Sweden joins the Central Powers
- Thread starter EvolvedSaurian
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
As said in another thread: The problem for Sweden retaking Finland is that they had to expect Russia wanting to take it back at the next opportunity - seems they didn't think it was worth it.
Russia will want to take it back. That doesn't mean that they will take it back. Remember the Winter War. The Finns may not especially like the Swedes, but they probablt prefer them to the Russians.
What's all this about Estonia going to Sweden?
Max Sinister
Banned
Estonia is (culturally) closely related to Finland. And it was for some time Swedish (and Danish too).
I realize that, Denmark proper aside, Sweden controled just about every part of the Baltic at some point or other. But when did they have Estonia? and is that recent enough to annex it? Irredentism is usually the best basis for keeping conquered territories. And would Estonia prefer Sweden to Russia the way the Finns would?
i think that depending on when sweden joins it might make a significant to huge difference for the CP.
imagine sweden joins in early 1915.
seeing how the western and serbian front have become stagnant and a break trough verry hard to achieve the CP realize that since there first stratagy (knocking france out of the) war failed they now should focus on russia first with the HSF and the swedish navy it should not be dificult for the CP to dominate the baltic to such a degree that sweden and germany can land as many troops as they wich in finland than they can try to march on St.petersburg back then russia's capital from 2 sides (german trust trough the baltic), if they succeed that might be just enough to have russia look for a seperate peace.
and if russia is out or on it's last legs in late 1915.....well the CP has a good chance at victory i would think.
imagine sweden joins in early 1915.
seeing how the western and serbian front have become stagnant and a break trough verry hard to achieve the CP realize that since there first stratagy (knocking france out of the) war failed they now should focus on russia first with the HSF and the swedish navy it should not be dificult for the CP to dominate the baltic to such a degree that sweden and germany can land as many troops as they wich in finland than they can try to march on St.petersburg back then russia's capital from 2 sides (german trust trough the baltic), if they succeed that might be just enough to have russia look for a seperate peace.
and if russia is out or on it's last legs in late 1915.....well the CP has a good chance at victory i would think.
Thanks. I suspected Great Northern War, but it was so chaotic in the later stages I cannot remember who go what at the peace.
I'm no expert on the matter, but would think that Estonia would prefer the Swedes to the Russians, if for no other reason than the fact that Swedish rule would not be as heavy-handed as the Estonians experienced in Tsarist Russia. Of course, they would certainly prefer independence to being ruled by either foreign power; if Sweden did take over in Estonia I would think they would try some sort of semi-autonomous Estonian state to placate the locals. Maybe something similar to the arrangement with Norway 1815-1905, but without the hideous flag.
When was Admiral Essen's attack planned?
Also, it seems to me that everyone is thinking that the Central Powers will change their strategy for the better because of Sweden's entry into the war, when strategy by the generals of every nation in the Great War was ill-conceived, ill-thought out and incompetently executed. I see it far more likely that Falkenhayn sees Swedish entry as a chance to take a breather on the Eastern Front and start a new, non-OTL bloody offensive in the West or merely feed more troops into an OTL battle like Verdun.
Also, it seems to me that everyone is thinking that the Central Powers will change their strategy for the better because of Sweden's entry into the war, when strategy by the generals of every nation in the Great War was ill-conceived, ill-thought out and incompetently executed. I see it far more likely that Falkenhayn sees Swedish entry as a chance to take a breather on the Eastern Front and start a new, non-OTL bloody offensive in the West or merely feed more troops into an OTL battle like Verdun.
Borys
Banned
Ahoj!
Germany had no need for the Sweidish fleet, as it was strong enough to dominate the Baltic on its own. And a dash of German bttleships at Sankt Peterburg is highly unlikely.
The HSF had a different purpose than that of sinking on Russian minefield. Well, until the Ganguts are commisiioned maybe the 2nd Battlesquadron (composed of predreadnaughts) COULD be assigned to more aggressive operations.
Borys
Germany had no need for the Sweidish fleet, as it was strong enough to dominate the Baltic on its own. And a dash of German bttleships at Sankt Peterburg is highly unlikely.
The HSF had a different purpose than that of sinking on Russian minefield. Well, until the Ganguts are commisiioned maybe the 2nd Battlesquadron (composed of predreadnaughts) COULD be assigned to more aggressive operations.
Borys
TotrueTufaar
Banned
What of Scandinavianism? Would the Nordic countries wish kill each other off, for Denmark would not support Germany, who seized half of their land on the mainland. Plus, the Czar;s Danish wife. Just throwing this out there.
Interesting topic.
I can see Sweden joining the central powers right after the breakthrough at Gorlice-Tarnow.
The Swedish navy, while not a high seas fleet, would be a problem for the Russians in the Baltic. Northern Finland is supplied by a single railroad running north along the coast. On the Swedish side, it runs 50-100 kilometers inside the country. On the Swedish side, the fortress of Boden protects the railroad north and northwest to the iron mines at Kiruna.
Sweden's total available manpower might be in the 700-800 000 men range (including men up to 45 years of age) and the field army (excluding Landstorm local defence) might be 400 000 or so.
It is a myth that the field army had old rifles. There were more than enough Mauser pattern 6,5mm Gevär m/96 (rifle) and Karbin m/94 (carbine) to go around. In 1915, there were about 230 84mm Kanon m/81 old Krupp guns (a few of differing models), 338 75mm Kanon m/02 Krupp guns (a few of differing models), 76 105mm Haubits m/10, a decent (for the time) bofors howitzer, which was also in production throughout the war. 56 150mm Positionshaubits m/06 had also been delivered and there were a smattering of 57-75mm and 120mm older guns and howitzers used by the Landstorm. There were a few planes, a decent navy with lots of torpedo boats and coastal defence ships. The first MG company finished training summer 1914 and license production of Schwarzlose MGs had just started churning out MGs to replace the 80-100 various earlier MGs of many different models.
A Swedish involvement in ww1 would make the Finnish troops fighting for Russia unreliable. Many of the officers and ruling elite of Finland were Swedo-Finns (Swedish-speaking Finns) that had very close ties with Sweden, Mannerheim was one of them. On the Åland islands, Sweden would be greeted as liberators, as would they on large parts of the coasts, I think. Sweden taking the Åland archipelago and landing forces in Åbo or Wasa to cut the railroad north is not an impossible scenario, especially with some German support. Then the Russian troops along the border will have a much harder time resisting a major (for such a small country anyway) Swedish offensive into Finland, since they will have problems getting supply through and cannot rely on local troops. Swedish troops have no problems fighting in woods, as it is their native terrain.
I think a Swedish offensive would liberate much of Finland, but the Murmansk railroad would not be in danger (too much desolate wood to travel through to attack, too easy for the Russians to transport supplies and reinforcement along the railroad). the front would probably stabilise and go into trench warfare somewhere west of Helsingfors and raiding in the woods to the north where the front ends would be plentiful.
A joint Swedish-German invasion of the Ösel islands could probably be likely in 1916 and Helsingfors captured as the Russians collapse spring 1917. Swedish troops take Viborg and advance on Petrograd to enforce the Brest-Litovsk agreement and probably gets Ösel (but not Estonia) and Finland (to the 1939 borders) in the peace deal.
The question is how the entente reacts and how Sweden counter-reacts. Can Russia fall faster if Sweden is in the deal? If Russia is doing worse 1916, woudl Romania join the entente? If Romania decides to join the central powers instead, in hope of getting Bessarabia (Moldavia) Falkenhayb might think it is a good idea to launch an over-all offensive on the eastern front instead, with the two new allies (such plans might also butterfly away Conrads attack in Italy and have the Austrians much better prepared for Brusilov).
So perhaps Russia collapses autumn 1916 and has a spring revolution 1917?
I can see Sweden joining the central powers right after the breakthrough at Gorlice-Tarnow.
The Swedish navy, while not a high seas fleet, would be a problem for the Russians in the Baltic. Northern Finland is supplied by a single railroad running north along the coast. On the Swedish side, it runs 50-100 kilometers inside the country. On the Swedish side, the fortress of Boden protects the railroad north and northwest to the iron mines at Kiruna.
Sweden's total available manpower might be in the 700-800 000 men range (including men up to 45 years of age) and the field army (excluding Landstorm local defence) might be 400 000 or so.
It is a myth that the field army had old rifles. There were more than enough Mauser pattern 6,5mm Gevär m/96 (rifle) and Karbin m/94 (carbine) to go around. In 1915, there were about 230 84mm Kanon m/81 old Krupp guns (a few of differing models), 338 75mm Kanon m/02 Krupp guns (a few of differing models), 76 105mm Haubits m/10, a decent (for the time) bofors howitzer, which was also in production throughout the war. 56 150mm Positionshaubits m/06 had also been delivered and there were a smattering of 57-75mm and 120mm older guns and howitzers used by the Landstorm. There were a few planes, a decent navy with lots of torpedo boats and coastal defence ships. The first MG company finished training summer 1914 and license production of Schwarzlose MGs had just started churning out MGs to replace the 80-100 various earlier MGs of many different models.
A Swedish involvement in ww1 would make the Finnish troops fighting for Russia unreliable. Many of the officers and ruling elite of Finland were Swedo-Finns (Swedish-speaking Finns) that had very close ties with Sweden, Mannerheim was one of them. On the Åland islands, Sweden would be greeted as liberators, as would they on large parts of the coasts, I think. Sweden taking the Åland archipelago and landing forces in Åbo or Wasa to cut the railroad north is not an impossible scenario, especially with some German support. Then the Russian troops along the border will have a much harder time resisting a major (for such a small country anyway) Swedish offensive into Finland, since they will have problems getting supply through and cannot rely on local troops. Swedish troops have no problems fighting in woods, as it is their native terrain.
I think a Swedish offensive would liberate much of Finland, but the Murmansk railroad would not be in danger (too much desolate wood to travel through to attack, too easy for the Russians to transport supplies and reinforcement along the railroad). the front would probably stabilise and go into trench warfare somewhere west of Helsingfors and raiding in the woods to the north where the front ends would be plentiful.
A joint Swedish-German invasion of the Ösel islands could probably be likely in 1916 and Helsingfors captured as the Russians collapse spring 1917. Swedish troops take Viborg and advance on Petrograd to enforce the Brest-Litovsk agreement and probably gets Ösel (but not Estonia) and Finland (to the 1939 borders) in the peace deal.
The question is how the entente reacts and how Sweden counter-reacts. Can Russia fall faster if Sweden is in the deal? If Russia is doing worse 1916, woudl Romania join the entente? If Romania decides to join the central powers instead, in hope of getting Bessarabia (Moldavia) Falkenhayb might think it is a good idea to launch an over-all offensive on the eastern front instead, with the two new allies (such plans might also butterfly away Conrads attack in Italy and have the Austrians much better prepared for Brusilov).
So perhaps Russia collapses autumn 1916 and has a spring revolution 1917?
@Steffen: remember the u-boat incident - a British sub being forced to the surface by German ships which was then forced off by Danish torpedoboats.
I'm sure the opinion of Danes was to support the British and definitely not wanting to go to war along the Germans. The intrigue is then to not offend the Germans do as much as they wish without becoming bellingerent.
@TotrueTufaar: The Danes and Norwegians tried in inter-Scandinavian cooperation to keep the Swedes out of allying with the CP.
I don't see the Scandinavians wishing to kill each other off, but I lack Oddballs opinion on this.
I'm not sure about what have been stated about Norwegian-Swedish relations, they do not appear from what I've read to be that rosy. Rather the Danes and Norwegians was of common observance keeping neutral. But Denmark of course had to listen closely to Berlin - on the other hand the Copenhagen defences was clearly made to deter a new German go at Denmark. Who else would be the enemy at the time? The enemy was to the south, that is why the regiments of the Army doesn't bugle signals in that direction.
If the Swedes join with the CP Denmark will at some point expect German pressure - my assumption is that they will fight to keep neutrality. It would be in the long term interest of Denmark not to alieneate itself to Britain and Russia. The Norwegians would probably greet their British invaders with open arms. During the Nap's wars Norway was looking to Britain to buy its goods.
If the Swedes then joined in on either they would be resisted - so they would then kill each other off.
Borys
Banned
Ahoj!
I do not believe that there were Finnish units in the Russian army. Finns had to volunteer. The several hundred that did mostyl served in the Guard.
There is an article on the web - "Finnish volutneers in the Russian army in WWI."
http://acta.uta.fi/english/teos.phtml?10827
The Finland Rifle Regiments were RUSSIAN units stationed in Finnland.
Borys
I do not believe that there were Finnish units in the Russian army. Finns had to volunteer. The several hundred that did mostyl served in the Guard.
There is an article on the web - "Finnish volutneers in the Russian army in WWI."
http://acta.uta.fi/english/teos.phtml?10827
The Finland Rifle Regiments were RUSSIAN units stationed in Finnland.
Borys
Redbeard
Banned
Yes, I clearly remember the sub. incident, that was the summer when I....
There certainly wasn't any warm feelings towards Germany in Denmark then, but the sub incident must be weighed against events like mining the Baltic entrances on German request. I also know that the WWI Danish defences are usually seen as directed towards a German aggression. But if so, it would only be indirectly. By 1914 Denmark clearly was a German vassal, and it was also at least as clear that Germany could not allow any potential enemy to control Denmark. That left Denmark with basically two options, either you keep out the British yourself, or we do it for you - all nations have an army - either their own or that of another nation. In that context you could of course say that the relatively strong Danish forces of 1914-18 had keeping away Germany as their original pupose, but the primary way to do that was by deterring a British attack on Danish territory.
The core of that rested on the Danish government showing both will and ability to enforce neutrality. The basis of that was the fortification around Copenhagen and Oeresund, the partly mobilisation in 1914 and the mining of the Baltic entrances, but also allowed for showcases like the sub incident. The sub incident also had the very positive side effect of having the Danish neutrality appaear more balanced, which in the end would make it more durable, and thus in long term German interest.
That would not allow for simply joing the Central Powers for some distant reason, but a British attack on Danish territory (like Fisher's Baltic plans) would make a different situation automatically making Denmark a junior partner in Central Power Inc. Probably not enthusiasticly, and certainly not willing to get involved outside Denmark, but with the intention of pleasing Germany enough to get the promised referendum and border revision in Schleswig-Holstein after the war. IIRC the 1864 peace aggrement included some rather vague promises of a referendum eventually.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Yes, I clearly remember the sub. incident, that was the summer when I....
There certainly wasn't any warm feelings towards Germany in Denmark then, but the sub incident must be weighed against events like mining the Baltic entrances on German request. I also know that the WWI Danish defences are usually seen as directed towards a German aggression. But if so, it would only be indirectly. By 1914 Denmark clearly was a German vassal, and it was also at least as clear that Germany could not allow any potential enemy to control Denmark. That left Denmark with basically two options, either you keep out the British yourself, or we do it for you - all nations have an army - either their own or that of another nation. In that context you could of course say that the relatively strong Danish forces of 1914-18 had keeping away Germany as their original pupose, but the primary way to do that was by deterring a British attack on Danish territory.
The core of that rested on the Danish government showing both will and ability to enforce neutrality. The basis of that was the fortification around Copenhagen and Oeresund, the partly mobilisation in 1914 and the mining of the Baltic entrances, but also allowed for showcases like the sub incident. The sub incident also had the very positive side effect of having the Danish neutrality appaear more balanced, which in the end would make it more durable, and thus in long term German interest.
That would not allow for simply joing the Central Powers for some distant reason, but a British attack on Danish territory (like Fisher's Baltic plans) would make a different situation automatically making Denmark a junior partner in Central Power Inc. Probably not enthusiasticly, and certainly not willing to get involved outside Denmark, but with the intention of pleasing Germany enough to get the promised referendum and border revision in Schleswig-Holstein after the war. IIRC the 1864 peace aggrement included some rather vague promises of a referendum eventually.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
In the event of a British attack, yes the Danes would defend themselves - I don't like the term vassal, but the circumstances made that de facto.
With the result of WWI being as OTL - more or less I think we'd see a smaller Denmark until after WWII.
First , I agree that Norway would not join the Central Powers. The exception to this is if the British invaded Norway. Next the Czar's wife was not swedish but she was from a minor german state. While Germany might not need the small Swedish fleet it would be of some use in the coastal waters and insuring Central Powers control of the Baltic.
Forgot this - the Tsar's mother was Danish, Maria Feodorovna.(sorry for my bad Russian spelling) His wife was indeed German which aroused some protest among common Russians, accusing her of being a spy and the like.