United Scandinavia in WW2 II

[Masked Grizzly]

Thought would update an old thread about this subject.

Basically in an ATL where Scandinavism is successful and depending on whether Finland joins or remains independent (via some Nordic variation including Iceland), what role would it likely play in WW2 and how would it have acted any differently during the WW2 compared to OTL as separate nations (using the individual OTL WW2 experiences of Denmark, Norway, Sweden and possibly Finland as a rough guide)?

Would it have been strong enough to stand against both the Germans and Soviets to remain neutral, been invaded/conquered or end up favoring one side over the other with the potential of either gaining or losing territory depending on its choices?

Assuming it does not join the Allies beforehand would this ATL Scandinavia / Nordic state have been able to maintain its neutral status and been powerful enough to make both the Nazis and Soviets think twice about invading or would it have likely been treated by both in a similar manner to OTL Poland? Albeit with UK possibly managing to secure the Norwegian part in the event of a German defeat during the ATL Norwegian Campaign in the case of the latter (which itself apparently could have gone either way provided the UK was better prepared in OTL)?

Would it instead join/collaborate with the Axis akin to OTL Finland and give the Soviets a much harder time on the Eastern Front or even joined the Allies during the invasion of Poland? If the latter would it have been able to repel a German invasion or still been defeated, albeit its ATL defeat being less of a Danish/Norwegian type conquest?

Or in order to bolster both its power and further enhance its neutrality would this ATL Scandinavia / Nordic state have likely been supportive of Pilsudski's pre-war Intermarium project thereby potentially making it a bit more viable compared to OTL, not least due to its own proximity to both Germany and the Soviet Union?

In a post-war Allied victory scenario, depending on the path this ATL Scandinavia / Nordic state ultimately opts for:

• Would joining the Axis like the Finns in OTL, potentially lead to the loss of both Greenland and Iceland to the US at minimum?
  
• In turn choosing the Allies or initially remaining neutral (before being invaded) potentially lead to them gaining Schleswig-Holstein as a Scandinavian / Nordic equivalent of the Bakker-Schut plan (using post-war Poland as a rough guide)?

 

[Alon]

It hugely matters if Finland is part of this union, because if it is, I don't think Stalin tries invading, which means he doesn't get egg on his face, which means Hitler may well decide not to invade the USSR.

My assumption is that the union gets invaded by Nazi Germany either way and treated the way OTL's Denmark is, i.e. pretty lightly all things considered. The Jews get smuggled to Finland (if independent) or even put on boats to Britain or sent on trains to Switzerland with false papers (if Finland is occupied), the Nazis seriously weren't putting the screws to the Danish population enough to block massive resistance.

And of course anything that butterflies Barbarossa changes WW2 in a very dramatic fashion...

 

[rfmcdonald]

A unified Scandinavia would not necessarily have been that powerful. It would have had a population between 14 and 17 million people, depending on whether or not Finland is included (and on whether the unification resulted in changes). It would be less populous than Spain, but it would be considerably wealthier, on par the UK judging by OTL. It would be relatively powerful, especially if it was politically stable, but it would not be strong enough to deter Germany. (It might deter the Soviet Union, if Finland is part of the union.)

Much depends on how unity was achieved. If it was anti-German, this suggests obvious biases. What powers led unification, and how? The Soviet Union will also be feared, especially if there are bad things on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea.

It might manage to survive as a neutral. It might also get dragged into the war.

 

[DrakonFin]

Long story short, there being a united Scandinavia by the 1930s would most likely butterfly WWII as we know it. The POD(s) would IMO need to predate WWI, which would then be different to a degree at least. And that would then have an effect on Russian and German post-WWI history. We could quite easily end up with a world where Lenin, Stalin and Hitler never rise to power.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Long story short, there being a united Scandinavia by the 1930s would most likely butterfly WWII as we know it. The POD(s) would IMO need to predate WWI, which would then be different to a degree at least. And that would then have an effect on Russian and German post-WWI history. We could quite easily end up with a world where Lenin, Stalin and Hitler never rise to power.

I am not sure. Much depends on how Scandinavianism works out. Does Norway-Sweden get involved in the war on the side of Denmark, and does this result in a changed outcome for 1863? If this is the case, then the timetable for German unification gets changed: A TL where Schleswig, say, gets divided on mid-19th century ethnolinguistic lines rather than passing wholly to the German sphere will see the sequence of events in the 1860s changed. Will it necessarily be changed that much? I dunno: Austria and France were obvious rivals of Prussia.

If we are talking about a late 19th century unification, as Scandinavia moves towards a new regional unity, that could be different.

 

[rfmcdonald]

The example of Spain, IMHO, does suggest to me that a reasonably substantial state on the fringes of Europe might be able to stay out of the Second World War. I think the odds lower for *Scandinavia, because of it directly adjoining at least one of the great powers involved and the possibility of German claims in Denmark.

Might Germany be satisfied with a pro-German neutral Scandinavia? Maybe. Might Scandinavians accept this? Maybe, if they see Germany's rivals as a bigger threat. The question of what is happening in Finland and the Baltic States, too, will be key.

 

[Alon]

Spain managed to remain neutral because Hitler liked it as an ally and wasn't going to invade; Franco wanted to join the Axis, he just had conflicting conditions with Pétain (he wanted France's North African colonies), and Hitler ruled in favor of Pétain hoping for Vichy France to be a more active ally than it ended up being.

 

[rfmcdonald]

The only options, then, for a Scandinavia not to get invaded by Germany would be for Scandinavia to be an ally? Perhaps doable.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The only options, then, for a Scandinavia not to get invaded by Germany would be for Scandinavia to be an ally? Perhaps doable.

That would be pretty dumb on their part assuming Scandinavian policy is anything like Sweden's was IOTL WWII. Germany loses their iron ore, gives the Royal Navy and RAF tons of potential bases, and likely ends up with some serious losses if they attempt to capture the islands of Denmark.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

It would also depend on how ATL Scandinavia with or without Finland builds up its military prior to WW2 compared to OTL as Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Along with whether they aid Finland in the Winter War should it still happen.

Whether as a non-Allied nation that still gets invaded or an openly Allied Scandinavia, at best they could have potentially given the Germans a more difficult time compared to the OTL Danish/Norwegian campaigns with an allied or neutral Scandinavia probably allowing the UK to better secure the Norwegian part of the country (with Denmark being occupied and Sweden playing potentially playing a more Vichy like role).

 

[b0ned0me]

The POD(s) would IMO need to predate WWI

I agree, and given that this is in post-1900 I'm struggling to see how that works out since Norwegian independence in 1905 was pretty damn popular. After being Denmark’s bitch for 400+ years and another 86 years bent over for Sweden (courtesy of Russia & UK) how exactly does Norwegian popular opinion spin 180 degrees into “yay, Scandinavian unity! Back in the barrel we go”?

Then there is the ever-vexed Denmark/Sweden family squabble, both would be 110% up for unity provided they could be in charge....

 

[rfmcdonald]

I agree, and given that this is in post-1900 I'm struggling to see how that works out since Norwegian independence in 1905 was pretty damn popular. After being Denmark’s bitch for 400+ years and another 86 years bent over for Sweden (courtesy of Russia & UK) how exactly does Norwegian popular opinion spin 180 degrees into “yay, Scandinavian unity! Back in the barrel we go”?

Then there is the ever-vexed Denmark/Sweden family squabble, both would be 110% up for unity provided they could be in charge....

A late 19th century unification would certainly be late. Was there anything like a shared literary language, even, like the standard forms of German and Italian elsewhere?

 

[Lord High Executioner]

A late 19th century unification would certainly be late. Was there anything like a shared literary language, even, like the standard forms of German and Italian elsewhere?

Nynorsk appears to have been invented because literary Norwegian was pretty much Danish...

 

[b0ned0me]

A late 19th century unification would certainly be late. Was there anything like a shared literary language, even, like the standard forms of German and Italian elsewhere?

Huh?
Norway was ruled by the king of Sweden until 1905 when they told him to get lost. Two-thirds of the proposed unification was an OTL fact during the ENTIRE 19th century until the Norwegians finally escaped.

Written Norwegian is very very close to written Danish, with small differences in punctuation and spelling. Pick up a newspaper from the other country and complain about the editorial not the language. Written Swedish is a bit more divergent but still comprehensible.

Spoken Norwegian is like an old-fashioned rural Swedish dialect. Norwegians and swedes can typically converse fairly well each using their own language unless the Norwegian is from the far north or the swede is a pseudo-dane from Skåne.
Danish isn’t spoken it’s mumbled through a mouthful of porridge, hardly anyone understands those fuckers (apart from all the swedes on the other side of the water).
So there is no real problem if language or culture or literature, just a desire to not be mushed into one country with everyone else.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

Spoken Norwegian is like an old-fashioned rural Swedish dialect. Norwegians and swedes can typically converse fairly well each using their own language unless the Norwegian is from the far north or the swede is a pseudo-dane from Skåne.
Danish isn’t spoken it’s mumbled through a mouthful of porridge, hardly anyone understands those fuckers (apart from all the swedes on the other side of the water).

Skåningar are, despite what others say and a number of us still like to think, not pseudo-danes. Some danes have pointed out that swedes from
further up the peninsula are easier to understand than the diphtong-heavier (and more stereotypical) varieties of skånska.
And the other way around? Those of us close enough to get danish tv (and actually watch it) sort of understand the RP-equivalent of danish, but you
don't need to go all that far east (or down in age) to reach the "Danish is incomprehensible"-line.
(And I vaguely recall danes expressing the view that jutlanders are about as incomprehensible to other danes as danes are
to everybody else.)
I can't recall ever having had much trouble conversing with norwegians, but with danes there has been a lot of slipping into english
"just to be on the safe side" (if memory serves, with the norwegians it was more of "We really should be speaking english to each other
- after all we're on a course in England to improve our english.").

 

[M79]

Given the 1905 election separating Norway from Sweden with a vote of something like 99.5% in favor, either the country unites only in response to invasion/necessity and may fall apart after the war or there's a pre-1905 PoD like accepting separate Norwegian consulates and having *keen* pokitical tact to preserve the Union.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The premise is absolutely impossible; there is no way to have a united Scandinavia and have the OTL events leading up to WW II. But just for the sake of speculation:

Assume a series of dynastic accidents leading to a three-way union of crowns in 1918, and that Finland joins up for protection from the nascent USSR (as an autonomous Grand Duchy). The Scandinavian Union countries form common armed forces, foreign ministry, and currency.

Then assume no butterflies; and ISTM that there is nothing about a Scandinavian Union that would necessarily interfere with the OTL events leading up to WW-II-as-we-know-it.

So:

First consequence: no Winter War. Stalin might think he could get away with attacking Finland, small and isolated, and formerly part of the Russian Empire. Scandinavia is a much larger country, not isolated, never part of Russia. This means that the Soviet military will avoid a lot of casualties, but also not learn some important lessons.

Second: the Allies probably will not consider trying to lay mines in Norwegian waters to block German iron ore imports from Narvik. This means no Denmark-Norway campaign. I would say that Scandinavia remains neutral for the rest of the war. I don't see any chance of Scandinavia joining the Axis.

The German navy is in much better shape for operations in 1940. But also, Germany has not executed an over-water invasion (with brilliant success).

Barring butterflies, the Battle of France goes as OTL. But afterward, perceptions are different. No one thinks that Germany can just reach out to conquer Britain. Mussolini may remain neutral. That would be a huge change.

German access to the North Atlantic will be reduced. Ships and submarines would have to run a gauntlet of British patrols before trying to break through the Iceland-Faeroes-Shetlands-Orkneys line. As in WW I, British patrols can stretch out to the coast of Norway.

When Germany invades the USSR, it will be without a Continuation War by Finland against the USSR, and no Arctic front near Murmansk. This will allow more Soviet forces to be deployed against Germany. However, the Soviet army will be even worse off organizationally. Very likely these two effects cancel out.

British aid, and later American aid to the USSR will flow almost entirely through Murmansk, as the route is almost entirely safe from German attack, and far shorter than via Iran or Vladivostok.

This saves tens of billions of ton/miles of British and US shipping; and billions of ton/miles of Soviet rail transport. It also means the Allies won't care very much about Iran. They may not even occupy Iran, unless the Shah (Reza I) tries to get too cozy with the Axis.

Greatly reduced demands on Allied shipping, and the weaker German attack in the Battle of the Atlantic, means faster US build-up in Europe.

D-Day could be several weeks earlier, and DRAGOON simultaneous with NEPTUNE (as intended).

The Allies will push for Scandinavia to declare war on Germany, but Scandinavia will refuse as long as Germany is a threat to them; i.e. until Allied forces are attacking into Germany from the east and west. Before that, the Allies will try to stop Scandinavian mineral exports to Germany. They would have enough leverage to get that by 1944.