?

With the right circumstances and guaranties from GB? Yes, no doubt.
Because neutrality in one case is not Norways best interest!

Why and which case?

Well, what many people fail to understand is that Norway uptil 1946 was one of the poorest contries in Europe! :(
With one exception we were a backwards nation of highly independent farmers whit a neglible industrial base.

And what was the one exception? Our Merchant Marine of course, the fourth (or fifth?) largest in the world at the outbreak of WW1.

So what does this imply? Just imagine what GB can do to Norways one and only asset if we do not comply!

And this is actualy what happened OTL. GB pressurized Norway during the whole course of the war to comply to GB's will. All the way up to the point that Norway was neutral only in words. The only reason Norway did stay neutral was that GB allowed it, and that was because GB had nothing more to gain from an open declaration of war.
 

Eurofed

Banned
This is difficult. I think you need to flesh out why and how Sweden got into the CPs in the first place. The one thing Im counting on, is that Sweden is with the CPs, but:

-Sweden in the CP befor ww1 starts?
-Swedish attack on Russia?
-Russian attack on Sweden?

About Sweden, the PoD is that they join the CPs in August 1914, when the rogue commander of the Russian Baltic Fleet attacks the Swedish Fleet on his own initiative. See the OP.

With the right circumstances and guaranties from GB? Yes, no doubt.
Because neutrality in one case is not Norways best interest!

Why and which case?

Well, what many people fail to understand is that Norway uptil 1946 was one of the poorest contries in Europe! :(
With one exception we were a backwards nation of highly independent farmers whit a neglible industrial base.

And what was the one exception? Our Merchant Marine of course, the fourth (or fifth?) largest in the world at the outbreak of WW1.

So what does this imply? Just imagine what GB can do to Norways one and only asset if we do not comply!

And this is actualy what happened OTL. GB pressurized Norway during the whole course of the war to comply to GB's will. All the way up to the point that Norway was neutral only in words. The only reason Norway did stay neutral was that GB allowed it, and that was because GB had nothing more to gain from an open declaration of war.

Again, does keeping the merchant fleet safe from a bossing Britain trumps the very real risk of becoming a battlefield when Germany and Sweden retaliate against Entente Norway by invading it, and possibly the revocation of Norwegian independence if the CPs win ? I'm not convinced.
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Monthly Donor
About Sweden, the PoD is that they join the CPs in August 1914, when the rogue commander of the Russian Baltic Fleet attacks the Swedish Fleet on his own initiative. See the OP.

So do they fully join or do they do a "ww2 Finland" only declare war on Russia? And Would GB accept this???

IMO a Russia only declaration could keep Norway out.

A full CP Sweden would IMO also involve some ultimatum to Norway, to keep Swedens back free.
 
So do they fully join or do they do a "ww2 Finland" only declare war on Russia? And Would GB accept this???

IMO a Russia only declaration could keep Norway out.

A full CP Sweden would IMO also involve some ultimatum to Norway, to keep Swedens back free.

Norway's not going to get involved. There's nothing to gain. Side with the CP, Britain invades, side with the Entente and Germany invades.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Again, does keeping the merchant fleet safe from a bossing Britain trumps the very real risk of becoming a battlefield when Germany and Sweden retaliate against Entente Norway by invading it, and possibly the revocation of Norwegian independence if the CPs win ? I'm not convinced.

Thats your choice :p:D

Lets view it like this: The whole premisse for the Norwegian independence in the first place was her maritime character and connections. And back then Norway had nothing else! :( That puts the question (IMO) more like:

Should Norway, with GB guaranties, risk that her territory becomes a battlefield, or should Norway risk certain loss off her prerequisit for beeing an independent nation?

Im convinced :)
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Norway's not going to get involved. There's nothing to gain. Side with the CP, Britain invades, side with the Entente and Germany invades.

You are wrong. There is a third option (happened OTL):

Deny GB requests, and loose your prerequisite for beeing an independent nation :(

And even a fourth:

With Sweden in the CP, there WILL be ultimates on Norway coming from the CP.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
The question how do it benefit the allies to have Norway join them, mostly it would just one more front, in a difficult terrain and while the Norvegian army may have been quite good at the time, Norway is still poorer than Sweden with half its population, and the war would have little support in population. UK gain rather little by having Norway join, beside the fact that Sweden will be fully blocaded.

Personal I see Norway stay out of the war for the same reason Denmark did, it benefit no one that it joins.
 
Top