Impact of Axis Norway and Sweden?

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Let’s say that Britain launches an Invasion of Norway (which includes an attack on Sweden) in Spring 1940 before Germany does, resulting in Norway and Sweden defeating Britain with some German help.

Some questions.

1: Does this drag Norway and Sweden into alliance with Germany going forward?

2: Does Denmark get bullied into joining them? Does Denmark have any play left for neutrality?

3: Impact on Britain’s reputation internationally?

4: What can the Scandinavians contribute to the fight against Britain?

5: Assuming Barbarossa goes roughly on schedule, can Norway and Sweden make significant contributions?

6: If (when) the tide turns against the Axis, do they get a deal like Finland, or do all the Nordics get conquered?

 

[Dan1988]

6: If (when) the tide turns against the Axis, do they get a deal like Finland, or do all the Nordics get conquered?

I'll swim against the potential tide and assume that we'll see the Swedish, Norwegian, and Finnish Soviet Socialist Republics. Denmark, OTOH, would get the Finland treatment in this case ITTL. I'll explain later when I'm not super-tired.

 

[Arcavia]

I'll swim against the potential tide and assume that we'll see the Swedish, Norwegian, and Finnish Soviet Socialist Republics. Denmark, OTOH, would get the Finland treatment in this case ITTL. I'll explain later when I'm not super-tired.

Soviet puppet states would certainly be possible in Finland and Sweden; Norway is a little harder as 1) the mountains are highly defensible and 2) the Allies do not want the Soviets to have ports on the open North Sea. They might well not be SSRs in the sense of constituent states of the USSR though... I'd say maybe a Finnish SSR is plausible, but you'd have a nominally independent Swedish People's Republic. Either way both Norway and Sweden will be more inclined towards the East after this "stab in the back". Finland...will not be (*purge intensifies*).

 

[Dan1988]

OTOH the USSR could invade Norway by way of Finland and the Murmansk Oblast and just "fjord-hop" from there. Thus bypassing the mountains completely.

 

[Cook]

When the Norwegian government fled to Britain, it took with it almost the entire Norwegian merchant navy, one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, including some 242 oil tankers and more than 400 ships of over 2500 tons dry weight. In this scenario almost all of them would remain out of British hands. That would significantly impact the course of the Battle of the Atlantic, to say nothing of providing support to the Soviet Union.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

When the Norwegian government fled to Britain, it took with it almost the entire Norwegian merchant navy, one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, ...

This does change a lot. Brit leaders would have to rethink large parts of their strategy from June 1940. If they stay in the war the Battle of the Atlantic will look a lot different.

 

[Hvalrossen]

When the Norwegian government fled to Britain, it took with it almost the entire Norwegian merchant navy, one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, including some 242 oil tankers and more than 400 ships of over 2500 tons dry weight. In this scenario almost all of them would remain out of British hands. That would significantly impact the course of the Battle of the Atlantic, to say nothing of providing support to the Soviet Union.

The Norwegian Goverment may have presided over the Norwegian merchant fleet, but the entire Norwegian merchant fleet was not at all times in Norway. The Norwegian merchant fleet would have been spread around the globe. The British could probably seize the Norwegian merchant fleet, or much of it, depending on where ships where located.

• Some ships may be sabotaged to prevent British utillisation of them.
• Some Crews may be split by people who would want to join the British and those who wished for a pro-axis direction
• Some ships may be sunk, crews may go down with ships too
• Norwegian sailors may not wish to serve in the British merchant fleet, some would but not all. Therefore the British would need to find new manpower to man the ships.
• Norwegian merchant navy may find safe harbor in some third party countries aswell as axis countries.

 

[Jukra]

If we end up, via hook, crook or ASB with Axis Sweden and Norway Denmark and Finland will quite likely follow. This might well be the straw on the camel's back to tip the war for the Axis.

 

[El_Presidente]

I see the USSR cooperating on a higher level with the Axis, maybe putting pressure in Persia. The original plan was for the landings to be after the bombing of Baku. Even if the bombing doesn't happen, the justification for launching the invasion was helping the Finns against the Soviets.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

This does change a lot. Brit leaders would have to rethink large parts of their strategy from June 1940. If they stay in the war the Battle of the Atlantic will look a lot different.

The Japanese in particular were using alot of chatered Nordic tonnage in the pre-European war years. Assuming they retain that access, i'd argue it's the Pacific Theater that sees the bigger shift as naval logistics mean far more there

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

If we end up, via hook, crook or ASB with Axis Sweden and Norway Denmark and Finland will quite likely follow. This might well be the straw on the camel's back to tip the war for the Axis.

Do you think the Scandinavians really add that much? How many men can they add?

 

[Lord High Executioner]

Do you think the Scandinavians really add that much? How many men can they add?

A Norway that does not need to be garrisoned might add about 300 000 men who are not tied down into garrisoning Norway...

 

[Arcavia]

A Norway that does not need to be garrisoned might add about 300 000 men who are not tied down into garrisoning Norway...

There still needs to be at least some Axis presence in Norway especially if there's any resistance from the Communists and others (which there will be after Barbarossa). In any case though the Germans still need to make sure that they have enough manpower there to deter a British/later Anglo-American invasion.

I'd say the bigger impact would be that combined Norwegian, Swedish, and to a much lesser extent Danish troops would have much more experience in winter conditions than the Germans. Butterflies from this would be huge especially at Moscow...could Moscow fall to despite Soviet Far East units' reinforcements or does the slight difference not change much?

 

[DrakonFin]

There still needs to be at least some Axis presence in Norway especially if there's any resistance from the Communists and others (which there will be after Barbarossa). In any case though the Germans still need to make sure that they have enough manpower there to deter a British/later Anglo-American invasion.

I'd say the bigger impact would be that combined Norwegian, Swedish, and to a much lesser extent Danish troops would have much more experience in winter conditions than the Germans. Butterflies from this would be huge especially at Moscow...could Moscow fall to despite Soviet Far East units' reinforcements or does the slight difference not change much?

On balance, I think the Nordic troops would be most useful for an assault on Murmansk and the Murmansk railway - as long as we handwave all the political issues with this idea.* The Germans had huge trouble up north, but the Nordics would have solid experience for those conditions. A combined Nordic attack taking Murmansk would go a long way to help the Germans, even if the Nordic nations would mostly stand on the defensive otherwise. Such an attack would require German material and logistics support, but then ITTL a non-negligible amount of German troops would be freed from Norway and Finnish Lapland to more southern climes where they would have better uses.

* Of course a Nordic campaign in the Arctic area would be much easier to justify all around than sending major parts of their armed forces to take part in the main part of Barbarossa more south, far away from home.

 

[Jukra]

There still needs to be at least some Axis presence in Norway especially if there's any resistance from the Communists and others (which there will be after Barbarossa). In any case though the Germans still need to make sure that they have enough manpower there to deter a British/later Anglo-American invasion.

I'd say the bigger impact would be that combined Norwegian, Swedish, and to a much lesser extent Danish troops would have much more experience in winter conditions than the Germans. Butterflies from this would be huge especially at Moscow...could Moscow fall to despite Soviet Far East units' reinforcements or does the slight difference not change much?

I would think, that in nearly ASB situation in which Nordic countries would join the Axis, Norway can take care of itself, Sweden and Denmark could help Finland and thus it's easy to think that at very least Kola Peninsula and Eastern Karelia could be captured, very possibly with German support Leningrad too. Even though the Arctic route was not the most important L-L route, it was still some 25% via the most efficient logistical route, this alone would be very important.

 

[thaddeus]

I would think, that in nearly ASB situation in which Nordic countries would join the Axis, Norway can take care of itself, Sweden and Denmark could help Finland and thus it's easy to think that at very least Kola Peninsula and Eastern Karelia could be captured, very possibly with German support Leningrad too. Even though the Arctic route was not the most important L-L route, it was still some 25% via the most efficient logistical route, this alone would be very important.

as discussed in a recent thread, it was THE L-L route for 1941, and a large part of 1942, so if severed it would have an impact greater than the statistics indicate? (although they could scramble to use Pacific and Persian routes, the former was maxed out anyways and the latter took time to set up beginning in Aug. '41)