WI Germany invaded Denmark in first world war.

The objective is a blockade of Russia, the ottoman’s are blocking the black sea and with Denmark occupied the baltic is sealed too, this leave only Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok to recived outside help, is this a good idea? Cam be done? And the consequences ?
 
I don't think Germany ever had an opportunity (or even wanted) to dedicate troops for opening a front so close to it's heartland.
 
Actually at the time Denmark was a but more militaristic than thet are known for inWW2.
It might not be easy to take the Islands, and with those you Can block Germany and perhaps conduct amphibious operations in Jutland. Leaving the initiative to the opposition.
Think its too risky for the actual gains.
 
The Baltic was already blockaded. Denmark was cajoled by the Germans into laying mines in the Belts in August 1914 so only a few British subs got through. Convoying through the Belts would've been suicide, because even if you got past the mines you would then have to run past the entire Baltic HSF all the way up to Petrograd. The chances of getting through were much better in the Arctic, to say the least.

Denmark had mobilized about 60K men, half of them in Jutland and the rest to protect the capital. It would have been ugly and nowhere near the walk-over it was in WWII but eventually the Germans would've taken Jutland and then proceeded to the islands. The fortifications of Copenhagen were already outdated vis-a-vis siege gun tech, which could shoot much longer by this time than the engineers had envisioned in the last part of the 19th century when the expanded fortifying began. So the capital would have fallen, too. But really, a German invasion of Denmark served little purpose, except perhaps to stave off something like Jackie Fischer's Baltic Project which fancifully envisioned a British landing in Northern Germany (Pomerania).

The Germans envisioned it in August 1914 and acted accordingly by twisting the arm of the Danish government who had promised the British not to lay mines against any power. At the time the Danes decided it was probably best to piss off the British for now and then be forgiven later, if the British made it through the war to be in a position to mete out forgiveness ...
 
The objective is a blockade of Russia, the ottoman’s are blocking the black sea and with Denmark occupied the baltic is sealed too, this leave only Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok to recived outside help, is this a good idea? Cam be done? And the consequences ?

Admiral Fishers Baltic Project becomes a realistic possibility when Danes co-operate with the British.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
When? Timing is important here. During the autumn of 1916 Germany worried about opening anymore fronts, because their forces were spread dangerously thin. So it has to be before then.

Heck, Denmark was even mentioned as a big no-no, and just in case they postponed unrestricted submarine warfare until they were in control of the Romanian front to such a degree they could transfer soldiers to other fronts in case of necessity.
 
Admiral Fishers Baltic Project becomes a realistic possibility when Danes co-operate with the British.

Yes, if you can find at least 5 spare Entente divisions, find shipping for them, find escorts, convince the Admiralty to risk capital ships close to mines and German destroyer squadrons, get them all through the Belt minefields already laid out in August 1914 by the Danes without anybody noticing before they are ready to land in Pomerania, make sure Russia breaks through the Eastern front in time to aid the landing force, and if you can then avoid Germany invading Denmark in like 10 seconds to put a cork in that bottle.

Any even remotely feasible "Baltic Project" would include invading through Denmark, not around it. Which was why the BP was ... unrealistic. The Danes felt much better about selling goullash for the waring parties than participating in any such plans.
 
Any even remotely feasible "Baltic Project" would include invading through Denmark, not around it. Which was why the BP was ... unrealistic. The Danes felt much better about selling goullash for the waring parties than participating in any such plans.

Exactly, that's why an invasion of Denmark by Germany is such a bad idea. Danish neutrality was anet benefit not only for Denmark but also for Germany,
 

Redbeard

Banned
By WWI Denmark was a de facto German vassal and the relatively strong armed forces were there to make the Germans feel safe about the British not just "walking in". So if the Germans try to invade Denmark we will have to find a PoD making the Germans not feeling "safe" any more.

Anyway, the Danish defence by WWI was based mainly on keeping Copenhagen (and hereby the passage into the Baltic). The rest of the country and especially Jutland was left practically undefended.

The Danish straits had on German request been heavily mined at the outbreak of war and the Danish Navy was specialised in defending these minefields - coastal submarines (15+), torpedo boats and shallow draught armoured ships. It would have been costly for any navy to enforce its way through.

The army had mobilised a force of 50-60.000 at the outbreak of war and a large part of these were placed in the so called "Tune Line" going roughly from Roskilde to the Bay of Køge. It was realised that you couldn't stop a major power from landing a force somewhere on the south, western or north western shores of Zealand, but with the field fortifications at Tune you could keep them outside gun range of Copenhagen itself. The fortification of Copenhagen still was a formidable line to breach (similar to Verdun etc.) but had been planned in late 19th century when guns didn't reach that far (Ie Copenhagen was inside bombardment range). But even if an enemy had breached the Tune line he would still have to breach the actual fortifications between Tune and Copenhagen.

At full strength the army would be 5 Infantry Divisions plus support troops and not at least the fortifications which included guns up to 14". The army was relatively well equipped, not at least through the Madsen LMG which was at hand in quantity and produced in Copenhagen.
 
but with the field fortifications at Tune you could keep them outside gun range of Copenhagen itself. The fortification of Copenhagen still was a formidable line to breach (similar to Verdun etc.) but had been planned in late 19th century when guns didn't reach that far (Ie Copenhagen was inside bombardment range). But even if an enemy had breached the Tune line he would still have to breach the actual fortifications between Tune and Copenhagen.

Just a nitpick: The Tune Line was not begun until Sep 1915 and it appears that the most likely scenario for German intervention is in the beginning of the war. Even if the Germans had come in 1916 it would not have been entirely finished, it seems. But its function as a deterrent certainly grew as the months of the war rolled by.

I wonder, if push came to shove, would the Germans have been better off trying to cower the Danes into submission by 'doing a Gallipoli' on Copenhagen - simply lining up the HSF and shelling the city from the sea?

The coastal forts around Copenhagen would have to be reduced, though, and mines and subs avoided. But the Bayern class BB's, for example, could lob 15" shells into the city from 22km away. In theory they could shell at least southern Copenhagen and the island of Amager from well out into Køge Bay.

Well, they probably could - eventually - and with the aid of a sizable landing force, but they would not. For the same reasons the British would not attack Denmark - or Germany through Denmark. It simply wasn't worth the effort and risk once the flames rose higher and higher in the other theatres of the war. And I doubt you get a kaiser unwilling to risk his precious battleships vs. the RN to sail a good bunch of them into heavily mined waters, ahem.

P.S A great site here about the Danish fortifications at WWI - with lots of photos and maps
 

Redbeard

Banned
Just a nitpick: The Tune Line was not begun until Sep 1915 and it appears that the most likely scenario for German intervention is in the beginning of the war. Even if the Germans had come in 1916 it would not have been entirely finished, it seems. But its function as a deterrent certainly grew as the months of the war rolled by.

I wonder, if push came to shove, would the Germans have been better off trying to cower the Danes into submission by 'doing a Gallipoli' on Copenhagen - simply lining up the HSF and shelling the city from the sea?

The coastal forts around Copenhagen would have to be reduced, though, and mines and subs avoided. But the Bayern class BB's, for example, could lob 15" shells into the city from 22km away. In theory they could shell at least southern Copenhagen and the island of Amager from well out into Køge Bay.

Well, they probably could - eventually - and with the aid of a sizable landing force, but they would not. For the same reasons the British would not attack Denmark - or Germany through Denmark. It simply wasn't worth the effort and risk once the flames rose higher and higher in the other theatres of the war. And I doubt you get a kaiser unwilling to risk his precious battleships vs. the RN to sail a good bunch of them into heavily mined waters, ahem.

P.S A great site here about the Danish fortifications at WWI - with lots of photos and maps
You are right about the Tune line, but I doubt it would have been possible to land forces on Zealand and have them march on Copenhagen faster than the Danish army could mobilise at least on Zealand (1/2 the population). So instead of "just" the 50.000 from the partial mobilisation in august 1914 an invader would meet many more, probably closer to 100.000. It would of course be problematic to have mobilised men cross from Jutland and Funen to Zealand but AFAIK the relevant sea routes all were behind minefields and so not accessible for quick naval interdiction, and this is before airpower. AFAIK all of the five infantry Divisions were placed on Zealand, but I have never been able to find any authoritative source on that - like the operational plan. I guess it must be somewhere in the archives, but haven't had the time so far to go look. Anyway an invasion force landing somewhere on Zealand will seriously risk being counterattacked into the sea because the Danish army can mobilise and deploy by rail faster than forces can be landed over sea.

But anyway thanks for the link, many good data and pictures. I do not agree however in all the considerations about possible operations. It would have been extremely difficult and time consuming to deploy heavy siege artillery, and it will give the "other" great power time to intervene. I have a book somewhere in my library where IIRC the naval minefields are shown, can't find the book right now, but IIRC they extended well into Køge Bay and thus making it very difficult to shell Copenhagen, even from a Bayern class BB. The ship would anyway risk being hit by the 14" batteries on Amager. I guess they were there just for that.

Anyway, I have never seen a German invasion as the most probable - why should they? They mainly risk giving the Entente an opportunity to gain a bridgehead close to Berlin.

I'm not sure Fisher's plans for a Baltic "adventure" were serious - probably more to get fundings for experimental ships - but if it had been tried it might have had Gallipoli look like Kindergarten. Not because the Entente couldn't overwhelm Denmark, but because it would have taken a huge effort and I'm sure the Germans would utilise the opportunity to intevene on behalf of Denmark (no matter what Denmark might think of that) and make the exchange even worse for the Entente.

But in the context of how to stay out of serious trouble I think it at least illustrates that the WWI policy of a strongly armed neutrality worked much better than the WWII of a de facto disarmed neutrality.
 
Why? The Danish government was rather pro German and supported the German war effort in various ways. Invading Denmark gives Germany no advantage (the Baltics were already sealed off) and only adds a lot of disadvantages.
 
Top