The Admiral Esssen POD- Effects of Sweden in the CP

Eurofed

Banned
They won't. The matter is Russian (well, Russian admiral) belligerence against Sweden, after all.

Well, Russian belligerence against Sweden would be caused by the actions of a rogue agent. It does not necessarily mean Russia is going to fare well militarily when Sweden reacts by joining the war. If Swedish cobelligerence makes the Entente look significantly weaker than the CP, Italy (and Romania) shall think that Russia, and by extension the Entente, are a bunch of aggressive fools that bite more than they can chew. The perfect recipe for opportunistically gangbanging on them.
 
Well, Russian belligerence against Sweden would be caused by the actions of a rogue agent. It does not necessarily mean Russia is going to fare well militarily when Sweden reacts by joining the war. If Swedish cobelligerence makes the Entente look significantly weaker than the CP, Italy (and Romania) shall think that Russia, and by extension the Entente, are a bunch of aggressive fools that bite more than they can chew. The perfect recipe for opportunistically gangbanging on them.
Oh, I know that, but the term 'belligerence' have connotations of being belligerent (co-belligerence is somewhat different). Which Sweden isn't really here, having been struck first (admittedly by an admiral acting on his own).
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Without USW, how do you propose Britain is countered? As said, the only problem with it was the inconsistency with which it was applied - it should either have not been employed at all, or better yet consistently without interruption. As it was, it didnt harm Britain enough and yet brought the USA on Entente side. No, I retain my position that the under-surface blockade was a valid counter to the British surface blockade. The point concerning this thread is that, sadly, the Swedish entry wont change German inconsistency concerning the submarine warfare, and there you have an anti-CP casus belli. After all, what is Sweden to the Americans? And besides, it was attacked by Russia, not Britain. Its very easy for diplomacy to arrange it so that the USA and Russia are merely co-belligerent while the USA and France/UK are allied.

Well, the point here is whether Swedish cobelligerance (and quite possibly the CP Italy and/or Romania butterflies) can make Germany see victory close enough in 1917, by accelerating the collapse of Russia (or France) that they think restarting USW is not worth the risk of US hostility. The optimal strategy for Germany, if they can win the war thanks to more support for the CP, is to avoid using USW at all, until Russia and France have collapsed and Britain stands alone (with Japan, which shall then cut its losses and make a quick compromise peace with the CP, quite possibly turning a greedy eye on Manchuria). In such a case, America shall be eager to resume normal trade with CP continental Europe, and getting increasingly impatient with the British sore losers and their blockade, if Londo doesn't throw in the towel soon. They are not going to care if Germany sinks everything floating close to the British Isles, nor going to spill their blood for a lost cause, no matter what Wilson or the pro-Entente lobbies may say or do otherwise.

If Germany follows the OTL course, America may easily do it as well, no matter how many neutral European powers side with the CP (as long as at least either France or Russia are still standing; William II is no Hitler or Stalin, America has no vested interest to fight to undo a "civilized" Kaiserreich continental hegemony in Europe, and Wilson would get his butt impeached if he argues otherwise). Entente America may keep the outcome open even if Sweden, Italy, and Romania all join for the CP.

As for Italy, as von Adler has said, Russian rerouting of divisions will put a dent in their efforts in Galicia, but not neccessarily a decsive one. It certainly could go either way.

True.
 
Last edited:
Sweden on the CP's side changes the naval balance in a small way. What are the effects of that? Germany can pull some ships out of the Baltic. Convoys between Sweden and Germany could be better protected. Would the Germans and Swedes feel confident enough to try and clear the Russian mine fields and challenge the Russian navy directly?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Oh, and another point Valdemar II had raised in an earlier Admiral Essen thread, IIRC - Denmark. If the naval situation in the Baltic Sea suddenly becomes so important (as opposed to zero importance IOTL, basically) then the Royal Navy might try to send ships there. Now, according to Valdemar Germany was in such a position vis a vis Denmark that it could order the country to close the Belts. Could thus Denmark be drawn into the war as well?

It's a matter of Entern stupidity, it's in both Denmarks, Sweden and Germanys interest that Denmark stay neutral, and it's no benefit to the Entern that Denmark entered the war on German side, while Denmark entering on Entern side would be quite beneficial for them (especially late in the war), which was why Denmark could stay neutral in OTL.

But there's a chance that UK try to make a Gallipolli on Denmark, while Denmark are better purely in land terrean for that, Denmark has also been dominated by a government a few decades in the past, which was completely focused on making Copenhagen into a enourmous fortress, and in this early airplane periode, it was quite useful fortifications. But that may not keep Churchill from pushing for a invasion anyway. So we may see Denmark enter the war because some idea of a fast endd to the war by invading through Denmark down toward North Germany, to say it mildly it would end very badly for the British.
 
The Russians had 70 infantry divisions and 24 cavalry divisions 1914. 15 divisions will put a serious dent in that, especially as many need to go to the front from the central and eastern part (11 infantry divisions are Siberian, for example) of the Empire and there's another front to feed apart from Galizia, Poland, East Prussia and the Caucasus. The Russian infrastructure will even more overtaxed to bring troops and supplies to the front.
 
Sweden on the CP's side changes the naval balance in a small way. What are the effects of that? Germany can pull some ships out of the Baltic. Convoys between Sweden and Germany could be better protected. Would the Germans and Swedes feel confident enough to try and clear the Russian mine fields and challenge the Russian navy directly?


Only in a pretty limited way, I should guess.

They may go for the Estonian islands. After all, if the German Army is in Courland and the Swedish in the Aland Is (and possibly on the Finnish mainland opposite), Osel and Dago are more or less intermediate between them, and would be a logical target. Beyond that, I don't see much point as the Russian fleet is pretty much bottled up in the Gulf of Finland anyway.
 
What? Hundreds of dead? I have studied these riots a lot, and I have never heard of these hundreds of dead. Some died, trampled by panic-stricken crowds attacked by riding police and in some food purchase riots, but the number is around 5-10, not hundreds. The only place the military intervened 1917 was at Seskarö, and there the workers yanked the rifles from the military, but no-one fired.

19-29 april 1917 there were large demonstrations in Borlänge, Hagfors, Hofors, Linköping, Skara, Eksjö, Norrköping, Västerås, Åmål, Arvika, Döderhult, Enköping, Falun, Gävle, Göteborg, Helsingborg, Härnösand, Hässleholm, Katrineholm, Norrköping, Nässjö, Stockholm, Sundsvall, Eskilstuna, Falun, Göteborg, Halmstad, Hedemora, Jönköping, Katrineholm, Kolsva, Kungsör, Linköping, Oskarshamn, Söderhamn, Tranås, Växjö, Åby, Anneberg, Falköping, Gudmundrå, Hudiksvall, Huskvarna, Lidköping, Mora, Motala, Nyköping, Sundbyberg, Trelleborg, Uppsala, Vetlanda, Värnamo, Borås, Filipstad, Flen, Gävle, Hudiksvall, Göteborg, Kramfors, Ludvika, Lund, Malmö, Mjölby, Munkfors, Nora, Oxelösund, Södertälje, Torshälla, Trollhättan, Åtvidaberg, Örebro, Bomhus, Filipstad, Morgongåva, Mölndal, Västerås, Ystad, Ådalen, Alvesta, Avesta, Eslöv, Göteborg, Stockholm, Ådalen, Arboga, Härnösand, Karlstad, Katrineholm, Kramfors, Landskrona, Lomma, Mariestad, Skutskär, Smedjebacken, Tidaholm, Uddevalla, Viskafors, Bollnäs, Forsbacka, Lindesberg, Mönsterås, Nässjö, Sävsjö,Västerås. Many of these also had runs at bread stores, food storages and flour mills.

This protesting continued on and off until may 1 1917 when seksarö hapend that coold it all off. During all this time SAP lost control of the situation and the syndicalist held the rallies.

Both Svenbjörn Kilander in cencur och propaganda (1981) and Nils-Olof Franzen in I sverige under första världskriget (2001) and Sigurd Klockare in svenska revoultuonen (1961) don't give any numbers but refers dead. Hans Nyström in Hungersupproret 1917 (1994) and Anders Lif in 1917 - En berättelse om Sigfrid Edström, Asea, Västerås och revolutionen (2004) writes there were killings of looters but not how many. So I can't find any source to back up my claim in short notice.

In at least Västerås, Örebro, Nora and Eskilstuna there were dead bread looters. Reported as syndicalist agitators. This I know because of protest against the decision to not allow the monuments in memory of them. Its form this debate I draw the figure of hundreds. The number that figured in the debate about monument and that were confirmed by Thorsten Nybom (historian at Örebro University I think) were not exact and I don't know their source.

I might have fallen to believe modern political agitation about past events.
 
Virtually all major socialist parties in Europe made political armistices with their respective governments in WW1, so as to not sabotage the own nation. Would the Swedish socialists really be different from that? Would not be a Burgfrieden like in Germany be more realistic? Of course, should the CP even with Sweden on board still lose, then in a further analogy there might then well be a revolution in Sweden. But that would be the war, or at least when the war seems lost already - IF it comes to that.

The Swedish parties actually did this IOTL during the time period, despite Sweden not being in WW1. We did the same in WW2. We call it a samlingsregering. If that's our response to everyone around us going to war then it's probably what we would do if we ourselves were to join in as well.

Sammlungsregierung, I take it? :D So a Coalition of National Unity? Well, thats a bit more than the German "Castle Peace", even...

Yeah, a cooperative party government. It is a bit more excessive than what the Germans parties did in WW1, but it's the same general principle: "We are in a huge crisis. We can't afford to bicker about ideology, or we will be destroyed."

From what I can find, it is not entirely correct - during the Great War, it was merely ''Castle Peace'', though one in which the Prime Minister talked a lot with the Riksdag party leaders (a sort of unofficial national unity, I suppose). It was done in '05 and '39-'45, though.
Hm, I wonder how Otto Järte's and Yngve Larsson's careers would develop without them being excluded from SAP (in OTL, they were excluded for having helped written an essay urging entry on Germany's side, in 1915. Obviously, that won't happen if Sweden already is at war alongside Germany)?
We might, I suppose, see an early break-out of radicals from the SAP, with the SAP-less-proto-Communists entering a CNU of every Riksdag party but the radical left afterwards.

Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (1862-1953) or Hungerskjöld were not a coalition leader of socialists, Liberals and Conservative. He got to power after borggårdskrisen early 1914 as a compromise between several different conservative and Liberal leaders. Before the war. He ruled until 1917 when he was forced to resign by the hunger protests. No socialists were allowed in the cabinet, or wanted to participate. No national unity in Sweden only borgensfrid.
 
The Russians had 70 infantry divisions and 24 cavalry divisions 1914. 15 divisions will put a serious dent in that, especially as many need to go to the front from the central and eastern part (11 infantry divisions are Siberian, for example) of the Empire and there's another front to feed apart from Galizia, Poland, East Prussia and the Caucasus. The Russian infrastructure will even more overtaxed to bring troops and supplies to the front.

A Finnish front brings with it also a sort of compound effect: IOTL, Finland was used as a safe area for rest and refit. Broken and tired units were brought to Finland from the front and reconstituted into new formations. During wartime Finns saw constantly Russian soldiers on the move inside Finland because of this. Even so, the quality of the units was gradually declining as the war taxed the Russian armies.

Now with Finland as an active front, this "upkeep" must take place somewhere else, further from the capital. Or it doesn't happen at all, in the same sense. Either way, the cost of a Finnish front could be well a lot bigger than just the absense of n amount of troops from othere fronts.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
A smart things the CP can do if a Finnish front is created is to outright promise Finnish independence. That would surely ensure that the invaders are treated as liberators by the locals and not occupiers. Could also trigger some small inconveniences for the Russkies if some Finnish officers and soldiers defect to the Central powers (there weren't that many Finns in the Russian Army, so it would never be a that serious issue). Another point is the Jägers, Finns in the German army (secretly went to Germany before WW1 to recieve military training, so they could lead a revolt when they return), it would be wise for the Germans to send them back to Finland, if part of the invading force is Finns it would do much to convince people that the Central Powers really support Finnish independence.
 
A smart things the CP can do if a Finnish front is created is to outright promise Finnish independence. That would surely ensure that the invaders are treated as liberators by the locals and not occupiers.

Especially if the Russians use the sort of "scorched earth" tactics that they did in Poland. I understand the destruction they engaged in befiore withdrawing was a bit of a wake up call to many Poles who had been rash enough to take the Grand Duke's Proclamation seriously. It did not, of course, rally then to the German side in any big way, but, given that the Finns were not estranged from Germany in the way the Poles were, there could be a sizeable Finnish rally to the CP cause.
 
Especially if the Russians use the sort of "scorched earth" tactics that they did in Poland. I understand the destruction they engaged in befiore withdrawing was a bit of a wake up call to many Poles who had been rash enough to take the Grand Duke's Proclamation seriously. It did not, of course, rally then to the German side in any big way, but, given that the Finns were not estranged from Germany in the way the Poles were, there could be a sizeable Finnish rally to the CP cause.

Especially with Sweden in the CP. There was not a lot of love between the Swedes and the Finns at this point, but Finland had more in common with Sweden than Russia and most Finnish people spoke (and still speak) Swedish as first or second language. They would not be for annexation by Sweden, but they'd be more than happy to take Swedish help in achieving independence.
 
19-29 april 1917 there were large demonstrations in Borlänge, Hagfors, Hofors, Linköping, Skara, Eksjö, Norrköping, Västerås, Åmål, Arvika, Döderhult, Enköping, Falun, Gävle, Göteborg, Helsingborg, Härnösand, Hässleholm, Katrineholm, Norrköping, Nässjö, Stockholm, Sundsvall, Eskilstuna, Falun, Göteborg, Halmstad, Hedemora, Jönköping, Katrineholm, Kolsva, Kungsör, Linköping, Oskarshamn, Söderhamn, Tranås, Växjö, Åby, Anneberg, Falköping, Gudmundrå, Hudiksvall, Huskvarna, Lidköping, Mora, Motala, Nyköping, Sundbyberg, Trelleborg, Uppsala, Vetlanda, Värnamo, Borås, Filipstad, Flen, Gävle, Hudiksvall, Göteborg, Kramfors, Ludvika, Lund, Malmö, Mjölby, Munkfors, Nora, Oxelösund, Södertälje, Torshälla, Trollhättan, Åtvidaberg, Örebro, Bomhus, Filipstad, Morgongåva, Mölndal, Västerås, Ystad, Ådalen, Alvesta, Avesta, Eslöv, Göteborg, Stockholm, Ådalen, Arboga, Härnösand, Karlstad, Katrineholm, Kramfors, Landskrona, Lomma, Mariestad, Skutskär, Smedjebacken, Tidaholm, Uddevalla, Viskafors, Bollnäs, Forsbacka, Lindesberg, Mönsterås, Nässjö, Sävsjö,Västerås. Many of these also had runs at bread stores, food storages and flour mills.

This protesting continued on and off until may 1 1917 when seksarö hapend that coold it all off. During all this time SAP lost control of the situation and the syndicalist held the rallies.

Both Svenbjörn Kilander in cencur och propaganda (1981) and Nils-Olof Franzen in I sverige under första världskriget (2001) and Sigurd Klockare in svenska revoultuonen (1961) don't give any numbers but refers dead. Hans Nyström in Hungersupproret 1917 (1994) and Anders Lif in 1917 - En berättelse om Sigfrid Edström, Asea, Västerås och revolutionen (2004) writes there were killings of looters but not how many. So I can't find any source to back up my claim in short notice.

In at least Västerås, Örebro, Nora and Eskilstuna there were dead bread looters. Reported as syndicalist agitators. This I know because of protest against the decision to not allow the monuments in memory of them. Its form this debate I draw the figure of hundreds. The number that figured in the debate about monument and that were confirmed by Thorsten Nybom (historian at Örebro University I think) were not exact and I don't know their source.

I might have fallen to believe modern political agitation about past events.

The absolute majority of those locations had tense, but peaceful demonstrations and strikes, not riots. The social democrats mostly retained control of the situation despite splintering over the issue - the leftwing socialists who wantes to use the sentiments for radical changes and get a revolution if they did not get it and the social democrats who focused on the election Autumn 1917 and universal suffrage and parliamentarism.

There's plenty of monuments over the issue in many cities, for example in Göteborg.

But things should be right - nowhere but Seskarö did the military intervene and there was no firing on any demonstrators or rioters. At Gustav Adolfs torg the police used sabres and whips in a very brutal attempt to disperse the crowd faster than it could move, but the number of deaths were very low and most of the actions were very peaceful. I have checked my books and on the net, and not even on syndicalist pages do they put forward any martyrs. If you cannot provide a source I will have to continue to be of the opinion that the deaths were very low and accidental.
 
The absolute majority of those locations had tense, but peaceful demonstrations and strikes, not riots. The social democrats mostly retained control of the situation despite splintering over the issue - the leftwing socialists who wantes to use the sentiments for radical changes and get a revolution if they did not get it and the social democrats who focused on the election Autumn 1917 and universal suffrage and parliamentarism.

There's plenty of monuments over the issue in many cities, for example in Göteborg.

But things should be right - nowhere but Seskarö did the military intervene and there was no firing on any demonstrators or rioters. At Gustav Adolfs torg the police used sabres and whips in a very brutal attempt to disperse the crowd faster than it could move, but the number of deaths were very low and most of the actions were very peaceful. I have checked my books and on the net, and not even on syndicalist pages do they put forward any martyrs. If you cannot provide a source I will have to continue to be of the opinion that the deaths were very low and accidental.

No I have changed my opinion and find myself proven that there were no large scale riots whit deaths in Sweden in this period. Thank you for challenging my remark so I did begin to read about this in earnest.
 

Susano

Banned
It's a matter of Entern stupidity, it's in both Denmarks, Sweden and Germanys interest that Denmark stay neutral, and it's no benefit to the Entern that Denmark entered the war on German side, while Denmark entering on Entern side would be quite beneficial for them (especially late in the war), which was why Denmark could stay neutral in OTL.

But there's a chance that UK try to make a Gallipolli on Denmark, while Denmark are better purely in land terrean for that, Denmark has also been dominated by a government a few decades in the past, which was completely focused on making Copenhagen into a enourmous fortress, and in this early airplane periode, it was quite useful fortifications. But that may not keep Churchill from pushing for a invasion anyway. So we may see Denmark enter the war because some idea of a fast endd to the war by invading through Denmark down toward North Germany, to say it mildly it would end very badly for the British.

Well, lets keep the ball low. What would happen if the RN were to try to transfer ships to the Baltic Sea? Would Denmark close the Belt Straits at a German request for it? And if so, would the UK accept that?
 
Well, lets keep the ball low. What would happen if the RN were to try to transfer ships to the Baltic Sea? Would Denmark close the Belt Straits at a German request for it? And if so, would the UK accept that?


If the Germans are half as good with mines as the Russians were, it is probably academic. The Turks were able to keep the Dardanelles closed with far fewer than their German ally must have had.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Well, lets keep the ball low. What would happen if the RN were to try to transfer ships to the Baltic Sea? Would Denmark close the Belt Straits at a German request for it? And if so, would the UK accept that?

Denmark had mined the belt from the start of the war, and I really doubt that Britain would send a fleet into the Baltic no matter what. It would either leave UK undefended or only be a fleet of a size which the German fleet could defeat. But if they was insane enough to do it, Germany (whether it won or lost the war) are a bigger threat to Denmark than Britain was, so yes Denmark likely would.
 
Last edited:
Well, like i say before... when i was in vacation, nobody comment here.. start my university and the debated started:)mad: :D)

Well, some interesting about the Denmark Scenario(who i think, Denmark will be keep as historical... an neutral Germany Vassal), if the british(more with Churchill at head) try to de the more 'umpausable than sealion' Operation Walrus(the Gallipolli in the Baltic)... we gonna see a Denmark at the bad(like Sweden) being attacked and joining the CP(the Virgin Islands will be a bad point... because they were sold to Usa in 1917.. An the operations will be in 1915(Eurofed take note of some shocks between Usa and the Entente), that leave us a very big and important butterfly....

Norway was discussed... the best for them is An Neutral Entente Vassal(was poor the destiny of the Scandinavian nations), maybe make a partial blockade of Sweden(aka no trade) under British Bayonet....

Italy.... is the Wild Card by the butterflies.... 1)if the Austians thanks to the Sweden Start to fare better(less presure for the russians) and as Eurofed always talk to us.. give the few lands with italian(Trento and a that little city near to Trieste) and the promise of the French Boot... that means a CP Italy.. with the advantage of the Italian of Eurofed always 'reveal' to us(here we gonna se a Decisive or Victory of the CP for 1917 at least.. even with some Restricted Submarine warfere.. but submarine warfare will be). 2) Italy is not bride and Austria is in Better Position.. an Neutral Pro Entente Italy(really, Britain dominated the Economy of Italy so much as germany), ·) OTL Austria in 1915(but with less presure thanks to Sweden).. Again the Italians will want their irredentia... but the front with austria will be worse than historical(the butterflies)...

I will throw a dice for italy.. but is more realistic are the #2 and #3.. IHMO with the attack to Sweden few nation want to be neutral... but again is the better options...

I have several details of Sweden(who i need) i need of russian and some german officer who will help Sweden....

Thanks for the comment... keep talking

Att
Nivek von Beldo
 
Top