Sweden joins the Crimean War

I am not saying it would be easy, or even possible, only that the Russians knew that the Neva and Düna/Daugava/Dvina river gives access to the Russian heartland and had positioned their forces accordingly, to be able to counter any move up either river - which should be taken into account in any Sweden joins the Crimean War scenario - Russia had some serious forces along the Baltic Sea coast and a much better ability to support and reinforce them compared to Sevastopol - the rivers work both way.

I repeat, invading Russia by the riverboats is impractical idea but St. Petersburg and Riga (and other cities on the coast) had been important enough on their own to provide for their adequate protection even if Sweden was not a factor.
 
invading Russia by the riverboats is impractical idea
Not "invading by". "Supporting by". Supplying an invasion force by river transport was perfectly feasible, IMO.

On enticing Sweden, I agree, it seems unlikely on its face. WI its part of a treaty package with the OE &/or the Brits? A kind of NATO defensive deal: if any member is attacked, the others assist. That would encourage Sweden into this war, & deter the Russians from revanchism against the OE or Sweden after it.
 
Not "invading by". "Supporting by". Supplying an invasion force by river transport was perfectly feasible, IMO.

On enticing Sweden, I agree, it seems unlikely on its face. WI its part of a treaty package with the OE &/or the Brits? A kind of NATO defensive deal: if any member is attacked, the others assist. That would encourage Sweden into this war, & deter the Russians from revanchism against the OE or Sweden after it.
And why does Britain want even more continental obligations? Promising a defensive deals with continental countries likely to attack/get attacked by another continental country wasn't exactly a policy Westminster had favoured, especially in the aftermath of the Crimean War. And a defensive alliance between the Ottoman Empire and Sweden would do little more than antagonise Moscow, with Russia's superior military capabilities and manpower. The object of that arrangement is obvious (they share no other common interests) and neither were able to beat Russia decisively even with the support of the other Great Powers, so they'd just be dragging each other to the grave in case of war.

Economically speaking, Sweden and the Ottoman Empire couldn't afford to fight Russia. If we consider Japan (another party that antagonised Russia), the Japanese economy was teetering from the Russo-Japanese War and they 1. had a larger population with a more developed industrial base than either and 2. won the war. Britain could fight Russia but the British public didn't like wars that wouldn't directly benefit the Empire (Russia got back most of its Crimean War concessions by 1870) and wars that went on too long (which would be any war that could do any lasting damage to Russia).
Sweden doesn't have the manpower to fight a long, drawn out war (which Russia can fight if their tactics fail) and the Ottoman Empire doesn't have a good track record against Russia. Any way you slice it, that alliance wouldn't be strong enough to actually deter the Russians, not without Prussia, which opted against fighting Russia until the 20th century.
 
Somtething that I dont Really understand:
Why was Russia able to surpress all revolutions during the 19th century but wasnt able take them down during the 20th century.
 
Economically speaking, Sweden and the Ottoman Empire couldn't afford to fight Russia. If we consider Japan (another party that antagonised Russia), the Japanese economy was teetering from the Russo-Japanese War and they 1. had a larger population with a more developed industrial base than either and 2. won the war. Britain could fight Russia but the British public didn't like wars that wouldn't directly benefit the Empire (Russia got back most of its Crimean War concessions by 1870) and wars that went on too long (which would be any war that could do any lasting damage to Russia).
Sweden doesn't have the manpower to fight a long, drawn out war (which Russia can fight if their tactics fail) and the Ottoman Empire doesn't have a good track record against Russia. Any way you slice it, that alliance wouldn't be strong enough to actually deter the Russians, not without Prussia, which opted against fighting Russia until the 20th century.

And that's why Sweden won't join. Britain can't lure Sweden into the war unless there's a grand coalition that involves Austria and Prussia too. It needs to be an epic gangbang to get the Swedes on board because they're not stupid and know which of the powers is the weakest (it's them). So Britain needs to ask Prussia what it's price is, and its going to be high because Prussia really doesn't want to see a Polish state but both Austria and France will be pushing for one in an expanded war.
 
Somtething that I dont Really understand:
Why was Russia able to surpress all revolutions during the 19th century but wasnt able take them down during the 20th century.
Tsarist regime did put down revolution of 1905 because most of the army remained loyal. In the February of 1917 the army went against the regime and in November the government was too inept to get any support.
 
Money isn't going to be the problem. Any Swedish participation would be on the same terms as Sardinia's - i.e. Britain and France pay for it.

I also don't think that comparative forces are all that relevant, as I really can't see Russia sending armies through Finland (it's own territory) to actually invade Sweden, whilst it seems scarcely imaginable to assume Sweden would do this in the opposite direction.

Sweden's value would be in naval and amphibious terms - exactly what Britain and France want, since their operations against Russia in the Baltic and White Sea are entirely focused on this. Getting Sweden onside would make more such operations feasible, and with greater likelihood of success, and Sweden's price, the Aland Islands, would be easily within Britain and France's gift in any peace.
 
Top