What would the results have been if the Russian fleet under Admiral von Essen had not been recalled in time to prevent his attack on Gotland, and Sweden had been drawn into the war on the sides of the Central Powers?
Very little would have changed I imagine. Sweden could not have offered anything that would have tipped the scales for the Central Powers (like food or manpower), so the Allies still win. Once the USA decided to get involved, the conclusion was clear and it was only a question of time.
I suspect that Sweden would've found the first excuse to bow out of the war if the British got involved in the Russian debacle and they almost-certainly would do so when the USA entered the war. Now, they may very well have fought a co-belligerent style war against Russia alongside Germany, but as they were under no real compulsion to stay in the war after Russia's collapse they would likely have taken some territory, aided Finland in gaining its independence and then exited the war.
Lots of Swedes go hungry.
I suppose it would all depend on how much men and material the Swedes could distract from the main Russian theater in the East. If it was enough to precipitate an earlier Russian collapse than things could have proceeded quite differently.
And of course perceptions of progress, positive or negative, during the first few years by the various parties may have been different and caused different decisions to be made by the principal combatants that could have serious consequences.
This might actually have changed a lot. Winning a few victories could have kept the tsar in power long enough to outlast the war. :hmm: :P
Like all other alternate histories, this one naturally results in a reborn Byzantine Empire and an independent CSA.
Paradox' Great War simulator begins with Sweden conquering most of Russia and Scotland.
Tim taught me something today, as I'd never heard about this incident before.
Tim: good teacher. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2010, 06:54:09 AM
Tim taught me something today, as I'd never heard about this incident before.
Tim: good teacher. :)
:blush:
Also, propaganda wise it allows the CP to paint the British as hypocrites coming to the defense of neutral Belgium while their ally attacks neutral Sweden.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2010, 06:54:09 AM
Tim taught me something today, as I'd never heard about this incident before.
Tim: good teacher. :)
I still haven't heard about this incident.
What was it called?
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2010, 07:10:18 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2010, 06:54:09 AM
Tim taught me something today, as I'd never heard about this incident before.
Tim: good teacher. :)
I still haven't heard about this incident.
What was it called?
The Admiral was on his way to attack Gotland and was recalled at the last minute.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sx3JAH0LiMEC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Admiral+von+Essen+Sweden+neutrality&source=bl&ots=ldMae-8Nte&sig=JKTBxnpzs94AbE27xmBBQ-g2zrQ&hl=en&ei=UX-8S4WYBIfmswOP2qTnBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Admiral%20von%20Essen%20Sweden%20neutrality&f=false
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:06:31 AM
Also, propaganda wise it allows the CP to paint the British as hypocrites coming to the defense of neutral Belgium while their ally attacks neutral Sweden.
Unnecessary, as the situation in Greece allowed them to do that just fine.
Good information, had never heard of this, thanks.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 07, 2010, 07:58:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:06:31 AM
Also, propaganda wise it allows the CP to paint the British as hypocrites coming to the defense of neutral Belgium while their ally attacks neutral Sweden.
Unnecessary, as the situation in Greece allowed them to do that just fine.
The situation in Greece happened much latter in the war and does not seem nearly as clear cut as a preemptive naval strike.
Though I must admit I don't know much about the Balkan theater in WWI and the resources on the web for it are distressingly thin, so I could be wrong.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWgreece.htm
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/minorpowers_greece.htm
I'm distressed.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 09:20:16 AM
I'm distressed.
Why?
Question: Was Swedish ore of similar importance to the German war effort as it was in WWII
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:50:53 AM
The Admiral was on his way to attack Gotland and was recalled at the last minute.
He was on his way to investigate a supposed naval concentration there and was recalled long before the "last minute." Had he not been recalled, he would have arrived, seen that there was no ship concentration there, and left.
The impact of this alternate history is that the Russian Navy would have had 47.3 tons less coal in January 1915 then it historically did.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
The impact of this alternate history is that the Russian Navy would have had 47.3 tons less coal in January 1915 then it historically did.
Also, is there any guarantee Sweden would DoW and join the allies just because of a Russian violation of Swedish territorial waters? During WWII Swiss airspace was violated many times, and I think some Swiss towns were even bombed by mistake (by both sides), and the Swiss did not join either the Axis or the Allies.
I guess I don't know what the supposed plans of this Russian admiral were exactly with regard to Gotland.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:50:53 AM
The Admiral was on his way to attack Gotland and was recalled at the last minute.
He was on his way to investigate a supposed naval concentration there and was recalled long before the "last minute." Had he not been recalled, he would have arrived, seen that there was no ship concentration there, and left.
The impact of this alternate history is that the Russian Navy would have had 47.3 tons less coal in January 1915 then it historically did.
Just because there wasn't a concentration of ships doesn't mean there wasn't any in the area. I'd have to look at Swedish naval records to see their distribution though.
Either way once he's in Swedish waters looking for their fleet there's a possibility for escalation. He may have continued looking for the fleet rather than turning around. From what I've read he seemed to be looking for trouble.
The Commies bombed Sweden for supporting Finland during the Winter War, don't think it was accidental. Not much Sweden could do, so they just kinda took it. Gustav Adolphus was rolling around in his grave.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2010, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
The impact of this alternate history is that the Russian Navy would have had 47.3 tons less coal in January 1915 then it historically did.
Also, is there any guarantee Sweden would DoW and join the allies just because of a Russian violation of Swedish territorial waters? During WWII Swiss airspace was violated many times, and I think some Swiss towns were even bombed by mistake (by both sides), and the Swiss did not join either the Axis or the Allies.
I guess I don't know what the supposed plans of this Russian admiral were exactly with regard to Gotland.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 09:20:16 AM
I'm distressed.
Why?
Question: Was Swedish ore of similar importance to the German war effort as it was in WWII
Yes, but the Germans got it anyway and ther eis no way Russia could threaten it.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 07, 2010, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 09:20:16 AM
I'm distressed.
Why?
Question: Was Swedish ore of similar importance to the German war effort as it was in WWII
Yes, but the Germans got it anyway and there is no way Russia could threaten it.
No? Why?
Wags, they took it because there was no choice.
In this scenario, Russia is also at war with Germany, a Germany who's governmental system is much more compatible with Sweden than that of the Nazis. Here they have a choice, they might not take it, but they have it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 11:22:17 AM
No? Why?
How active was the Russian navy in the Baltic OTL? How effectively did it interdict Swedish ore?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 01:18:39 AM
I suppose it would all depend on how much men and material the Swedes could distract from the main Russian theater in the East. If it was enough to precipitate an earlier Russian collapse than things could have proceeded quite differently.
Sweden was a country of 5 million, 2 millions less than Belgium. I ask you this question: what was the military value of the Belgian Army in distracting the Germans? Practically zero. Sweden would have been a drop in the bucket, a non-entity military wise. Their value would have been political, economic, and propaganda only.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2010, 11:58:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 01:18:39 AM
I suppose it would all depend on how much men and material the Swedes could distract from the main Russian theater in the East. If it was enough to precipitate an earlier Russian collapse than things could have proceeded quite differently.
Sweden was a country of 5 million, 2 millions less than Belgium. I ask you this question: what was the military value of the Belgian Army in distracting the Germans? Practically zero. Sweden would have been a drop in the bucket, a non-entity military wise. Their value would have been political, economic, and propaganda only.
Not a really fair comparison though? I mean Belgium being obliterated so fast could have something to do with being overrun by a million men of the finest army of the time who werent even bloodied by then and more or less completely fresh. Any eventual swedish contribution would go to secondary fronts where they potentially could punch at their weight at least. Tbh I have no idea whatever capabilities sweden had at the time but then I doubt any reserve troops the russians put in finland or whatever would have been of any quality to speak of.
Anyway russia being aggressive in the Baltic....happy days for the HSF?
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:50:53 AM
The Admiral was on his way to attack Gotland and was recalled at the last minute.
He was on his way to investigate a supposed naval concentration there and was recalled long before the "last minute." Had he not been recalled, he would have arrived, seen that there was no ship concentration there, and left.
The impact of this alternate history is that the Russian Navy would have had 47.3 tons less coal in January 1915 then it historically did.
Well that's the last time I take Tim at his word.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 10:51:06 AM
Just because there wasn't a concentration of ships doesn't mean there wasn't any in the area. I'd have to look at Swedish naval records to see their distribution though.
And just because this brilliant admiral was concerned enough to investigate a report of a German-Swedish alliance, doesn't mean that there were any Swedish or German ships involved.
QuoteEither way once he's in Swedish waters looking for their fleet there's a possibility for escalation. He may have continued looking for the fleet rather than turning around. From what I've read he seemed to be looking for trouble.
I have seen nothing whatever that would support your assertion. Essen (not
von Essen, btw) was focused on supporting mine laying operations in the Gulf of Riga, and counter-patrolling (he would capture the wreck of the Magdeburg in August), not chasing phantom fleets. He certainly wasn't "looking for trouble" given his inferior position.
The fact that your source doesn't even get his name right doesn't give me much confidence this non-event even occurred. The wiki entry based on it is no more persuasive.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 07, 2010, 11:11:45 AM
Yes, but the Germans got it anyway and ther eis no way Russia could threaten it.
The Russians did raid this trade, and in fact deployed submarines against it as well as surface raiders.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
I have seen nothing whatever that would support your assertion. Essen (not von Essen, btw)
Was he the guy the US carrier class in WW2 was named after???
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2010, 01:25:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
I have seen nothing whatever that would support your assertion. Essen (not von Essen, btw)
Was he the guy the US carrier class in WW2 was named after???
No, that was the
von Essex class.
I hope we get a von Eisenhower class ship in the future.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 01:58:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2010, 01:25:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
I have seen nothing whatever that would support your assertion. Essen (not von Essen, btw)
Was he the guy the US carrier class in WW2 was named after???
No, that was the von Essex class.
Damnit!
:mad:
Every time I think I am starting to become knowledgeable about this stuff, it turns out I get a critical detail wrong!
That's the Essex.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2010, 01:25:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
I have seen nothing whatever that would support your assertion. Essen (not von Essen, btw)
Was he the guy the US carrier class in WW2 was named after???
I've been thinking about changing my middle name to 'von' for quite some time now. :cool:
What if Tim were not a complete fucking moron? Ok, I know there has to be SOME plausibility to alt-hist...but it is interesting to contemplate.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
I have seen nothing whatever that would support your assertion. Essen (not von Essen, btw) was focused on supporting mine laying operations in the Gulf of Riga, and counter-patrolling (he would capture the wreck of the Magdeburg in August), not chasing phantom fleets. He certainly wasn't "looking for trouble" given his inferior position.
The fact that your source doesn't even get his name right doesn't give me much confidence this non-event even occurred. The wiki entry based on it is no more persuasive.
Von Essen seems to have been the accepted English translation of the time. When the New York Times reported his death that's what they called him.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9401E2D91E3EE033A25751C2A9639C946496D6CF
The Encyclopedia of World War I also calls him Von Essen
http://books.google.com/books?id=2YqjfHLyyj8C&pg=PA400&lpg=PA400&dq=Admiral+Nikolai+von+Essen+Sweden&source=bl&ots=BQi2WgZGYH&sig=lcDRCKoidvJKPUWei_pDU6-i120&hl=en&ei=klS9S-eRG8yOkQXk3P3VCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Admiral%20Nikolai%20von%20Essen%20Sweden&f=false
It also calls him reckless and refers to Esssen's
Quotesurreptitious attempt to force the neutral Swedish fleet into internment was only prevented by a last minute wireless instruction from Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich
Quote from: PDH on April 07, 2010, 04:00:49 PM
What if Tim were not a complete fucking moron? Ok, I know there has to be SOME plausibility to alt-hist...but it is interesting to contemplate.
And how about if you weren't such a fucking prick where I was concerned? Oh, wait you said something plausible huh, guess that's not gonna happen.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2010, 03:31:07 PM
I've been thinking about changing my middle name to 'von' for quite some time now. :cool:
I've considered it too, though i lean more towards Van.
That or Þ.
One of my great great great grandfathers was named 'Van Wert'. :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 10:58:25 PM
Von Essen seems to have been the accepted English translation of the time. When the New York Times reported his death that's what they called him. (snip)
The fact that several sources get the name wrong (presumably confusing this family with its more illustrious offshoot) doesn't increase the credibility of any of them. It is interesting that the author of the
Encyclopedia... article gets the name wrong, when both of his sources get it right!
The book
A Naval History of World War 1 makes it clear that Essen was operating against a fleet supposedly at Gotland. He couldn't have gone looking for the Swedish fleet, because his station was in the Gulf of Finland and only the pressing threat allowed him to justify leaving station (to which he was recalled by the Russian naval staff). It does, however, confirm your assertion that Essen was a bold, and even over-bold, admiral.
Based on that description, I withdraw my assertion that your scenario is essentially impossible. It remains unlikely, but that is the fate of 99% of hypotheses anyway.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 06:38:51 AM
One of my great great great grandfathers was named 'Van Wert'. :cool:
"of the Wart"?? It's a good thing he changed it to Caliga when he came to America.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 08, 2010, 06:42:00 AM
"of the Wart"?? It's a good thing he changed it to Caliga when he came to America.
Au contraire... he was born in Tarrytown, New York. I don't know the exact year of his birth but he was married in NYC in 1818, which I know because we have his marriage license. His grandfather fought in the Revolution, and in fact is rather well known for his contribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Van_Wart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Van_Wart) My ancestor's achievement of course makes me a better and more awesome person somehow. ^_^
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 06:39:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 10:58:25 PM
Von Essen seems to have been the accepted English translation of the time. When the New York Times reported his death that's what they called him. (snip)
The fact that several sources get the name wrong (presumably confusing this family with its more illustrious offshoot) doesn't increase the credibility of any of them. It is interesting that the author of the Encyclopedia... article gets the name wrong, when both of his sources get it right!
The book A Naval History of World War 1 makes it clear that Essen was operating against a fleet supposedly at Gotland. He couldn't have gone looking for the Swedish fleet, because his station was in the Gulf of Finland and only the pressing threat allowed him to justify leaving station (to which he was recalled by the Russian naval staff). It does, however, confirm your assertion that Essen was a bold, and even over-bold, admiral.
Based on that description, I withdraw my assertion that your scenario is essentially impossible. It remains unlikely, but that is the fate of 99% of hypotheses anyway.
:o
I made Grumbler change his mind (slightly) on something!
In your face DGuller!
Quote from: Cecil on April 07, 2010, 12:14:09 PM
Anyway russia being aggressive in the Baltic....happy days for the HSF?
Not really. Russia can afford to be a little aggressive, as the HSF takes time to move from Wilhelmshaven, through the Kiel Canal. Besides, if I were Prince Henry, I'd be very careful about deploying the HSF too much in the Baltic. It's a small body of water that doesn't give you much room to maneuver and is full of subs and mines. The Russian Baltic fleet is a luxury, but the Germans feel that the HSF is essential.
While Essen might possibly (although not very possibly) have attacked the Swedish fleet without provocation, I would be surprised if Sweden would go to war over it.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2010, 07:05:26 AM
While Essen might possibly (although not very possibly) have attacked the Swedish fleet without provocation, I would be surprised if Sweden would go to war over it.
Wouldn't it depend on how much damage is done? Surely if hundreds of men or more were killed than even Sweden would have had to respond.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2010, 08:39:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2010, 07:05:26 AM
While Essen might possibly (although not very possibly) have attacked the Swedish fleet without provocation, I would be surprised if Sweden would go to war over it.
Wouldn't it depend on how much damage is done? Surely if hundreds of men or more were killed than even Sweden would have had to respond.
Wrong.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2010, 09:14:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2010, 08:39:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2010, 07:05:26 AM
While Essen might possibly (although not very possibly) have attacked the Swedish fleet without provocation, I would be surprised if Sweden would go to war over it.
Wouldn't it depend on how much damage is done? Surely if hundreds of men or more were killed than even Sweden would have had to respond.
Wrong.
The Swedes had contingency plans to respond to Soviet air attack in the case of an attack in conjunction with a Warsaw Pact offensive against NATO, why would they not respond to an earlier Russian attack. Surely the masses were less wedded to pacifism at that point than they would be after witnessing the devastation of two world wars.
Militarist sentiment was rife in Sweden at this time, centered around the symbol of the King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtyard_Crisis
In 1912, when Staaffs liberal governmet didn't pledge enough money in defense spending, a collection among the people was organized to fund the construction of an armoured ship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sverige
The right made a lot of noise in favour of entering the war, as it was already. Sven Hedin wrote an anti-Russian book that sold a million copies (in a country of five million). I find it very unlikely that a Russian attack would not have made Sweden enter the war.
Quote from: Pat on April 10, 2010, 12:03:53 PM
Sven Hedin wrote an anti-Russian book that sold a million copies
I have one. It's awesome.
Damn, I need to get one too. 24 SEK on Bokbörsen *buys one*.
Quote from: Pat on April 10, 2010, 12:03:53 PM
Militarist sentiment was rife in Sweden at this time, centered around the symbol of the King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtyard_Crisis
In 1912, when Staaffs liberal governmet didn't pledge enough money in defense spending, a collection among the people was organized to fund the construction of an armoured ship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sverige
The right made a lot of noise in favour of entering the war, as it was already. Sven Hedin wrote an anti-Russian book that sold a million copies (in a country of five million). I find it very unlikely that a Russian attack would not have made Sweden enter the war.
Well there was a the lack of weapons thing. Also the whole cowardice thingy.
Quote from: Pat on April 10, 2010, 12:28:45 PM
Damn, I need to get one too. 24 SEK on Bokbörsen *buys one*.
His description of the horrors of foreign occupation are great. So very tame compared to the real horrors of 20th century occupation that were to come.
Sweden didn't go to war over Norway. Cowardice was the Swedish national religion.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2010, 06:40:35 PM
Sweden didn't go to war over Norway. Cowardice was the Swedish national religion.
That can't be compared with an unprovoked attack by a foreign power.
Too bad Hortlund isn't here.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2010, 06:40:35 PM
Sweden didn't go to war over Norway.
Would you?
Quote from: The Brain on April 11, 2010, 12:53:15 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2010, 06:40:35 PM
Sweden didn't go to war over Norway.
Would you?
And what about the Russians?
As a noted Swede, we desire your expert opinion. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2010, 02:41:33 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 11, 2010, 12:53:15 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2010, 06:40:35 PM
Sweden didn't go to war over Norway.
Would you?
And what about the Russians?
As a noted Swede, we desire your expert opinion. :contract:
Ah, flattery. You will go far young man.
I have never read in depth about Sweden in WW1. FWIW my impression is that a single major attack would be enough to make Sweden enter the war. If it could be described as only an "incident" though I don't think so.
I have read quite a bit about the era in Sweden just before and just after WW1. The Swedish foreign policy was not as nutered as it would become under the Social Democrats in the twenties and thirties. The Swedish government would very likely at least demand a formal apology from the Tsar and compensation for any damages done. This could of course escalate into a full blown war if the Tsar is stubborn.
If war came in -14 it would be a disaster for Sweden, the army was horrible obsolete both in training and equipment. Any offensives done into Finland would have to need the support of German troops, of course the reverse would also be true, any offense into northern Sweden would be a nightmare. It is quite interesting to note that the Swedish armed forces was in a similar state of dissarray at the eve of both World Wars.
In real life Sweden sold quite a lot of agricultural products to Germany during the war, in fact so much was sold that there was problems in feeding their own city populations, combined with a poor harvest in 1917 this lead to food riots breaking out in Stockholm in 1917. When the Swedish government then tried to import food from overseas this was blockaded by Great Britain that felt that Sweden only had themselves to blame for selling agricultural products to Germany. This was solved later in 1917 after negotiations, but for instance Great Britain confiscated nearly 3000 postal packages with christmas presents from Swedish emmigrants in the USA to relatives in Sweden during the war.
The Swedish Iron Ore fields in the Kirunavaara, Luossavaara and Illuvaara areas was not as developed during 1914-18 as they were in 1939-45, but mining was conducted in large scale and had been since the mid 19th century, the railway to Narvik was at least finished in 1902, maybe a few years earlier, as was the harbour. But I have not read anything about any larger amounts of Swedish iron ore being shipped to Germany during WW1, nor have I read anything about ball-bearings being sold to Germany during WW1.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2010, 11:58:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 01:18:39 AM
I suppose it would all depend on how much men and material the Swedes could distract from the main Russian theater in the East. If it was enough to precipitate an earlier Russian collapse than things could have proceeded quite differently.
Sweden was a country of 5 million, 2 millions less than Belgium. I ask you this question: what was the military value of the Belgian Army in distracting the Germans? Practically zero. Sweden would have been a drop in the bucket, a non-entity military wise. Their value would have been political, economic, and propaganda only.
A Russian corp sent to deal with the Swedes is a corp not fighting the Germans
A politics are important. The stronger the CP stands at the outset will sway how nations that are still neutral perceive the contest.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2010, 08:34:31 PM
A Russian corp sent to deal with the Swedes is a corp not fighting the Germans
The Russians problems against the Germans had nothing to do with a lack of soldiers.
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 05:22:12 AM
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
FWIW the Swedish border town of Haparanda experienced a huge transport boom in WW1.
Factette: 65k POW invalids were exchanged between the Entente and CP and were transported through Haparanda. Some of them didn't make it home: 11 Germans, 205 Austrians and 2 Turks are buried in Haparanda (Russians were buried across the border in Tornio).
Some nice pics (feel free to google translate the text): http://www.historiskt.nu/normalsp/staten/sb_bd_haparanda/haparanda_station_08.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 05:22:12 AM
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
For sea transport Sweden would not be an issue, the belts of Denmark are not, and was not, controlled by sweden. Subs and German ships inside the baltic is another matter :) In fact denmark mined the straits and thus somewhat controlled transits.
FWIW Denmark for WW1, and WW1 only ;), was well prepared, dug in, with the most modern weapons and doctrines. To such an extend that the German high command estimated 1 mill. troops would be needed to take and control Sealand and Copenhagen.
EDIT http://www.vestvolden.info/Eng/index.htm short in english on the fortifications, quite alot of work :D
Quote from: Valdemar on January 13, 2012, 07:53:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 05:22:12 AM
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
For sea transport Sweden would not be an issue, the belts of Denmark are not, and was not, controlled by sweden. Subs and German ships inside the baltic is another matter :) In fact denmark mined the straits and thus somewhat controlled transits.
Although that happened as a result of German threats. Either we did it or the Germans would come and do it for us.
The government consulted the British about it and they thought it was a wonderful idea since it would also limit the German navy.
Quote from: Octavian on January 13, 2012, 08:29:41 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on January 13, 2012, 07:53:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 05:22:12 AM
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
For sea transport Sweden would not be an issue, the belts of Denmark are not, and was not, controlled by sweden. Subs and German ships inside the baltic is another matter :) In fact denmark mined the straits and thus somewhat controlled transits.
Although that happened as a result of German threats. Either we did it or the Germans would come and do it for us.
The government consulted the British about it and they thought it was a wonderful idea since it would also limit the German navy.
Indeed, though I heard it was the British who asked us to do it.
Fact though, we held the maps of the mine fields ;)
V
Quote from: Valdemar on January 13, 2012, 07:53:37 AM
FWIW Denmark for WW1, and WW1 only ;), was well prepared, dug in, with the most modern weapons and doctrines.
So what happened to abandon this very sensible strategy for WW2?
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 08:32:07 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on January 13, 2012, 07:53:37 AM
FWIW Denmark for WW1, and WW1 only ;), was well prepared, dug in, with the most modern weapons and doctrines.
So what happened to abandon this very sensible strategy for WW2?
Since they weren't attacked being prepared in WW1 had been pointless.
Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2012, 08:33:42 AM
Since they weren't attacked being prepared in WW1 had been pointless.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 08:32:07 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on January 13, 2012, 07:53:37 AM
FWIW Denmark for WW1, and WW1 only ;), was well prepared, dug in, with the most modern weapons and doctrines.
So what happened to abandon this very sensible strategy for WW2?
The advent of the bomber pretty much negated it.
Quote from: Valdemar on January 13, 2012, 07:53:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 05:22:12 AM
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
For sea transport Sweden would not be an issue, the belts of Denmark are not, and was not, controlled by sweden. Subs and German ships inside the baltic is another matter :) In fact denmark mined the straits and thus somewhat controlled transits.
FWIW Denmark for WW1, and WW1 only ;), was well prepared, dug in, with the most modern weapons and doctrines. To such an extend that the German high command estimated 1 mill. troops would be needed to take and control Sealand and Copenhagen.
EDIT http://www.vestvolden.info/Eng/index.htm short in english on the fortifications, quite alot of work :D
Well, I assume lots of stuff was shipped to Norway and then shipped through Sweden by rail.
Murmansk apparently was built in 1915, but I'm not sure how much capacity it had. I assume significantly less then in WWII.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 05:22:12 AM
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
The TSRR was in operation before 1905 (remember the Russo-Japanese War fought after Russia completed it and started to dominate manchuria and, crucially, Korea?). Murmansk was basically just a fishing village in 1914, but the railroad to it was completed in 1915. The RR (like the TSRR) wasn't capable of moving the supplies that were being shipped in, of course, and the huge stockpiles of military supplied in Vladivostok and Murmansk served as the justification for the Allies sending troops to those locations after WW1, thus intervening in the Russian Civil War.
As an ironic aside, the US was intervening in favor of the Bolsheviks in Murmansk until the British and French called it for being offsides, whereupon US troops started fighting the Bolshies briefly before being withdrawn.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 05:22:12 AM
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
Tran-Siberian railroad was in operation at the time. :huh: It was slow, but it worked.
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2012, 07:41:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 05:22:12 AM
Question - Given the fact the Dardanelles was closed and the Trans-Siberian railroad not yet in operation didn't all of the Entente supplies and arms shipped to Russia have to go through Scandinavia by default? Wouldn't most of this be cut off if Sweden enters the war on Germany's side causing the Russian war effort significant harm?
How developed was Murmansk at the time?
The TSRR was in operation before 1905 (remember the Russo-Japanese War fought after Russia completed it and started to dominate manchuria and, crucially, Korea?).
Ah, wiki said it was completed in 1916. (Maybe that was the 2nd track, allowing two way transit?)
Still, if the TSRR and Murmansk RR didn't have the capacity to ship what they received in our timeline, they certainly can't deal with the extra load that will result if the rail lines from Sweden are cut off.
I think the confrontation in northern Russia was the only time the Americans and Soviets (or Russians) ever directly fought, discounting Soviet air force volunteers in the Korean and Vietnam (?) wars.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
I think the confrontation in northern Russia was the only time the Americans and Soviets (or Russians) ever directly fought, discounting Soviet air force volunteers in the Korean and Vietnam (?) wars.
:hmm:
-_-
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
I think the confrontation in northern Russia was the only time the Americans and Soviets (or Russians) ever directly fought, discounting Soviet air force volunteers in the Korean and Vietnam (?) wars.
US intervened in Siberia as well. :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
I think the confrontation in northern Russia was the only time the Americans and Soviets (or Russians) ever directly fought, discounting Soviet air force volunteers in the Korean and Vietnam (?) wars.
US intervened in Siberia as well. :nerd:
Indeed, but I don't recall any instance of actual fighting between U.S. forces and the Bolsheviks (or Kolchak's faction) in Siberia. Whereas I'm pretty sure I remember reading about Americans engaging Bolsheviks in northern Russia in combat.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:20:48 PM
Indeed, but I don't recall any instance of actual fighting between U.S. forces and the Bolsheviks (or Kolchak's faction) in Siberia.
We fought some banditos that called themselves Bolsheviks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 09:21:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:20:48 PM
Indeed, but I don't recall any instance of actual fighting between U.S. forces and the Bolsheviks (or Kolchak's faction) in Siberia.
We fought some banditos that called themselves Bolsheviks.
Ah, well. Perhaps we did.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
I think the confrontation in northern Russia was the only time the Americans and Soviets (or Russians) ever directly fought, discounting Soviet air force volunteers in the Korean and Vietnam (?) wars.
US intervened in Siberia as well. :nerd:
Indeed, but I don't recall any instance of actual fighting between U.S. forces and the Bolsheviks (or Kolchak's faction) in Siberia. Whereas I'm pretty sure I remember reading about Americans engaging Bolsheviks in northern Russia in combat.
The goals of the Siberian intervention were a. help get the Czech Legion back home, and b. prevent Japan from getting any ideas about annexing Vladivostok or other parts of Siberia.
QuoteAs an ironic aside, the US was intervening in favor of the Bolsheviks in Murmansk until the British and French called it for being offsides, whereupon US troops started fighting the Bolshies briefly before being withdrawn.
Really? I had no idea. Pretty interesting.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 14, 2012, 07:09:24 AM
The goals of the Siberian intervention were a. help get the Czech Legion back home, and b. prevent Japan from getting any ideas about annexing Vladivostok or other parts of Siberia.
And as far as a. goes, in the end the Czechs couldn't ship out through Vladisvostok, so they had to fight their way all the way across Asia and back to Europe.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 14, 2012, 07:09:24 AM
The goals of the Siberian intervention were a. help get the Czech Legion back home, and b. prevent Japan from getting any ideas about annexing Vladivostok or other parts of Siberia.
Why bother? Whether the Whites or the Reds won the Japanese would have been kicked out of Siberia eventually by the Russians.
Quote from: Neil on January 13, 2012, 08:39:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 08:32:07 AM
So what happened to abandon this very sensible strategy for WW2?
The advent of the bomber pretty much negated it.
That, and money, the 30s brought Labour to power and investments in military was cut to nothing and a pacifist stance adopted.
The ww1 build up was a result of the loss in 1864 and a rather unique governing form under estrup for something like 20 years. Great investments in military fortifications, weapons and conscriptions, something like 25-50 percentage of the male population could be under arms within seems.
V
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
I think the confrontation in northern Russia was the only time the Americans and Soviets (or Russians) ever directly fought, discounting Soviet air force volunteers in the Korean and Vietnam (?) wars.
US intervened in Siberia as well. :nerd:
Indeed, but I don't recall any instance of actual fighting between U.S. forces and the Bolsheviks (or Kolchak's faction) in Siberia. Whereas I'm pretty sure I remember reading about Americans engaging Bolsheviks in northern Russia in combat.
The US clashed with both sides, but the commander hated the Whites, who he saw has little more then in bandits. I remember reading about US forces seizing an armored train that attacked them. They lost a one man ( an LT that fell under the train), and captured the crew and a White general on board. The US commander Graves lamented they didn't just string up all the Whites right there.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 08:11:07 PM
Ah, wiki said it was completed in 1916. (Maybe that was the 2nd track, allowing two way transit?)
Still, if the TSRR and Murmansk RR didn't have the capacity to ship what they received in our timeline, they certainly can't deal with the extra load that will result if the rail lines from Sweden are cut off.
What exactly are you asking here? The main White Sea port was Arkangel, not Murmask. Besides, Murmansk (not to mention Arkangel), was a long way from the Swedish border. They'd have to cover a very long distance with few roads and very difficult terrain.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 15, 2012, 08:50:39 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 14, 2012, 07:09:24 AM
The goals of the Siberian intervention were a. help get the Czech Legion back home, and b. prevent Japan from getting any ideas about annexing Vladivostok or other parts of Siberia.
Why bother? Whether the Whites or the Reds won the Japanese would have been kicked out of Siberia eventually by the Russians.
That wasn't obvious at the time. After all, it had only been a decade and change ago that the Japanese crushed the Russians in the Far East.
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2012, 10:41:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 15, 2012, 08:50:39 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 14, 2012, 07:09:24 AM
The goals of the Siberian intervention were a. help get the Czech Legion back home, and b. prevent Japan from getting any ideas about annexing Vladivostok or other parts of Siberia.
Why bother? Whether the Whites or the Reds won the Japanese would have been kicked out of Siberia eventually by the Russians.
That wasn't obvious at the time. After all, it had only been a decade and change ago that the Japanese crushed the Russians in the Far East.
I'd hardly say they crushed them on land. They made slow grinding progress and the Japanese economy was on the verge of collapse from that effort IIRC.
Raz it has nothing to do with the Swedes marching on Murmansk or Arkhangelsk. It has everything to do with supplies no longer being shipped through Sweden to Russia and Murmansk and Arkhangelsk not being able to pick up the slack.
How much was being sent through Sweden? Couldn't be much.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2012, 09:06:07 PM
How much was being sent through Sweden? Couldn't be much.
Surely off loading goods at ports in Norway and shipping them by rail across Sweden into Russian Finland would be more efficient and safer then sailing them into the Arctic sea and offloading them at ports with extreme rail bottlenecks. One could also offload goods onto ships in eastern Sweden and ship them straight to St. Petersburg.
Really? Tell me about the quality of the rail links through Norway, Sweden and Finland during the Great War.
Sweden also had its neutrality to consider.
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2012, 09:45:47 PM
Really? Tell me about the quality of the rail links through Norway, Sweden and Finland during the Great War.
Sweden also had its neutrality to consider.
FWIW the Swedish border town of Haparanda experienced a huge transport boom in WW1. - The Brain
A boom in going from backwater to little less back water :D
The Germans sank ships in the bottom end of the Baltic, all the way down to a load of Cognac and Champagne ;)
V
I get the impression that maybe 100 rail carriages of goods a day passed through Sweden to/from Russia. Plus passengers.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2010, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2010, 08:34:31 PM
A Russian corp sent to deal with the Swedes is a corp not fighting the Germans
The Russians problems against the Germans had nothing to do with a lack of soldiers.
I disagree with this. The Russians were stretched thin fighting against the Ottomans, the Austria-Hungarians and the Germans. If the Swedes land a corp or two in Southern Finland and the Russians have to counter with a couple of 1st rate corps in response, they have to come from somewhere. The Russians had enormous manpower, but the amount that was well trained and well armed was limited.
If those troops would have otherwise fought against the AHs then the Russian victory's won't be as decisive and Austria-Hungary will be in much better shape.
If they would have fought Germany, then Germany may not need to transport in troops from the West. They can instead by used for the battle of the Marne.
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2012, 09:45:47 PM
Really? Tell me about the quality of the rail links through Norway, Sweden and Finland during the Great War.
Sweden also had its neutrality to consider.
I wonder if the gauges were the same in Sweden and Russia.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 11:46:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2012, 09:45:47 PM
Really? Tell me about the quality of the rail links through Norway, Sweden and Finland during the Great War.
Sweden also had its neutrality to consider.
I wonder if the gauges were the same in Sweden and Russia.
They were not; Sweden uses standard gauge rail generally, although there are some archaic narrow gauge (even smaller than standard, much smaller than Russian wide gauge) lines still in use apparently, but not for freight.
Finland of course uses broad gauge.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2012, 11:36:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2010, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2010, 08:34:31 PM
A Russian corp sent to deal with the Swedes is a corp not fighting the Germans
The Russians problems against the Germans had nothing to do with a lack of soldiers.
I disagree with this. The Russians were stretched thin fighting against the Ottomans, the Austria-Hungarians and the Germans. If the Swedes land a corp or two in Southern Finland and the Russians have to counter with a couple of 1st rate corps in response, they have to come from somewhere. The Russians had enormous manpower, but the amount that was well trained and well armed was limited.
If those troops would have otherwise fought against the AHs then the Russian victory's won't be as decisive and Austria-Hungary will be in much better shape.
If they would have fought Germany, then Germany may not need to transport in troops from the West. They can instead by used for the battle of the Marne.
Also, such butterflies would certainly influence Romania's decision on entering the war.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2012, 11:36:54 PM
I disagree with this. The Russians were stretched thin fighting against the Ottomans, the Austria-Hungarians and the Germans. If the Swedes land a corp or two in Southern Finland and the Russians have to counter with a couple of 1st rate corps in response, they have to come from somewhere. The Russians had enormous manpower, but the amount that was well trained and well armed was limited.
I think you are making this up. The Russians could not be sure the Swedes would not enter the war, and therefor had to leave troops behind to protect vital areas in case the Swedes did. These were not first-rate troops, but your assumption that the Russians would need to deploy first-rate troops against the Swedes is unfounded.
QuoteIf those troops would have otherwise fought against the AHs then the Russian victory's won't be as decisive and Austria-Hungary will be in much better shape.
If they would have fought Germany, then Germany may not need to transport in troops from the West. They can instead by used for the battle of the Marne.
The First and Second Russian Armies didn't depend on any troops shifted in the the Finland front. The German reserves sent east were sent as a response to the early movements of the First and Second Armies, and those armies started to move before anyone could know whether the Swedes would enter the war or not.
Sweden entering the war may have impacted the Brusilev Offensive, but couldn't have effected the Battle of the Marne.