Sweden joins axis

[BDV]

Don't be so sure.

One point of departure - Maybe instead of meekly standing by, Adolf publicly chastises Djugashvilli for imperial adventurism and stuborness and the western powers for taking only on perceived weaklings a la Germany and Italy while abiding bolshvismus and Big Scary Red Russia?

Go ahead, be creative. A lot of meat is needed on that skeleton of an ide, but it could work.

[Carl Schwamberger]

The thread is only a day old.

While straight forward territorial gains dont look practical for Sweden there are a variety of economic incentives that could be offered. Favored status for Swedish business in the German empire, something similar to German businesses favored by the nazis. 'Swedish' economic zones, perhaps similar to the trade concessions of the Europeans in Chinese cities in the 19th & early 20th Centuries.

[Jumin121]

The thread is only a day old.

While straight forward territorial gains dont look practical for Sweden there are a variety of economic incentives that could be offered. Favored status for Swedish business in the German empire, something similar to German businesses favored by the nazis. 'Swedish' economic zones, perhaps similar to the trade concessions of the Europeans in Chinese cities in the 19th & early 20th Centuries.

why is straight forward territorial gains not practical, im sure the Nazis wouldn't mind giving them Norway if they were able to protect it adequately.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Swedes did not want Norway. They had it for a while and gave it away as not worth the trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolutio ... and_Sweden

[Jumin121]

Swedes did not want Norway. They had it for a while and gave it away as not worth the trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolutio ... and_Sweden

yes very good point, so the swedes still had economical advantages

[thaddeus_c]

think Sweden is basically more help as a neutral country. perhaps they could be "invited' to send a division to help during invasion of Russia. maybe look the other way while a few trainloads of German troops transit to Narvik during invasion of Norway?

what if Finland had joined the Axis? formally, say neutral Italy, Germany keeps their historical alliance with KMT China so no Japan to bring Axis into war with U.S.

Baltic states allowed to become independent , contribute troops to invasion ( more than OTL.)

four countries aligned with Germany in north with their own security and territory at stake.

better than reluctant Sweden.

[Jumin121]

think Sweden is basically more help as a neutral country. perhaps they could be "invited' to send a division to help during invasion of Russia. maybe look the other way while a few trainloads of German troops transit to Narvik during invasion of Norway?

what if Finland had joined the Axis? formally, say neutral Italy, Germany keeps their historical alliance with KMT China so no Japan to bring Axis into war with U.S.

Baltic states allowed to become independent , contribute troops to invasion ( more than OTL.)

four countries aligned with Germany in north with their own security and territory at stake.

better than reluctant Sweden.

The British would have eventually convinced the USA to join the war fully, it was only a matter of time, and china would still be ravaged by japan and wouldnt be much of an ally

[LWD]

From what I've read the Swedes were not happy about the German invasion of Norway. I suspect that they weren't happy about Denmark either. So in order to get them to join after that Hitler needs either a pretty big stick or a pretty big carrot or both. Now he does have the stick but can he aford to use it at this time vs Sweden or is the threat of it's use enough? Or is neutral Sweden actually of more use to him, at least early war?

[Old_Fossil]

The best POD I can see is that Sweden becomes a co-beligerent with Germany after Britain and France invade Sweden from Narvik to occupy the Swedish iron mines. There were several missed opportunities for the Allies to force Dietl to intern his troops in Sweden and after that Churchill was very much interested in pushing on into Sweden. With British ( and maybe French but not Norwegian) troops battling Swedish troops I can see Hitler giving an ultimatum to Sweden to allow Germany to intervene or else be at war with Germany. Under these circumstances I could see Sweden reluctantly allowing Dietl's men to rearm and battle the British, effectively becoming a co-belligerent with Germany.

The biggest benefit to Germany would be access to more high grade Swedish Iron ore. In the OTL Sweden limited Germany to only the amount exported in 1938. Even if this does not lead to greater overall steel production in Germany, the higher quality ore from Sweden benefits Germany because it requires less coal to turn Swedish iron ore into steel.

[Jumin121]

Thats interesting never even heard of that thought, i did hear of many british plans to attack norway but never sweden

[Lothar_1]

I think it is an very unrealistic szenario. The svedish government and population did not like to cooperate with the
nazies, did not like to join the war and did not want an annexion of Norway.

But it is a "What if" that aks for the effect, if somethins different happenes.

Let us say, the Nazies had big influence to sveden. After the Finnish- russian War,
in Spring of 1940 Sweden decides to cooperate and becomes a German ally.

Much could have been different.
Possible differenzes:
"Weserübung" is more efficient, because parallel to the naval attack, svedish troops start from their border. Germans can concentrate on the south of Norway: Trondheim, Oslo and Narvik are taken from svedish troops, the german Luftwaffe and Airborne forces can start from sveden.
Result different to original:
- Germany does not loose the 10 destroyers at Narvik and the heavy cruicer Bluecher at Oslo.
- only half of the occupation troops are needed in norway and also a view tanks are free too.

Attack of France: in OTL France ans GB had sent troops to norway, now they are both in France.
When Germany attackes, both sides are a little bit stronger, but I think Germany could have used this efford more eficient.

Operation Dynamo: Less planes in Norway => more against France. The remaining german destroyers could have been used to stop the evacuation at Dunkirque. Less british tropps were saved.

Battle of England:
Sveden has occupied all Norway now. This allowes to bring the complete Luftwaffe to France. This increases the pressure to GB and they can not even think about invading Norway.
Germany has now more planes against GB, more losses on both sides, much more critical for GB, but not enough to defeat them.

Balkan/Afrika:
- less troops evacuated in Dunkirque means less british troops available at Greece and Egypte. => little easier for Germany

"Rheinübung":
- Bluecher did not sink on the way to Oslo, and now possibly the Bismarck could have gone with 2 heavy cruisers instead of only one.
- in original Timeline: On 21 May, the Admiralty was alerted by sources in the Swedish government that two large warships had been seen in the Kattegat.
Next day one Spitfire found them. In this szenario they were not informed. But I do not know, if this would have influenced the Rheinuebung.

One important question: Would Sveden be able to protect Norway from a british invasion? I think yes.
The possible diverting szenarios above had the effect of many little increases of the german military power compared to the reality. And some reduced the british military power.
A stronger Germany would be able to make more military pressure against the british nation.
So the GB might not have the power to invade norway.
But in case they did invade, those soldiers and wappons would have been mising somewhere else, eg in Africa.

During the war Germany had up to 300.000 soldiers in Norway, and in addition many (older) tanks and planes.
The effect on the war depends on how Gemany would have used all this additional mititary possibilities.

With all those troops in Africa Germany might had won in Egypt. Using them in Russia Germany might have occupied
Leningrad and Murmansk.....
But this is all only speculation.

And last but not least: As far as I know, sveden would never have done this.

[BDV]

Well, would a bolshevik overrun of Finland and/or establishment of a Finnish-Swedish alliance alter the dynamics, quite dramatically?

[Jumin121]

I think it is an very unrealistic szenario. The svedish government and population did not like to cooperate with the
nazies, did not like to join the war and did not want an annexion of Norway.

But it is a "What if" that aks for the effect, if somethins different happenes.

Let us say, the Nazies had big influence to sveden. After the Finnish- russian War,
in Spring of 1940 Sweden decides to cooperate and becomes a German ally.

Much could have been different.
Possible differenzes:
"Weserübung" is more efficient, because parallel to the naval attack, svedish troops start from their border. Germans can concentrate on the south of Norway: Trondheim, Oslo and Narvik are taken from svedish troops, the german Luftwaffe and Airborne forces can start from sveden.
Result different to original:
- Germany does not loose the 10 destroyers at Narvik and the heavy cruicer Bluecher at Oslo.
- only half of the occupation troops are needed in norway and also a view tanks are free too.

Attack of France: in OTL France ans GB had sent troops to norway, now they are both in France.
When Germany attackes, both sides are a little bit stronger, but I think Germany could have used this efford more eficient.

Operation Dynamo: Less planes in Norway => more against France. The remaining german destroyers could have been used to stop the evacuation at Dunkirque. Less british tropps were saved.

Battle of England:
Sveden has occupied all Norway now. This allowes to bring the complete Luftwaffe to France. This increases the pressure to GB and they can not even think about invading Norway.
Germany has now more planes against GB, more losses on both sides, much more critical for GB, but not enough to defeat them.

Balkan/Afrika:
- less troops evacuated in Dunkirque means less british troops available at Greece and Egypte. => little easier for Germany

"Rheinübung":
- Bluecher did not sink on the way to Oslo, and now possibly the Bismarck could have gone with 2 heavy cruisers instead of only one.
- in original Timeline: On 21 May, the Admiralty was alerted by sources in the Swedish government that two large warships had been seen in the Kattegat.
Next day one Spitfire found them. In this szenario they were not informed. But I do not know, if this would have influenced the Rheinuebung.

One important question: Would Sveden be able to protect Norway from a british invasion? I think yes.
The possible diverting szenarios above had the effect of many little increases of the german military power compared to the reality. And some reduced the british military power.
A stronger Germany would be able to make more military pressure against the british nation.
So the GB might not have the power to invade norway.
But in case they did invade, those soldiers and wappons would have been mising somewhere else, eg in Africa.

During the war Germany had up to 300.000 soldiers in Norway, and in addition many (older) tanks and planes.
The effect on the war depends on how Gemany would have used all this additional mititary possibilities.

With all those troops in Africa Germany might had won in Egypt. Using them in Russia Germany might have occupied
Leningrad and Murmansk.....
But this is all only speculation.

And last but not least: As far as I know, sveden would never have done this.

that was a very nice description

[Carl Schwamberger]

what if Sweden joins Germany after the fall of Norway and Denmark, would that have changed much in the war on the eastern or western fronts, what is the best that could of happened?

I think to make this work you need to move the PoD back perhaps as far as the 1920s, and establish a Facist and imperialistic government in Sweden. For a proper nazi fanboi wank you need a Swedish leaderships who grasp the opportunity to restablish their fantisy of the northern empire. So Sweden aggresingly allies with and helps German conquor Norway and portions of the USSR in return for Scandanvia, the Baltic states, Iceland, Greenland, Karellia & other points on the Eurasian North coast being in Swedens sphere of influence. In other words Sweden becomes a weak ally of Germany similar to Italy with Mussolinis Roman empire revival fantasies.

[Kingfish]

"Weserübung" is more efficient, because parallel to the naval attack, svedish troops start from their border. Germans can concentrate on the south of Norway: Trondheim, Oslo and Narvik are taken from svedish troops, the german Luftwaffe and Airborne forces can start from sveden.

I wouldn't be so sure it would be more efficient. The German plan counted on capturing all the ports via coup-de-main, and this was only possible by embarking the initial assault troops on warships. Assigning the capture of Trondheim and Narvik to the Swedes would mean an overland advance across difficult terrain in winter conditions, and the Swedish army (like most minor nations of WW2) was not organized nor equipped for rapid exploitation. See here:

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/081_sweden/__sweden.htm

One other thing to consider: the allies also had their own invasion plans for Norway, and in fact had the troops embarked on warships ready to sail, but was hastily cancelled when the German invasion fleet was sighted heading north. In this WI there is no German fleet heading for the northern ports, so the Allied troops can quickly reinforce the Norwegian defenders.