WI 1905 Norwegian War of Independence

IOTL while the negotiations were taking place about Norway leaving the Union with Sweden, there was a build-up of forces along the border. The Swedes eventually accepted the seccession, but what if they hadn't? Who would've won the war, and how would this affect Europe, with WW1 on the horizon? Is it possible the result would leave either country to a non-neutral stance?
 

mowque

Banned
I have this in my TL, but it is a minor war with little fighting due to the geography and climate and economic strengths of the two powers.
 
The Swedish forces were clearly superior in numbers and equipment, especially when it comes to artillery. The Swedish navy was also a lot larger.

However, the terrain favours the defender. It qould quickly descent into a series of sieges. The side with the best ability to gather international support and the highest resilience and willingness to accept casualties will win.
 
I agree with von Adler regarding Swedish superiority in numbers and artillery, while the terrain would favour the defender, which would be Norway.

But there are some points which taken together would, I think, favour Norway:

Norway would be the defender and need only put up such a fight as making Sweden feel it's not worth it to fight to keep a hostile Norway in the union. If Norway was able to survive the initial Swedish onslaught, this point would come quickly. 90 years of Norway doing almost everything it could to frustrate Sweden had made Sweden weary of trying to keep the union going. Sweden would not relish the prospect of continuing to try to keep the union running after a military victory which would have exhausted both countries. In fact, the moment Sweden accepted that its overlordship over Norway in 1814 was to be as the dominant partner in a union, instead of just incorporating Norway, it gave up the notion of Norway and Sweden as one country. It was only a matter of time, I think, before the two countries would break up.

Whereas USA could afford to fight an existensial war to keep the union, having no major security threats from abroad, Sweden could not afford this. Being a medium European power at the turn of the last century meant having to be always on the alert for foreign threats. I don't think Sweden could afford to be involved in a civil war. It would always have to be wary of how the neighbours could exploit the situation.

Also, I think the military forces of Norway and Sweden where more evenly matched than one might believe. Sweden was superior in numbers and artillery, but Norway's new army was more modern regarding small-arms, in particular machineguns. The devastating effect of machine guns in defence would only be really internalized during WWI, so Sweden would not take proper precautions against the Norwegian machinegun-manned defensive positions. So the initial Swedish attacks would be very bloody. Due to the terrain and population concentrations, the Swedish attack would be very easy to foresee. These attack-routes was heavily fortified. Norway had been building fortifications in the south-east since 1884.

If Sweden wanted to avoid these, it would have to cross the border further north. But there was only mountain-passes and highland plateau's with almost no people and extreme weather and temperatures. When Arnfeld attacked from Central Sweden through to Trondheim a couple of hundred years before, he met almost no resistance. But being unable to survive wintering in Trondheim, he had to retreat. But his entire army of 3.000 died of the sickness and cold, as the snow lies all the year in the passes.

So I think the end result would be an independent Norway, two economically devastated countries (but with Norway probably being able to handle this better, since it would be fuelled by nationalism and a sence of victory), all sorts of major power positioning and messing about, and maybe a bit different WWI, as the superiority of the defence might be better understood.
 
As far as I know, the Swedish and Norwegian army were about equal in usage of machine guns - both sides had a few tens of pieces (mostly Hotchkiss) for testing and used them in separate MG units. The Norwegians did not start introducing the Madsen LMG in mass until 1922.

Artillery in Norway.
132 light modern pieces (75mm), I am not sure if all of these had been delivered 1905.
18 medium modern pieces (105mm).
There's also a smattering of 84mm m/87 and 65mm mountain artillery from the 1860s.

Artillery in Sweden.
204 light old pieces (84mm).
338 light modern pieces (75mm), I am not sure if all of these had been delivered in 1905.
12 heavy modern pieces (150mm)
Quite a few older heavy guns - 120mm m/91 etc.

Sweden's army is about twice as large and artillery is about three times as strong. The navy is about twice as big.
 
Norway still holds the defensive advantage in some extremely rugged areas and Sweden has to consider the future, particularly what to do if they were to somehow triumph over a nation which voted by an overwhelming margin for independence.
 
I wonder if Sweden would be able to get some border concessions should the war go favorably for them but they are unsuccessful in taking all of Norway.

This is just a rough map, but you get the idea.
skrmavbild20110527kl163.png
 
That would be interesting actually, as I'm sure it would lead to quite a bit of revanchism in Norway. Could this lead to Norway joining the alliance opposed to the side Sweden was friendlier towards? Which would those be, anyways?
 
Wasn't one of the reasons for the seperation that Norway was pro-British and politically liberal while Sweden was pro-German and politically conservative? (with the Norwegians having more of a English/Dutch-like maritime trade-based culture)

Maybe the Germans help Sweden retain Norway, and the Swedes repay their debt by Joining the CP. Could we even see a Nazi-esque Sweden in the 30s with their own dreams of a greater Northern Empire?
 
In volume 2 of Norwegian Defence History" from 2001 (Roald Berg: Profession - union - nation. 1814 - 1905), the author discusses a secret General Staff-agreement between the Norwegian and Swedish General Staff regarding joint defence of Northern Norway and Northern Sweden against Russia. He claims that the Russian threath (real or imagined) was considered so important by both Norwegian and Swedish Army tops, that a war between Norvay and Sweden in 1905 in reality was not an option. Berg and most other Norwegian military historians also consider it unlikely that the Great Powers would sit idly by and watch Norway and Sweden destroy each other. In particular Britain, Norway's most important trading partner by far. The Russsian conflict in the East in 1905 freed up Swedish forces. But that was still a temporary respite. Would the two armies fight?

Another factor to consider, is the planned militarization of Norwegian society since 1884 throught the Voluntary Shooters Association. Shooting fields was buildt all over the country, with regular shooting competions with intense public interest. All members of the VSA was given a modern Krag-Jørgensen rifle in the years preceeding 1905. In many ways rifle shooting was made almost obligatory for male adults, resembling the obligatory longbow-training in Britain in the late Middle Ages. So the average Norwegian male in 1905 was very well trained with the rifle. Considerably better trained than the average Swede. Not unlike the CSA and USA in the US Civil War, I think. Could this compensate for the greater Swedish numbers?

VSA was led by the Left-(anti-union)-politician Olav Five and had 43.200 (some 50 % of the members, and equal in size to the regular army) signed on for guerilla war against Sweden in 1905. The "Cells" (or Death Gangs, as they were popularly called) was ment to harass the Swedish troops on their way in. They received regular training in guerilla tactics, by the regular army officers, with the greatest stress being put on night attachs and operating in difficult terrain. Many also received training in small scale amphibious attachs behinnd enemy lines. The VSA and its role in the Norwegian struggle for independence is interestingly described in "Shooter General Ola Five" by Ane Aarseth, 2005.

It seems Norwegian historians agree that Sweden in all propability would be able to win a war against Norway by sheer weight of number. But being on the attack against well-fortified positions would be extremly costly, and all the time running the risk of Great Power-intervention, war-weariness and a political solution.

Sweden planned to use mobility, and bypass the Norwegian static defence concentrated in 3 defensive rings going form the border to Christiania (Oslo). But whether this would actually have been possible to do, remains in doubt. Especially with 43.200 rifle guerillas harassing them.
 
Every Swedish historybook tells us that the workingclass were wery much against the war and i dont think the Swedish army would be able to fight a war at all at this time
 
I do believe that theoretically Sweden could proberly win this war, due to the size of Its' army and economy. Nevertheless in reality, such a show of militantism from Sweden would cause a huge backlash, both internally (From the working class, and the pacifist roots in Swedish society) as well as internationally.

Even though Denmark at this time in history, is recovering from 1864, there would be a huge internal pressure to support our Norwegian brothers against the Swedish aggresion. I am not saying that the danish army would land in Malmö (they proberly couldn't) but other support could proberly be send to Norway. I guess larger countries (e. g. Russia and Germany) would have an interest in ensuring that no country is to dominant among the Nordic countries, and might therefor lend their support to Norway.

So in real world i don't see this war happening, and if it did, it would be a major backlash for Sweden.
 
If you go by official history Denmark was prepared to ally itself to Norway should war break out. That would make for some evening out in terms of naval forces.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
If you go by official history Denmark was prepared to ally itself to Norway should war break out. That would make for some evening out in terms of naval forces.

It is a nice tought, but I highly doubt if Denmark would if it came down to war.

If Sweden went to war agaisnt Norwegian independence, it would imply German backing, wich in turn would guaranty no Danish involvement.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
I do believe that theoretically Sweden could proberly win this war, due to the size of Its' army and economy.

Im not so sure. I guess it depends on how you define "win this war."

Yes, the Swedes would probably rather easily achieve their initial gains in the Oslo area. I have severe problems seeing Swedish gains after this tough, and a more extencive occupation is IMO needed to achieve a Swedish victory.

So in real world i don't see this war happening, and if it did, it would be a major backlash for Sweden.

Agree :)
 
In volume 2 of Norwegian Defence History" from 2001 (Roald Berg: Profession - union - nation. 1814 - 1905), the author discusses a secret General Staff-agreement between the Norwegian and Swedish General Staff regarding joint defence of Northern Norway and Northern Sweden against Russia. He claims that the Russian threath (real or imagined) was considered so important by both Norwegian and Swedish Army tops, that a war between Norvay and Sweden in 1905 in reality was not an option. Berg and most other Norwegian military historians also consider it unlikely that the Great Powers would sit idly by and watch Norway and Sweden destroy each other. In particular Britain, Norway's most important trading partner by far. The Russsian conflict in the East in 1905 freed up Swedish forces. But that was still a temporary respite. Would the two armies fight?

Another factor to consider, is the planned militarization of Norwegian society since 1884 throught the Voluntary Shooters Association. Shooting fields was buildt all over the country, with regular shooting competions with intense public interest. All members of the VSA was given a modern Krag-Jørgensen rifle in the years preceeding 1905. In many ways rifle shooting was made almost obligatory for male adults, resembling the obligatory longbow-training in Britain in the late Middle Ages. So the average Norwegian male in 1905 was very well trained with the rifle. Considerably better trained than the average Swede. Not unlike the CSA and USA in the US Civil War, I think. Could this compensate for the greater Swedish numbers?

VSA was led by the Left-(anti-union)-politician Olav Five and had 43.200 (some 50 % of the members, and equal in size to the regular army) signed on for guerilla war against Sweden in 1905. The "Cells" (or Death Gangs, as they were popularly called) was ment to harass the Swedish troops on their way in. They received regular training in guerilla tactics, by the regular army officers, with the greatest stress being put on night attachs and operating in difficult terrain. Many also received training in small scale amphibious attachs behinnd enemy lines. The VSA and its role in the Norwegian struggle for independence is interestingly described in "Shooter General Ola Five" by Ane Aarseth, 2005.

It seems Norwegian historians agree that Sweden in all propability would be able to win a war against Norway by sheer weight of number. But being on the attack against well-fortified positions would be extremly costly, and all the time running the risk of Great Power-intervention, war-weariness and a political solution.

Sweden planned to use mobility, and bypass the Norwegian static defence concentrated in 3 defensive rings going form the border to Christiania (Oslo). But whether this would actually have been possible to do, remains in doubt. Especially with 43.200 rifle guerillas harassing them.

I gotta read that book, didn't know about the death gangs and all that. Very interesting.

I just got started writing the TL, and I mentioned British and Danish support for Norway (loans for armaments etc.), while Germany and Sweden co-operate. This makes sense as both were hostile towards Russia. Sweden is forced to withdraw its troops, but the hostility ensues. Would it be too ASB for Sweden to join WW1 with the CP in order to claim Russian areas in the Baltic? Swedish-speaking areas in Finland? Maybe a Northern Front if war breaks out again on the Norwegian-Swedish border? I'd like to keep it plausible, but I'm a bit hazy on Scandinavian policies of the early 20th Century.
 
It's of course difficult to say whether the Death Gangs would have had much of an impact or not. But a bit over 22.000 of the Death Gangs was called up for duty and stationed on the border on "Border Guard Duty" when war did seem an option. My Great-grandfather and his oldest son (my great-uncle) did duty as Border Guards in a Death Gang in 1905. Their rifles and my great-grandfathers uniform cap used to hang on the wall in foyer of the old farm. Together with a lasso and Colt 45 (or 44, can't remember now) belonging to another uncle who emigrated to America for a couple of decades. And other bits and pieces of family history :)

I think your timeline-ideas sounds absolutely plausible. If Sweden invaded Norway but pulled out after getting an early bloody nose. Early enough not to have suffered too much, but late enough to have built up sufficient grudge against Norway, England and Denmark. Then I could very well believe that Sweden might have joined in WWI. A bit tricky to fight a two-front war against both Norway/Denmark and Russia. But the Finns might be persuaded to see Sweden as liberators. Then I think Russia would quickly fall back from Finland. Sweden could probably station 90 % of its forces against Russia in Finland (strengthened by Finnish volunters), as Norway and Denmark would not be in a position to go on the offensive and invade Sweden. Blockade would be a bitch, though. England + Denmark and a small Norwegian fleet would blockade Sweden in the West. Baltic grain would then be very important, but difficult to reach. Maybe forcing a Swedish amphibious assault against Estonia/Latvia?

Could be interesting to see. A Swedish march against St. Petersburg would put Russia in a tight spot. Maybe Germany then could end its eastern war a year earlier, and transfer troops west, forcing a win on the Western front before America entered the war?

Norwegian labourers were very radicalized in the 1910s and 20s, much more so than the Swedish and Danish, due to the form industrialization had taken in Norway. The Labour Party was the greatest pary in votes, at the same time as being adherent to revolutionary socialism. The change to reform socialism (social democracy) came in the late 20s. I'd guess a Norway on the loosing side of WWI (if the West lost) could easily go communist, just like Russia.
 
Top