What happens if the Allies help Finland in 1939-40?

I'm not sure whether this has ever been done before. A search didn't turn up anything, so here's a question that has absorbed me for a while now...

On 1 Sept. 1939 Germany invades Poland, in which it is joined on 17 Sept. by the USSR. The UK & France declare war vs Germany, but they do nothing about the USSR. In fact, aside from declaring war they don't really do anything about Germany either.

On 30 Nov. 1939 the USSR invades Finland. On 13 March 1940 Finland sues for peace, yielding 11% of its pre-war territory & 30% of its economic assets to the USSR.

On 9 April, fearing for the security of its shipments of iron ore fron Sweden thru the northern Norwegian port of Narvik, Germany invades Denmark & Norway.

...but, up until Finland sued for peace the UK & France were planning to send troops to land at Narvik, cut off the supply of Swedish iron ore, occupy the Swedish iron-mining districts, & provide military help to the Finns.

So let's say that the UK & France are a little more pro-active. In OTL the League of Nations deemed the Soviet attack illegal & expelled the USSR on 14 Dec. Despite the constraints of a severe northern winter, Anglo-French forces begin immediately planning to land at Narvik, & they arrive by the end of the month. They then occupy the Swedish iron-mining districts & deploy by airlift from Narvik to Helsinki.

The USSR didn't break thru the Mannerheim Line 'til 15 Feb. (the decisive 2d Battle of Summa). Under these conditions Anglo-French forces would be in position at least a month before then-- let's say just a division apiece with a little corps-level support. The UK & France then warn the USSR that any attack on the Mannerheim Line will now be construed as an act of war, but of course the USSR doesn't listen.

...so now the UK & France are at war with the USSR.

Conceivably Norway might accept Anglo-French troops at Narvik as a guarantee against German intervention, as long as the UK & France leave the rest of Norway alone-- which they're willing to do. Sweden, though, I think would declare war & seek an alliance with Germany. Germany has to send troops anyway to regain control of the Swedish iron-mining districts, so this works to the advantage of both.

With Germany's Swedish shipments of iron ore now cut off, the Reich has to scramble to find new sources. By 1971 the world's largest producer of iron ore was the USSR, so presumably that's their source. Now Germany & the USSR are united by a pretty strong tie, & they're both at war with the UK & France.

Finland, of course, gets screwed pretty bad. I see Finland ending up either as a Soviet colony, or maybe partitioned between Germany & the USSR if Germany can get troops up there fast enough. Hitler was greedy that way.

Opposed by Swedish, Germany, & Soviet forces, I have my doubts that the UK & France can put enough forces into northern Sweden & Norway to win. The terrain favors the defense, so maybe they can hold on for a year or so, but in the long run...?

In 1940 do the UK & France invade Germany? And how does the Wehrmacht perform, fighting a defensive war on German soil? Given the Anglo-French problems experienced in 1940 in OTL I'm not optimistic about their chances.

Mussolini would arguably still have invaded Greece, & Yugoslavia still would have an anti-Nazi coup d'etat in early '41, so the Balkans operation still has to be fought. But with German losses in Scandinavia & in the defensive battles along the Rhein, even if the Wehrmacht is successful in a counter-invasion of France in late '40 or early '41, it's very doubtful that Barbarossa can proceed on schedule.

...and what are the long-term implications for German-Soviet relations? Given that Hitler hates their guts & is panting for his chance to invade, does he hold off 'til '42? By that time the Wehrmacht has seen the T-34 tank & they know their tank industry is 'way behind that of the USSR, so really he's gotta wait 'til '43 or even '44. By this time the Soviets have completely recovered from the Purge of 1937, & the Germans are much better-informed about Soviet strengths.

IMHO, Barbarossa in '43 or '44 is not only suicide-- it would be seen as suicide. Does Hitler accept this & choose a different path or does he push forward-- & if he does then can the military high command replace him?
Thegn.
 
I've said it before, but in my opinion this is most likely the best bet for Nazi Germany to not only survive the Second World War but to get something resembling victory. Although ironically it will be reliant on the very power Hitler hoped to eradicate.
 
Thegn said:
So let's say that the UK & France are a little more pro-active. In OTL the League of Nations deemed the Soviet attack illegal & expelled the USSR on 14 Dec. Despite the constraints of a severe northern winter, Anglo-French forces begin immediately planning to land at Narvik, & they arrive by the end of the month. They then occupy the Swedish iron-mining districts & deploy by airlift from Narvik to Helsinki.

The USSR didn't break thru the Mannerheim Line 'til 15 Feb. (the decisive 2d Battle of Summa). Under these conditions Anglo-French forces would be in position at least a month before then-- let's say just a division apiece with a little corps-level support. The UK & France then warn the USSR that any attack on the Mannerheim Line will now be construed as an act of war, but of course the USSR doesn't listen.

...so now the UK & France are at war with the USSR.

IOTL, the problem was diplomacy and logistics. At this point, the Anglo-French help for Finland was dependent on Finland actively openly asking for assistance. A Finnish plea for help, on the other hand, was conditional for both Oslo and Stockholm accepting to let the Allied troops use their territory. And the Swedish government, for its own part, doggedly refused even with the Anglo-French leaning on it heavily.

Finland was in trouble fighting the Soviets as it was. It had very little to gain from Sweden going to war against the Allies over its northern railways and iron ore mines. As long as Sweden does not budge politically or is fighting against an invader, its transport network can not be used for the Finnish advantage and it is highly unlikely any Allied troops sent through Narvik, say, could reach Finland in time to stop or even slow down the Soviet attack. And before someone brings it up, Petsamo was really not an option for sending significant amounts of troops or supplies.

There is also Stalin to think of. As I keep repeating time and time again when this issue comes up, he really did not want war against the Allies in this timeframe. Not over something as trivial as Finland. Even IOTL the threat of Allied intervention was one of the main reasons he finally accepted the Moscow Peace with Finland with just (to him) minor border corrections when he knew the Red Army could have steamrolled the Finns if given, say, a month more.


Thegn said:
Finland, of course, gets screwed pretty bad. I see Finland ending up either as a Soviet colony, or maybe partitioned between Germany & the USSR if Germany can get troops up there fast enough. Hitler was greedy that way.

Yes, that is the reason Finland made peace with the Soviets as soon as it could while keeping its independence at least. The only reason it would have fought on would have been actual guarantees of ground troops in a matter of weeks, several divisions of them. Anything less, and it might make even a more costly peace than IOTL if it means avoiding occupation. And if a serious Western intervention is in the cards, Stalin would have all the reasons for making a peace, in most TLs IMHO.
 
IOTL, the problem was diplomacy and logistics. ...A Finnish plea for help...was conditional for both Oslo and Stockholm accepting to let the Allied troops use their territory. And the Swedish government, for its own part, doggedly refused even with the Anglo-French leaning on it heavily.
My readings clearly indicate that the UK & France were seriously considering going in without either Norwegian or Swedish consent. Plan R-4 in its final form, although it came right on the very eve of Nazi intervention, certainly didn't require either Norwegian or Swedish approval. Even Operation Pike, the strategic bombing of the USSR, would have placed the UK & France at war with the Soviets & would have vastly complicated a later alliance.

...or try this. The UK & France do Plan R-4 a couple months early, before Germany is ready, so Hitler decides to intervene as a Soviet ally. I know-- you're all gonna say he hated the Russians 'way too much to ever do that, but if it hadn't happened in OTL then we'd all be saying he hated 'em 'way too much to ever approve the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

...it is highly unlikely any Allied troops sent through Narvik, say, could reach Finland in time...
So don't use the Swedish rail lines, except to reach & occupy the iron-mining districts-- & I mention that only because the UK & the French were thinking it. To deploy into Finland, like I said, do it by air.

There is also Stalin to think of. ...he really did not want war against the Allies in this timeframe. ...Even IOTL the threat of Allied intervention was one of the main reasons he finally accepted the Moscow Peace with Finland...
Granted, but I don't see how that matters. We're not talking here about what Stalin wants or his priorities. The point is what the UK & France could have done, & then Stalin is faced with a fait accompli. Would he have backed down & allowed his army to be further humiliated by being told what to do by the UK & France? I think not.

The only reason it would have fought on would have been actual guarantees of ground troops in a matter of weeks, several divisions of them.
You're talking about late in the war, after the Mannerheim Line had been broken & it was basically all over but the crying. My question is what happens if the UK & the French actually decide the USSR & Germany are acting like allies, so let's treat 'em that way. Secret protocols to public treaties were common back then. So the UK & France decide that the USSR & Germany have gotta have a secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that makes 'em allies, & it's better to fight 'em in northern Sweden & Finland than to do it in France. So they're a lot more pushy a lot earlier about Norwegian & Swedish permission, & when they don't get it they go in anyway.

...if a serious Western intervention is in the cards, Stalin would have all the reasons for making a peace, in most TLs IMHO.
Obviously that's what you think would happen in a late Anglo-French intervention, but is that what you think would happen in an early one?

In a late intervention Stalin had already achieved pretty much what he'd set out to do, or at least as much as he was going to, & he'd been pretty embarrassed doing it. Best to get out with whatever he had left of his dignity intact.

In an early intervention-- the one I've proposed here-- none of that has happened yet. The embarrassment won't come from the heroic defense of the outnumbered Finns, but from submitting to Anglo-French dictates before the Red Army has shown its weakness.
Thegn.
 
I'm not sure why the League of Nations condemning the Soviet attack on Finland is a possible initiator for two other League members (Britain, France) to launch military actions against two neutral countries.:confused:

What might be possible is an expanded Operation Wilfred to provoke a German intervention in Norway. If this can be done in December 1939 and it provokes an even less well planned intervention by Germany it is possible that the Norwegian part of the plan is successful.

With Norway under attack by the Axis but likely to resist complete German ocupation with the aid of Anglo-French forces, Sweden then has a difficult choice. It can sit out the war exporting ore to the Allies (which would probably provoke a german intervention in Sweden) or it could accept the British and French offer of "assistance" in protecting the ore fields (which would probably provoke a German intervention in Sweden) or it could side with the Germans and attack Norway.

Somehow I can't see Sweden doing the third option - it would have zero chance of preventing the mines from being seriously damaged by the Allies who could overwhelm the Swedish forces relatively quickly even if the Germans provided assistance.

So a successful Operation Wilfred probably ends up with Norway and Sweden both fighting against the Germans. This may be good for the Allies and bad for the Axis but doesn't help the Finns at all as the troops earmarked for the Mannerheim line are needed in Northern Norway and Sweden
 
Stalin was cautious and was counting in Germany going to war against France and the UK while the USSR grew. So I think he might have swallowed the national pride and would have agreed to a cease fire with Finland in the event of an early Allied intervention.
With Finland agreeing to peace with the USSR, the French and British can't really intervene any more in the Finnish Soviet border. But, they would still be entrenched in northern Sweden and Germany won't be able to purchase Swedish iron ore.

The Swedish and Norwegian manage to hold the Allied forces due logistics, weather and terrain while Germany invades France more or less in schedule and the British have to retreat to defend the home isles?
 
Unless the phony war goes different France will still Fall and the Nazi's will still stab their ally in the back. The war in effect becomes a three way battle for Europe. The allies will likely try and bomb the Caucasus oil fields, which may have some impact on the Hitler's and Stalin's war effort.
 
My readings clearly indicate that the UK & France were seriously considering going in without either Norwegian or Swedish consent. Plan R-4 in its final form, although it came right on the very eve of Nazi intervention, certainly didn't require either Norwegian or Swedish approval. Even Operation Pike, the strategic bombing of the USSR, would have placed the UK & France at war with the Soviets & would have vastly complicated a later alliance.

...or try this. The UK & France do Plan R-4 a couple months early, before Germany is ready, so Hitler decides to intervene as a Soviet ally. I know-- you're all gonna say he hated the Russians 'way too much to ever do that, but if it hadn't happened in OTL then we'd all be saying he hated 'em 'way too much to ever approve the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Well, in my view it was a question of evolving attitudes and plans being created and revised during a period of time. It is easy to say that plans could be "pushed back two months", for example, when in the event they were the result of those exact conditions that transpired. To clarify: I think the Anglo-French respected Norwegian and Swedish neutrality much more in, say, November 1939 than they did in February 1940. Let us remember that at the end of 1939, the whole WWII business had been going on just for a few months.

During OTL Winter War it is clear the Anglo-French put big stock in an official Finnish plea for help. That would be their excuse for butting into the Nordic theatre in the first place. Without it, an intervention into neutral Norway and Sweden would be a cynical land grab. A nasty precedent for remaining European neutrals and something that might well affect the popular opinion in the US, for example. German propagandists would have had a field day.

So, what was realized as Plan R 4 was a direct result of going the way of arguing for an intervention that Finland would have asked for and which Norway and Sweden would have condoned, being frustrated in that pursuit and then, as the war and the conditions escalated, the Altmark incident and all, going it alone without Norwegian permission.


So don't use the Swedish rail lines, except to reach & occupy the iron-mining districts-- & I mention that only because the UK & the French were thinking it. To deploy into Finland, like I said, do it by air.

Airlift is problematic, because that would only be feasible for the troops and light weapons. A lot of materiel that was absolutely needed and which the Finns sorely lacked could only be brought via rail or by ship. All heavier weapons, vehicles, etc. What kind a schedule are you thinking of, BTW, and by which aircraft, for frex a British infantry division? I don't think airlift was really in the cards IOTL, but I might be misremembering. I'll have to check what Jakobson et al. have to say about the whole project when I get home to my books tonight.


Granted, but I don't see how that matters. We're not talking here about what Stalin wants or his priorities. The point is what the UK & France could have done, & then Stalin is faced with a fait accompli. Would he have backed down & allowed his army to be further humiliated by being told what to do by the UK & France? I think not.

The intervention is a project that takes time, and I stand behind my view that still in late 1939 or in the very beginning of 1940 a lot bigger importance than in the spring of 1940 would be attached to getting the political ducks in a row before going kicking the door in, willy-nilly.

Because of this, I think Stalin would get a whiff of the plan well before Allied troops are physically fighting shoulder to shoulder with Finnish soldiers. Even before boots hit the ground in Norway, possibly.

It is a good question, though, what Stalin would do if the conditions didn't seem to allow him his "pound of flesh". Perhaps gamble the whole campaign on massive a last minute attack to make the Finns negotiate a peace before the Allies really have arrived on the scene?


You're talking about late in the war, after the Mannerheim Line had been broken & it was basically all over but the crying. My question is what happens if the UK & the French actually decide the USSR & Germany are acting like allies, so let's treat 'em that way. Secret protocols to public treaties were common back then. So the UK & France decide that the USSR & Germany have gotta have a secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that makes 'em allies, & it's better to fight 'em in northern Sweden & Finland than to do it in France. So they're a lot more pushy a lot earlier about Norwegian & Swedish permission, & when they don't get it they go in anyway.

Would you have an exact POD in mind for this kind of a sea-change? Did or could they have some concrete intel that would point into this direction?

Anyway, for the Finns the war was always going to be a losing affair. I remember that even Mannerheim thought that the Finnish troops would last only weeks at best if they had to fight alone, and that is why he would have accepted many of the Soviet demands in 1939 when most of the parliament (and the public opinion) wouldn't. So what ever time after the actual breakout of hostilities the possibility of a Allied intervention comes up, the Finnish government will most likely expect that they would need reinforcements in weeks, not after a month or more. And it is highly unlikely that the Allies would have the plans and the mindset to kick off the actual troop transfers before late December, for example.


Obviously that's what you think would happen in a late Anglo-French intervention, but is that what you think would happen in an early one?

In a late intervention Stalin had already achieved pretty much what he'd set out to do, or at least as much as he was going to, & he'd been pretty embarrassed doing it. Best to get out with whatever he had left of his dignity intact.

In an early intervention-- the one I've proposed here-- none of that has happened yet. The embarrassment won't come from the heroic defense of the outnumbered Finns, but from submitting to Anglo-French dictates before the Red Army has shown its weakness.
Thegn.

IOTL, Stalin achieved nothing like what he set out to do. But the results of the eventual peace were spun out like that anyway for face-saving purposes. (Rather succesfully, too, given people still think Stalin didn't really want more than a bit of buffer territory outside Leningrad.) I expect the same would be done here, even though it would be harder and more transparent. If Stalin gets an advance warning of the impending Allied intervention, and that is very likely, in my opinion he will rather find a way to extricate the USSR out of the situation as fast as possible than risk a shooting war with the Allies. Losing some face is still a smaller evil. So use a last minute attack to get any concessions from the Finns, any at all the Soviet press can spin, and then blame the whole mess on some underlings that can be publicly shamed and sent to the camps or executed. For clearly the mighty Red Army was betrayed from the inside, how ever could the feeble Finns manage this kind of a defence? Only now has Stalin seen how deep this betrayal goes! Clearly a purge of the traitors is in order! Etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why the League of Nations condemning the Soviet attack on Finland is a possible initiator for two other League members (Britain, France) to launch military actions against two neutral countries.
Well, that's essentially what happened IOTL, only Germany got there 1st. The point of this question is, what happens if the UK & France get there 1st?

What might be possible is an expanded Operation Wilfred... Sweden then has a difficult choice. It can sit out the war exporting ore to the Allies...or it could accept the British and French offer of "assistance"...or it could side with the Germans and attack Norway. Somehow I can't see Sweden doing the third option...
Of course, the Norwegians were worried about a possible Swedish invasion, which is why they built the Hegra fortress & other border fortifications. Personally I think that by the 20th Century the Swedes were a little more peaceful than that.

...it would have zero chance of preventing the mines from being seriously damaged by the Allies ...
I'd argue that the mines were just as much a target whether Sweden was neutral or an Axis partner. Either way they were sustaining the war effort, & the UK proved over & over that neutrality meant absolutely nothing to them. They violated Norwegian neutrality in the Altmark affair, & they actually attacked the warships & shore installations of a recent ally at Mers el-Khebir & Dakar. Egypt was declared independent in 1922, but UK troops remained despite an official policy of neutrality on the part of the Egyptian gov't., & of course the UK invaded neutral Iraq & neutral Iran. Had the UK thought it was do-able & to their advantage, then I'm confident they'd have bombed &/or occupied the Swedish iron mines. Neutrality certainly didn't stop 'em.
Thegn.
 
Well, that's essentially what happened IOTL, only Germany got there 1st. The point of this question is, what happens if the UK & France get there 1st?


Of course, the Norwegians were worried about a possible Swedish invasion, which is why they built the Hegra fortress & other border fortifications. Personally I think that by the 20th Century the Swedes were a little more peaceful than that.


I'd argue that the mines were just as much a target whether Sweden was neutral or an Axis partner. Either way they were sustaining the war effort, & the UK proved over & over that neutrality meant absolutely nothing to them. They violated Norwegian neutrality in the Altmark affair, & they actually attacked the warships & shore installations of a recent ally at Mers el-Khebir & Dakar. Egypt was declared independent in 1922, but UK troops remained despite an official policy of neutrality on the part of the Egyptian gov't., & of course the UK invaded neutral Iraq & neutral Iran. Had the UK thought it was do-able & to their advantage, then I'm confident they'd have bombed &/or occupied the Swedish iron mines. Neutrality certainly didn't stop 'em.
Thegn.

Britain and France don't need to invade Sweden if they control the ports in Norway. So if the maskirovka of Operation Wilfred works and Norway is co-beligerant against Germany then Sweden is screwed.

I'm not sure what the rant about British respect for neutrality was about? I never questioned that Britain would do what was in her best interest. My point was that if she held the ports she wouldn't need to attack Sweden not that her morals would prevent her from doing so.
 
Would you have an exact POD in mind for this kind of a sea-change?
The POD would pretty much have to be 30 Nov. And that's pretty much to the point, because to my mind what you're questioning is really the POD. On that score I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but that isn't the point. The question is, if the UK & France had been more pro-active-- possibly out of a need to disrupt what they saw as a German-Soviet alliance or a need to fight the enemy in northern Scandinavia rather than in France-- then what consequences might this have produced?

IOTL, Stalin achieved nothing like what he set out to do.
I know. But that wasn't the point of my statement. What I was trying to say is that in a late intervention scenario he'd already gotten embarrassed by the ineptitude of his army, & he'd gotten pretty much everything he was gonna get, so his reactions would have been very different than in an early intervention scenario.
Thegn.
 
Britain and France don't need to invade Sweden if they control the ports in Norway.
That's perfectly true. I'm not sure why they thought they did, unless there was an alternate rail route to a Swedish port on the Baltic that I don't know about. But in fact that was an Anglo-French proposal, not mine.

I'm not sure what the rant about British respect for neutrality was about?
It wasn't mean to be a rant, & I'm sorry if it came across that way. But I tend to think in logical terms, & I've learned on this board to give valid reasons for anything I say. Especially if it might remotely be construed as pro-Axis or anti-Allies.
Thegn.
 
I've commented on similar scenarios before (just because I like seeing the closest thing to a just war that I can think of made even more just by including Stalin on the Axis side). I think to make the story work, there almost need to be two different PODs. The Swedes have to be willing to save their Scandinavian brethren and the Anglo-French have to get their plans in motion without dithering. A Sweden expert might be able to tell us if there is a different PM or coalition available who would have been willing to step in.
 
could "volunteers" from UK & France done the tirck?

Sweden & Norway both acted as though they would (or al least as though they might) fight to keep Allied troops from landing at Narvik and crossing into Sweden to occupy the mines while pretending to be helping the Finns

But both "neutral" countries allowed their own citizens to travel to Finland to fight. Sweden also transfered weapons to the Finns. Other countries sent arms, which I think must have traveled across these neutral countries, and volunteers from many countries also headed to Finland

Suppose during Dec 1939 several hundred healthy looking young Brits (or are they Americans ? they say they're Americans) arrrived in Norwegian ports, and several huindred sturdy looking Frenchman ("No, I'm Belgian- and he's Swiss") as well. They are all in civilian clothes. Some are there to ski. Others are traveling salesman. Some are relief workers eager to help the Finns . Wouldn't they be allowed to travel on to Finland?

Then in Jan 1940 several thousand such young "civilians" make their way from Britain & France to Finland. More in February, etc

Wouldn't Allied or neutral flag merchant ships be allowed into Scandinavian ports to unload crates that were marked as "sewing machines" or "tractor parts" for transhipment to Finland? Would the customs inspectors necessarily look inside to see what was really in there?

Couldn't sympathy for Finland lead the 2 neutral governments to allow a much larger quantity of munitions to get thru to Finland than were actually received there OTL? And enough Allied "volunteers" to cause Stalin considerable heart burn?

Mussolini was also trying to get Italian arms & volunteers to Finland in this time frame. He seems to have been a great one for leaping into other people s battles. Maybe over time he would want to send a large force, such as he had sent to Spain or would later send to Russia

I suspect that an earlier decision by Allies to actually help the Finns might have gotten enough help through early enough to encourage the Finns to fight on a while longer than in OTL. Whether the Finns would have gotten enough help over a longer period of time to "win' against the Red Army is a different question.

I don't know if all this would lead to the same German push into Norway that happened OTL. Perhaps Hitler would have enjoyed the spectacle of the Allies actually fighting the Soviets at a time when the war in the west was still phoney. Would he decide to sit back & watch for a while, postponing his own offensive in the West.
 
Aside from having to fight their way thru Norway and Sweden, the big problem in any British and French intervention would have been logistical. Narvik was a bottleneck at the best of times, the railway line had fairly limited capacity and Finlands major need was for artillery and ammunition for everything. Really, there was no other way for the British and French to get anything meaningful to Finland except via Narvik. Petsamo was basically a tiny port with only a road link and there wasn't enough trucks and fuel available to shift large quantities of military supplies. I believe the Finns actually suggested that the British and French land at Petsamo regardless, but the Allies were really fixated on seizing the Swedish iron ore mines and cutting those iron ore shipments to Germany.

So somehow you have to figure out what sort of reason the Allies would have to REALLY assist the Finns. As it was, OTL it was a pretext to grab the mines and that was where the bulk of the expeditionary force was intended to go. Churchill had this whole thing with flanking attacks - the Dardanelles in WW1, Italy and Greece later in WW2. He would have been quite happy to fight the Germans in Sweden and the end result might well have been to bring the Swedes into the war with German "assistance".
 
I believe that otl sweden explicitly stated that they would let unarmed volunteers cross to finland. One problem being that unarmed volunteers werent going to be much help.

The other big problem was that the wallies really didnt have a lot to send. And if you had a bigger armaments build up which might allow you to be able to support the finns, then that would entirely change the beginning of wwii.

Churchills crazy idea of trying to seize the swedish iron mines was probably even stupider than gallipoli.
 
Churchills crazy idea of trying to seize the swedish iron mines was probably even stupider than gallipoli.
You'll get no argument from me. I'm not arguing that it makes sense, merely that Germany might have considered capitalizing on it.

I believe that I've thought this thru, & here are my conclusions :

Bad idea. 1st of all it rests on an intelligence assessment that the UK & France really intend to aid Finland &/or to occupy the Swedish iron mines. If either part of this turns out to be inaccurate, then Germany would be giving up a vital resource for nothing.

2d, the 4 largest iron ore producers in the world in 1935, in order, were the US (30%+), France (30% & declining), the USSR (20%), & Sweden (5%). Let the UK & France cut off the Swedish ore & your only possible source out of these 4 countries would be the USSR. The next 4 producers, aggregating 15% of world production, were China, India, Brazil, & Australia. 2 of these countries were members of the British Commonwealth. Hitler had just ended arms shipments to China & in May 1938 he'd recognized the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo-- but China was at war with Japan. So forget China.

That leaves Brazil, but shipments from Brazil would be highly subject to US pressure to end them, as well as to interception by the RN. So as Hitler, if you do this, you put yourself in a shotgun wedding with the USSR. And Joe Stalin would know this, which is likely to make him a little pushy about getting his way.

More to the point, being dependent on Soviet iron shipments makes it impossible to go to war vs the USSR as an ally of the UK & France, so you're gonna end up fighting the UK & France as a Soviet ally. But you'll be fighting 'em in northern Scandinavia, where you can't really hurt 'em, & anything you do accomplish will benefit Uncle Joe more than it helps you. You'll spend a year trying to get back the Swedish mines that you could have just hung onto in the 1st place.

I'm forced to the reluctant conclusion that while it was an interesting idea, it would ultimately work to the strategic advantage of England & France.
Thegn.
 
Top