ww1: the scandinavian front

[Oddball]

Thanks, makes sense now that you say it.

Thanks for grasping reality

On ah.com that is an ability just way too many seem to lack...

Some people are always looking for ways to make Scandinavia more dystopic and I think there you have it, Sweden getting attacked by Russia, Norway forced into attacking Sweden... and a British invasion into Germany via Jutland.

Just for the record:

Yes, GB could force Norway to declare war on the Central Powers.

To make Norway conduct meaningfull offensive operations is quite a differentt matter tough. The capasity just is not there.

And it is realy the same thing for Sweden. Even if they join the Central Powers, conducting meaningfull operations into Norway is not viable.

 

[Mikestone8]

Just for the record:

Yes, GB could force Norway to declare war on the Central Powers.

To make Norway conduct meaningfull offensive operations is quite a differentt matter tough. The capasity just is not there.

And it is realy the same thing for Sweden. Even if they join the Central Powers, conducting meaningfull operations into Norway is not viable.

So Norway could declare war but couldn't actually do anything.

Having declared war, it would just have to sit there and wait until Germany could bring up an army big enough to overrun it.

 

[BlondieBC]

So Norway could declare war but couldn't actually do anything.

Having declared war, it would just have to sit there and wait until Germany could bring up an army big enough to overrun it.

If the Entente were losing badly, then Germany might turn to Norway. Falkenhayn would not send troops to attack Norway unless he could knock Norway out of the war. He was a France first man. To the Germans, the British moving troops from France to fight into Sweden would be a godsend. The German navy could attack the naval supplies lines, and every division out of France makes Germany life easier. If the Eastern Med forces are used, Turkey does a lot better, which is also useful. Either turkey takes several hundred thousand men and attacks the Suez (big win if works, but doubt logistically) or they attack Russia in the East.

A bigger issue is the naval war. Germany would likely start heavy mining of Norway's ports, etc.

 

[Mikestone8]

One slightly wild thought. Would it be possible for Sweden and Norway to enter the war on opposite sides, but not fight each other? Depending which enters the war first, either Sweden declares war on Russia but not on Norway, or Norway declares war on Germany but not on Sweden.

Sounds mad, but such situations have occasionally arisen.

 

[BlondieBC]

One slightly wild thought. Would it be possible for Sweden and Norway to enter the war on opposite sides, but not fight each other? Depending which enters the war first, either Sweden declares war on Russia but not on Norway, or Norway declares war on Germany but not on Sweden.

Sounds mad, but such situations have occasionally arisen.

Its not mad. German East Africa tried to negotiate with other colonies to skip the war, but this was not realistic with France or the UK. But with two countries like Norway and Sweden, it is possible, either formally or defacto.

A lot depends on the POD to start the war.

 

[Oddball]

So Norway could declare war but couldn't actually do anything.

Having declared war, it would just have to sit there and wait until Germany could bring up an army big enough to overrun it.

Sigh, you REALY do not know much about the situation in Norway do you?

The one and only asset Norway had and GW wanted was her gigantic merchant marine. OTL GB got that asset without a Norway declaring war on anyone.

Military Norway was just barly teoretical able to maybe defend herself against Sweden. Sweden could perhaps teoretical maybe make an inroad in Norway. Bottom line: To make any difference both GB and GE would have to commit forces. Where should they come from?

 

[Oddball]

Sounds mad, but such situations have occasionally arisen.

Whom and when?

 

[Timmy811]

Going back to the supply situation, didn't all Entente supplies go through Scandanavia given the fact that the Trans-Siberian wasn't finished until 1916 and the Dardanelles were closed. Murmansk wasn't even built until 1915 and as such didn't yet have the capacity that it had in WWII. Most supplies must have been shipped by rail through from Norway through Sweden into Finland. This would completely hamstring Russia's war economy.

 

[Oddball]

Going back to the supply situation, didn't all Entente supplies go through Scandanavia given the fact that the Trans-Siberian wasn't finished until 1916 and the Dardanelles were closed. Murmansk wasn't even built until 1915 and as such didn't yet have the capacity that it had in WWII. Most supplies must have been shipped by rail through from Norway through Sweden into Finland. This would completely hamstring Russia's war economy.

Yes, let us not bother with logic and reasoning...

Oh, and by the way:
The Swedish railroad net was not connected to the Finnish until 1919

 

[Mikestone8]

Whom and when?

From May 1915 until August 1916 Italy was at war with Austria-Hungary but not with Germany.

From April to December 1917 the United States was at war with Germany but not with the other CPs. From Dec 1917 to Nov 1918 she was at war with Germany and A/H but not with Turkey or Bulgaria.

Similar situations arose in WW2. Most famously, From 1941 until Aug 1945 the SU was at war with Germany but not with Japan. Not absolutely sure, but I don't think the US ever declared war on Finland, despite the latter being at war with the SU.

 

[Mikestone8]

Sigh, you REALY do not know much about the situation in Norway do you?

The one and only asset Norway had and GW wanted was her gigantic merchant marine. OTL GB got that asset without a Norway declaring war on anyone.

Military Norway was just barly teoretical able to maybe defend herself against Sweden. Sweden could perhaps teoretical maybe make an inroad in Norway.

Beg pardon, but how does any of the above contradict anything I said in the passage which you quote? Precisely what ignorance was I displaying?

Bottom line: To make any difference both GB and GE would have to commit forces. Where should they come from?

Well at various times in WW1 the Germans found forces to help the Bulgars conquer Serbia, to crush Rumania, and to help A/H and Turkey against Italy and Britain. The Allies, for their part, found troops for Gallipoli, Salonika, Mesopotamia etc. Sounds like both sides could scrape up forces for this or that "side show" if they wanted to badly enough. I accept that in the Scandinvian case it is not inevitable that they would choose to do so, but I can't see that it's impossible either.

 

[Mikestone8]

Yes, let us not bother with logic and reasoning...

Oh, and by the way:
The Swedish railroad net was not connected to the Finnish until 1919

So presumably the supplies were shipped by water from Sweden to Finland. There's be problems in the Winter months due to ice, but it could certainly be done the rest of the year.

 

[Oddball]

From May 1915 until August 1916 Italy was at war with Austria-Hungary but not with Germany.

From April to December 1917 the United States was at war with Germany but not with the other CPs. From Dec 1917 to Nov 1918 she was at war with Germany and A/H but not with Turkey or Bulgaria.

Similar situations arose in WW2. Most famously, From 1941 until Aug 1945 the SU was at war with Germany but not with Japan. Not absolutely sure, but I don't think the US ever declared war on Finland, despite the latter being at war with the SU.

Your examples misses one crucial point:

A common border...

 

[Oddball]

So presumably the supplies were shipped by water from Sweden to Finland. There's be problems in the Winter months due to ice, but it could certainly be done the rest of the year.

You are just unbelivabel. Real life and history just aint a computer game!

Ever heard about Gallipoli and one of the main reason that campaign did happen? To open an major supply rout to Russia.

The amount of entente supply to Russia via Norway and Sweden was OTL neglectibel.

 

[Oddball]

Beg pardon, but how does any of the above contradict anything I said in the passage which you quote? Precisely what ignorance was I displaying?

I pardon you, and Ill leave you to yourself.

Im not going to wast my time on someone whom obviousley approach AH as a computer game.

 

[stjernkjempe]

Looking at the map of the Nordic countries (and Russian Finland) of 1914 I don't see why Sweden would bother attacking Norway. There is two rail links between Sweden and Norway as I know of and both are of poor quality for massive troop transportations and the logistics. There is box defenses in concrete constructed on BOTH sides in the south and nothing of value in the north to take (who wants Narvik? Not even the Norwegians seems to want it sometimes) out of either strategic or nationalistic value. Norway in war whit Germany is going to have its harbors mined to prevent further use of them by the Royal (UK) Navy and the Norwegian population is probably starving a bit because the submarines and merchant raiders makes shipments hard (-er than only having to dodge mines). So even IF Sweden pushes in to Norway the only gain is a starving population that she had to feed, and probably would if they had to. Sweden also have population to feed as it would be impossible to import foodstuff and fuel from Norway and Sweden would be subject to the same blockade as Germany.

On the other front (Finland) there is much more to gain and this is through the soon to become lake CP or the Baltic sea as some people would call it. Whit Swedish coastal fleet and the German Baltic fleet combined there is enough to keep both Russian submarines and mine laying ships at bay and conduct one or two naval operations in the same time. In the north Sweden can sit in their forts constructed only for this war and wait for the Russian forces to manifest. In the Baltic sea Swedish and German forces can pick off the islands outside Finland and the Russian Baltic coast one after another. Ice or no ice there have been costal trade for centuries between Sweden and Finland so smuggling contraband and arms to Finis partisans and nationalists are not that hard, smuggling it to the Baltic countries is also doable. All this diverts Russian forces away to guard coastlines, to guard rail lines and interior communications from partisans and to try to take the forts in northern Sweden. That is a CP win in both logistics and strategic situation in the Baltic's even if Germany have to feed Sweden. The faster Russia breaks the faster its grain comes in to Swedish ports and feed starving Swedish children.

After the war I think Sweden would be treated fairly easy if the CP looses as she were attacked and forced in to the war and Norway would be similarly treated if the CP wins as Norway have nothing Germany wants and Sweden don't see the point of a union 2.0.

So again why even bother whit Norway (if UK even bother forcing it to declare war on Sweden)?

 

[BlondieBC]

Looking at the map of the Nordic countries (and Russian Finland) of 1914 I don't see why Sweden would bother attacking Norway. There is two rail links between Sweden and Norway as I know of and both are of poor quality for massive troop transportations and the logistics. There is box defenses in concrete constructed on BOTH sides in the south and nothing of value in the north to take (who wants Narvik? Not even the Norwegians seems to want it sometimes) out of either strategic or nationalistic value. Norway in war whit Germany is going to have its harbors mined to prevent further use of them by the Royal (UK) Navy and the Norwegian population is probably starving a bit because the submarines and merchant raiders makes shipments hard (-er than only having to dodge mines). So even IF Sweden pushes in to Norway the only gain is a starving population that she had to feed, and probably would if they had to. Sweden also have population to feed as it would be impossible to import foodstuff and fuel from Norway and Sweden would be subject to the same blockade as Germany.

On the other front (Finland) there is much more to gain and this is through the soon to become lake CP or the Baltic sea as some people would call it. Whit Swedish coastal fleet and the German Baltic fleet combined there is enough to keep both Russian submarines and mine laying ships at bay and conduct one or two naval operations in the same time. In the north Sweden can sit in their forts constructed only for this war and wait for the Russian forces to manifest. In the Baltic sea Swedish and German forces can pick off the islands outside Finland and the Russian Baltic coast one after another. Ice or no ice there have been costal trade for centuries between Sweden and Finland so smuggling contraband and arms to Finis partisans and nationalists are not that hard, smuggling it to the Baltic countries is also doable. All this diverts Russian forces away to guard coastlines, to guard rail lines and interior communications from partisans and to try to take the forts in northern Sweden. That is a CP win in both logistics and strategic situation in the Baltic's even if Germany have to feed Sweden. The faster Russia breaks the faster its grain comes in to Swedish ports and feed starving Swedish children.

After the war I think Sweden would be treated fairly easy if the CP looses as she were attacked and forced in to the war and Norway would be similarly treated if the CP wins as Norway have nothing Germany wants and Sweden don't see the point of a union 2.0.

So again why even bother whit Norway (if UK even bother forcing it to declare war on Sweden)?

A lot depends on who is making the decisions. Is Sweden running a separate War Plan, or will they coordinate with Germany. It also depends on the year.

If Britain lands troops in Norway, Sweden will be expected to keep them out of Sweden. The Germans believe in the attack, and would encourage an aggressive Sweden, so I can easily see Sweden trying to take Southern Norway and holding the high mountain lines in the north. Most likely, the UK still goes after the Ottoman empire, not Sweden. The goals, if not the execution of the operation, made a lot of sense for the Entente.

If no UK and 1914, Germany wants to slow the Russians in the East. They will likely encourage Sweden to at least attempt a diversionary attack in the North to try to draw a Russian Army North. My guess is that Russia would send the 4th Army north, and the 1st and 2nd Army would go on the defensive and give ground if the Germans attacked. For a major offensive, the Germans would probably want a Swedish Army in Prussia. Logistics by sea would be very risky. The Russian navy more stayed behind the mine fields than was defeated. Transporting Swedish divisions to Danzig and then supplying by rail is just so much easier.

Under Falkenhayn, he was big on decisive battles and knocking out smaller countries. If German GHQ believe a Swedish Army with German help could knock out Norway, it would have been approved and done in 1916, provide the butterflies are not too large by then.

So much depends on the POD, but basically, unless British forces land in numbers in Norway or Norway can be knocked out of the war in a few month campaign, you are right. Sweden defends against Norway and has the bulk of the Army fighting Russia.

IMO, Sweden joining is likely to be decisive for the CP. Based on year joining. In 1914, it gives the German more time to work on France and likely Russia reacting will save A-H the worst defeats. In 1915, Russia will have even fewer troops than OTL, and the German counter attack in likely works even better with at least one fewer Russian Armies facing them. A general collapse of the Russian line is even possible. In 1916, reacting to Sweden entering the war likely means Brusilov offensive is canceled or only a local success. In 1917 and 1918, it is probably to late to have a decisive impact.

 

[von Adler]

Looking at the map of the Nordic countries (and Russian Finland) of 1914 I don't see why Sweden would bother attacking Norway. There is two rail links between Sweden and Norway as I know of and both are of poor quality for massive troop transportations and the logistics. There is box defenses in concrete constructed on BOTH sides in the south and nothing of value in the north to take (who wants Narvik? Not even the Norwegians seems to want it sometimes) out of either strategic or nationalistic value. Norway in war whit Germany is going to have its harbors mined to prevent further use of them by the Royal (UK) Navy and the Norwegian population is probably starving a bit because the submarines and merchant raiders makes shipments hard (-er than only having to dodge mines). So even IF Sweden pushes in to Norway the only gain is a starving population that she had to feed, and probably would if they had to. Sweden also have population to feed as it would be impossible to import foodstuff and fuel from Norway and Sweden would be subject to the same blockade as Germany.

On the other front (Finland) there is much more to gain and this is through the soon to become lake CP or the Baltic sea as some people would call it. Whit Swedish coastal fleet and the German Baltic fleet combined there is enough to keep both Russian submarines and mine laying ships at bay and conduct one or two naval operations in the same time. In the north Sweden can sit in their forts constructed only for this war and wait for the Russian forces to manifest. In the Baltic sea Swedish and German forces can pick off the islands outside Finland and the Russian Baltic coast one after another. Ice or no ice there have been costal trade for centuries between Sweden and Finland so smuggling contraband and arms to Finis partisans and nationalists are not that hard, smuggling it to the Baltic countries is also doable. All this diverts Russian forces away to guard coastlines, to guard rail lines and interior communications from partisans and to try to take the forts in northern Sweden. That is a CP win in both logistics and strategic situation in the Baltic's even if Germany have to feed Sweden. The faster Russia breaks the faster its grain comes in to Swedish ports and feed starving Swedish children.

After the war I think Sweden would be treated fairly easy if the CP looses as she were attacked and forced in to the war and Norway would be similarly treated if the CP wins as Norway have nothing Germany wants and Sweden don't see the point of a union 2.0.

So again why even bother whit Norway (if UK even bother forcing it to declare war on Sweden)?

What? There's at least four, and they are all high-quality, especially Narvik-Kiruna, which eas able to handle 3500 ton trains several times daily.

There were no border fortifications until 1940. One part of the end of the union negotiations of 1905 was a demilitarisation of the border. Neither side were allowed to build any fortifications.

Sweden's supply situation would not improve nor declinde from being at war - it was already under blockade. The Swedish premier claimed (correctly) that food is not considered contraband according to international law and that Sweden had the right to trade food with Germany. Britain responded by putting Sweden under the same blockade the Germans suffered. Might made right when the Royal Navy cruised the North Sea.

As for rail links, there has never been a rail brigde over Torne Älv. Also, the Finnish rail is of Russian guage (from its inception until today) while the Swedish is standard gauge, so even if you did build a bridge, you would still need to reload.

Narvik is a strategic ice-free port connected with excellent railroad to the general rail network of Scandinavia and especially the northern Swedish mines. That is why someone would want it.

 

[von Adler]

To make some points here.

1. Norway will maintain a British-friendly neutrality. They have absolutely no reasons to do anything else than that, only things to lose.

2. Swedes and Norwegians considered each other brothers and anyone trying to force them to go to war would face extreme internal opposition.

3. Sweden had no real incentive for war - we knew we would not get Finland, Finland had its own thirst for independence and did not want pre-1809 back. Some parts of Sweden, mianly parts of the academic and the industrial elite, the royal house and the nobility (not very powerful) might want a war, but the general populace will need convincing.

 

[stjernkjempe]

A lot depends on who is making the decisions. Is Sweden running a separate War Plan, or will they coordinate with Germany. It also depends on the year.

If Britain lands troops in Norway, Sweden will be expected to keep them out of Sweden. The Germans believe in the attack, and would encourage an aggressive Sweden, so I can easily see Sweden trying to take Southern Norway and holding the high mountain lines in the north. Most likely, the UK still goes after the Ottoman empire, not Sweden. The goals, if not the execution of the operation, made a lot of sense for the Entente.

If no UK and 1914, Germany wants to slow the Russians in the East. They will likely encourage Sweden to at least attempt a diversionary attack in the North to try to draw a Russian Army North. My guess is that Russia would send the 4th Army north, and the 1st and 2nd Army would go on the defensive and give ground if the Germans attacked. For a major offensive, the Germans would probably want a Swedish Army in Prussia. Logistics by sea would be very risky. The Russian navy more stayed behind the mine fields than was defeated. Transporting Swedish divisions to Danzig and then supplying by rail is just so much easier.

Under Falkenhayn, he was big on decisive battles and knocking out smaller countries. If German GHQ believe a Swedish Army with German help could knock out Norway, it would have been approved and done in 1916, provide the butterflies are not too large by then.

So much depends on the POD, but basically, unless British forces land in numbers in Norway or Norway can be knocked out of the war in a few month campaign, you are right. Sweden defends against Norway and has the bulk of the Army fighting Russia.

IMO, Sweden joining is likely to be decisive for the CP. Based on year joining. In 1914, it gives the German more time to work on France and likely Russia reacting will save A-H the worst defeats. In 1915, Russia will have even fewer troops than OTL, and the German counter attack in likely works even better with at least one fewer Russian Armies facing them. A general collapse of the Russian line is even possible. In 1916, reacting to Sweden entering the war likely means Brusilov offensive is canceled or only a local success. In 1917 and 1918, it is probably to late to have a decisive impact.

I can see how you would assume Germany would try run the Swedish war efforts but there is war plans for both war whit Russia and whit Norway/UK in play 1914. The war plan against Russia have been drawn up and improved upon science 1809 and the loss of Finland (and this war plan is actually in many aspects the same war plan for a war whit Russia we have today, had during the cold war and always have had). Sit in our forts and wait for the Russians to come to us and then inflict as much damage on them so they could not stomached anything more and sues for peace. It's not a good one but it's one that we used better parts of 100 years to perfect 1914 and 200 years to perfect in 2012. Similarly is the war plan against Norway: Defend in depth in the north and wait in the forts in the south for them to come to us. If Norway wants to invade and occupy any of our billion "worthless" mountains that we share whit them along the long shared border they are welcome to them, we might join them in the skiing later. Logistically there is only two ways of intrusion: Narvik and the south. Norway's war plan were a bit similar: Sit still and hope the Swedish go skiing instead of invading and if they invade hope they are stupid enough to go straight into the pillboxes of concrete we call forts. Both sides no this and both German and British officers have come to Norway and Sweden and advised us to do this by 1914 so there is no plans for attack. If anyone is going to attack they have to work out a plan, write down strategic goals and then begin to instruct the officers on them first. No one on either side have trained for anything else.

By 1916 and whit a German army Sweden might be ready and consider invading Norway. But even then it would mostly be the Germans doing the heavy lifting.

For the idea of having Germany wanting Sweden pushing into Finland as a diversion I could see it happen as there might be some thousand soldiers to spare but there is no Swedish extra armies to send to Germany. There is no logistics and no extra soldiers to spare. But as a diversion and to draw Russian troops into Finland and if Sweden and Germany are lucky they might try to take Boden Fortress. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boden_Fortress). And it's in this the "gain" for the CP comes. That and the Swedish coast Fleet that could help the German Baltic fleet to hunt down submarines and clear minefields.

I assume here that Sweden joins in because Russia actually attacks here, she won't be persuaded to join in (as we have seen IOTL) for anything else than a direct attack on here. A attack on the fleet (von Essen POD) could spin out if control to a joining due to popular reaction. A CP Sweden only might make UK force Norway to join the Entente (only might as a neutral Norway could gather intelligence on Germany through Sweden)