WI: Soviet Occupation of Bornholm

Alright, so during the end of WWII during the liberation of Denmark the Allies liberated all of Peninsular Denmark and the archipelago, however it was the Soviets who ultimately liberated the island of Bornholm.

Now after the war the Soviets did'nt immediately evacuate the island, but rather stayed their until April of 1946 and when they did leave they that any foreign troops stationed on the island would be viewed as a Declaration of War against the Soviet Union and subsequently pretty much demanded Denmark keep its own troops permanently stationed on the island indefinitely.

So what if instead of evacuating the island while making their IMO ridiculous demands (which were incidentally met, and continue to be to the present day) they decided to occupy it?

Having thought about it myself I thought of three scenarios;
1. They treat it like they treated Svalbard, that is demanding permanent access to it.
2. They set-up a puppet state.
3. They annex it outright.

These are of course only a few scenarios, and things could go differently, but anyways, thoughts, opinions, Romans?
 
For once I can spread some light on something!

7-8 May 1945: 218 bombs dropped on Bornholm. 10 Danes killed and 2,370 houses damaged, 587 being flattened.

One of the reason has been perceived as the German commander von Kamptz claiming that the German forces had surrendered to Monty at Luneburger Heide; hence he would only surrender to a British/US officer.

SU claimed that Bornholm was East of the occupation line of Germany; hence von Kamptz better surrender to them.

Stalemate! hence the bombing of Bornholm.

The real reason for SU not to acknowledge Denmark as Liberated country (but as conquered Country -> same fate as Eastern European countries having supported Germany) was Denmarks track record in cooperation prior to 1943.

So, into the immediate aftermath:

Bornhol, placed as it is, was a strategic asset in terms of forward base and "cork in the bottle" to the SU navies in the Baltic.

Bornholm pretty much can see what's going on in Poland, East Germany, Sweden, etc etc etc.

With a population of less than 50,000, a puppet state does seem as an overkill.

SU could hardly annex it. Distance would be a bit too much.

They might be able to separate Bornhol from denmark based on a the fact that Bornhol was pawned to Lubeck for 50 years starting 1525.

Bornhol was a gift to Frederick III in 1658, on condition that it could never be ceeded.

So Bornholm could hardly have been given to East Germany based on historic ties. That would take care of the annexation.

Denmark being a NATO member AND having SU forces stationed there would be direct clumsy. It is Cuba and Guantanamo in the Baltics. this time in reverse. Not going to work.

solution is: Those harsh conditions as we even see today or:

SU forces never leave. Just staying there and that's it!

Is it possible? I think it would be. Bornholm was on the eastern side of the occupation line in Germany. The trouble was Denmark's status.

So, would Churchill et al have bothered with Bornholm? I don't think so at that time.

The strategic position of Bornholm might only have been really clear in 1948 after the berlin crisis. That was the time when Britain realised the duplicity of Stalin I think.

And then it would have been too late to object to an occupation of Bornholm.

So, in essence. If SU had insisted that Denmark was occupied and not liberated, I don't think Britain (as the only power concerned with Baltic at that time) would have given a 2nd thought. Just having left it to Stalin.

After all, Bornholm would otherwise have been worth fighting for and I don't think that would have been the case in 1945 or 1946 for that matter.

My take: SU, if they wanted it: JUST TAKE IT!

Ivan
 
Top