WI: Danish Armed Neutrality for Second World War?

As it is well known, Denmark surrendered immediately and co-operated with Nazi Germany in order to secure as good a deal possible for it's population during the Second World War. What if Denmark, in light of WW I experience, chose a different path in it's security policy during 1920's and 1930's? Would it be feasible politically, as militarily there's no question it could not be done.

In effect this would mean an armed neutrality in which Denmark would maintain powerful enough armed forces which would prove to be a headache for Germany while simultaneously co-operate with Germany closing all threat of UK naval forces entering the Baltic.

And if this path is chosen, what would be the effects on WW2 with two additional scenarios:

a) Continuing Norwegian neutrality instead of Weserübung
b) Norway conquered anyway with Germany simply taking more risks when conquering Norway and not
using Aalborg airfield.
 
This becomes a question of geography - why would Denmark remain neutral, when Germany could run them over? They're not like Switzerland, with mountains and whatnot, rather, their topography tends to be very flat, thus why they surrendered. That being said, if Germany bleeds worse when they take Denmark, Norway might remain neutral.
 

GarethC

Donor
If Denmark is clear about the armed nature of its neutrality for some years, is there room for a Norwegian-Danish alliance (possibly with some tacit agreement with Sweden) to make such a defence a successful one? Obviously not if you start a buildup in 1939 - but what if the trigger is the announcement of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1935, reinforced by the Saar remilitarization in 1936?

Similarly, could Danish preparedness and diplomatic overtures influence Belgium to a more pro-French stance?
 
A significant snag with a Danish/Norwegian armed neutrality stance (or indeed adding Sweden into the mix) is that Denmark would be the battleground. Just like Belgium realised that close links to France would having a Franco-German war fought in Belgium again.

It might work if a POD was a true Scandinavian unitary state in which Denmark was a region of the putative Scandinavia and that is a whole other thread.
 
This becomes a question of geography - why would Denmark remain neutral, when Germany could run them over? They're not like Switzerland, with mountains and whatnot, rather, their topography tends to be very flat, thus why they surrendered. That being said, if Germany bleeds worse when they take Denmark, Norway might remain neutral.

Germany could have conquered Switzerland of Sweden if they had wished - it was a question of opportunity cost. Like Finland could have been conquered by USSR in 1940 and in 1944, but it proved to be far too costly for the situation at hand. A well armed Denmark could have presented a scenario in which it would have been a net benefit for Germany not to occupy them.
 
This takes a fairly complex POD given Danish political culture since about 1910: the Danish right, particularly its senior leadership, were utter fatalists who believed going along quietly with Germany was the only way to preserve Denmark's existence during periods of international crisis and that anything that could be perceived as serious resistance was the real (self-inflicted) threat to Danish sovereignty; and the Danish left who believed that the only way to have enough fiscal resources to build a working welfare state was at the expense of a heavy investment in defense. So there are some major roadblocks that need moved in order to get moving in time.

But something could be done. Not about Jutland -- best you can do there is station "speed bump" units and trade for space and time, the time it takes to drive or march forces to key locations and make use of Jutland's rail resources and harbors. But you could dedicate resources from about the Night of the Long Knives on (once the real shape of Nazi-governed Germany comes into focus) to a "Fortress Sjaelland" approach. Raise a third army division (there were more than that in service during WWI) and station two plus an integrated system of militia on Sjaelland with forward parties on Mon and a few other islands for skirmishing/artillery spotting purposes. Develop the fortifications in imitation of Sweden's Per Albin Line. Follow through on the blueprints for a new squadron of "patrol ships" with for and aft turrets with twin 8" guns that could shoot it out with cruisers, build coastal patrol subs like there's no tomorrow, and build up a sort of naval militia of converted merchantmen acting as minelayers. Call it "Plan Frederik" (after Frederik III's famous "I will die in my nest" line about the successful defense of Copenhagen in 1658.) If that sort of Danish defense threw everything it had at the German forces deployed through the Belts during Weserubung, *and* Norway's coastal artillery forces had been mobilized fully rather than trusting to the luck of local commanders with a nose for trouble, you might have had an actual shot at stopping the whole plan. Denmark -- and Copenhagen in particular -- would have paid dearly for it. But sufficient action then by mines, torpedoes, and targeted artillery could have snared the right hook of Weserubung's order of battle long enough to keep them out of the action while the Norse coastal forts added a few more prizes to sinking the Blucher and the lead German assault troops found themselves at best fighting a mobilized Norwegian force on equal terms. It would be everything the fatalists running Danish foreign policy feared, rousing Berlin to terrible anger and retribution. But it could have made a material difference in Norway's fate and caused a politically dangerous hiccup in Hitler's grand sequence for conquering Europe.

TL;DR armed neutrality is probably out of the question because any neutrality policy would follow from the political classes' decision-making and result in forces too weak to resist a serious attack just as Weserubung showed (which is why the Germans bothered to go ahead and occupy Denmark rather than just steam through the Belts unhindered, just a little insurance policy.) But a concerted plan to make Sjaelland a kind of "Singapore of the Baltic" could have real strategic consequences for German operations in the Baltic and the North Sea.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Short story: If Denmark by April 1940 had resisted with the OTL forces fully mobilised it is likely that the German invasion of Norway would have failed and that is a major obstacle for Hitler's power and prestige. Combined with the extra German losses in this ATL it quite likely will lead to Fall Gelb bogging down before the French army is broken. That will defeat Germany by 1941 latest.

Of course Denmark would suffer huge casualties in the battles and bombing of cities etc. but it will be a very small price compared to how many died in the OTL WWII.

Longer story: If Denmark for some reason chose to follow an actual armed neutrality policy after WWI and keep the level of armament of OTL WWI the army would be at least five infantry Divisions and a navy capable of effectively blocking the Danish straits with mines.

As a job making project a number of fortification lines are build across southern Jutland and three of the five Divsions are placed in Jutland. The Jutland Divisions are to be supported by mobile Anti-tank units. From 20 mm Madsen automatic cannons mounted on motorcycle sidecars (OTL) to heavier weapons in armoured vehicles. 20 mm Madsen quads are deployed as AAA.

On Zealand is placed the two remaining Divisions and a couple of armoured brigades. The Tune position (between Roskilde and Køge bay) is maintained and strengthened and manned by one of the Divisions. The other Division (mobile) and the armoured brigades are deployed in reserve to counterattack any landings.

The Danish straits are to be mined heavily, to the greatest possible extent by controlled minefields laid in peacetime. The navy is to be focussed on laying and protecting the minefields - ie. coastal submarines, torpedoboats and armoured artilleryships.

The airforce is meant to provide support for the operations of the army and navy.

Germany will of course be able to overwhelm even this armament level, but the cost will be big enough to prevent a succesful Fall Gelb.

So why did this not happen then? Main reason is 1864, Until 1864 the army had been very popular but the defeat created a widespread doubt about armed forces a all: "What's the point?" as one leading politician said. The conservatives were in power until 1901 and spent a lot of money of the fortifications around Copenhagen from alte 19th century, but the doubt in keeping strong armed forces was strengthend by the almost immediate obsolesence of tne fortifications. Technically they were as good as any, but had been placed to keep 1880 artillery out of range of Copenhagen - by early 20th cenury that had changed, but the money was spent. The new liberal government under WWI kept the relatively strong armed forces however, mainly because they were needed to guarantee Germany that the British couldn't just "walk in".

After WWI socialdemocrats took over power anfd although they had strong anti-military views in their opposition time it was actually seriously considdered to go for an armed neutrality in unity with the other Nordic countrries. That was finally given up in mid 30s and Denmark officially announced that she had no intentions of being the Scandinavian guarddog vs. south. The final nail in the coffin of armed neutrakity came when the British shortly before WWII told that no help could be expected in case of German invasion.

I actually think it will be plausible to find PoDs to create an armed Danish neutrality by 1939. We can't change 1864 drastically, as that would probably prevent German unification, but perhaps the same strategic outcome but with more tactical succeses for the army. Could be more mobile operations up the Jutland peninsula. That would make the ill-fated Copenhagen fortification less likely. Could also be the war in 1864 ending with borders similar to OTL 1920.

If a Nordic alliance is created it will obviously mean greater level of armament, but even without the alliance I think slightly more flexible conservative leaders in late 19th century might change a lot. In OTL the conservatives really pissed off the great majority of the population and united them against anything connected to conservatives - not at least the army. The will only have to go toSweden to see how the outcome could be. Here the socialdemocrats were even stronger, but the defence spending never was that much of an issue and Sweden kept a considerable level of armament - and out of two world wars.
 
Ive seen a 1919 POD suggested where Denmark refuses to accept territorial gains from Germany unless they also get German money to fortify the border.

Some reparations get diverted and a maginot line style complex gets built in the 1920s and a squadron on torpedo boats bought for coastal defence.
 
If a Nordic alliance is created it will obviously mean greater level of armament, but even without the alliance I think slightly more flexible conservative leaders in late 19th century might change a lot. In OTL the conservatives really pissed off the great majority of the population and united them against anything connected to conservatives - not at least the army. The will only have to go toSweden to see how the outcome could be. Here the socialdemocrats were even stronger, but the defence spending never was that much of an issue and Sweden kept a considerable level of armament - and out of two world wars.

Sweden disarmed during 1920's and 1930's under Social Democrat rule as well. I think what is needed is an unholy alliance after 1933 between Right and Left where Right supports welfare state if the Left supports strong defense spending. Big business is kept satisfied even with higher taxation with lucrative deals. After all, during Depression construction firms might be pleased with fortification building, shipyards with ships etc.
 
Last edited:
Top