Swedish Interests in T2K Poland

[Raellus]

We've talked a lot here about France's interests in Poland, as well as those of Poland's immediate continental neighbors and the dual/dueling governments of the U.S. but, as I was doing some research into Poland's history- specifically the history of the regions along the Baltic coast- I learned that Sweden actually had control of the area around Kolobrzeg during the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

Would Sweden have designs on the carcass of Poland in late 2000 and thereafter? Especially after the chaos that follows in the wake of XI Corp's abortive offensive and the mysterious PACT counteroffensive in the summer of 2000, it seems like certain cities along the coast would be ripe for the picking.

I've never much thought about Sweden during the Twilight War (apologies to our Swedish contingent) so I'm operating here from a position of ignorance. My impression is that Sweden is largely spared the destruction visited upon its neighbors on both sides of the Baltic (Norway, N. Finland, Poland, Germany).

Operating from a position of relative strength, could/would Sweden try to snatch a piece of coastal Poland? What would Sweden stand to gain, or lose, from such an adventure? Might Sweden do so in an attempt to position itself as a continental power- a return to the glorious past of Gustavus Adolphus- for the new milenium? Would staunchly neutral Sweden even consider such a thing? Imagine, France and Sweden as the preeminent powers of Europe in the first decades of the 21st century!

Perhaps a group of Swedish troops, acting on their own initiative but with the implied approval of the Swedish government ("let's just see what happens"), could test the waters with an expedition to Poland in an operation somewhat reminiscent of their Viking ancestors.

Thoughts?

[dragoon500ly]

Intresting....

The big problem is if the Swedes decide to violate their neutrality.

Currently they only have two landing craft capable of carrying 325 troops each, everything else is short-ranged landing craft. There would also be the question of how much airlift they would have.

Realisticly...if they sent any troops at all I doubt it would be much more than brigade strength at best. Most of their navy is coastal submarines and guided-missile and torpedo boats so Poland would be streching their capabilites to the maximum. I'd have to vote no.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Sweden was one of the significant European powers in the 1600s but from what I understand of it, a general lack of income prevented her from being pre-eminent (that and the Battle of Poltava in 1709).
During the height of her empire, Sweden had control of parts (or in some cases, all) of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Russia and even Trinidad & Tobago.
However, that territorial ambition was all but stopped after the Battle of Poltava.

Would the Swedes be interested in resurrecting part of their old empire? I tend to think not because I think too much time has passed and many Swedes of the late 20th century would not feel any sort of connection to the empire of the 17th century. I think they would be more concerned with maintaining what they already possess as the world crumbles around them.
The French were propelled into their foreign policy (or should that be, empire building!) by a desire after the 1960s for self-sufficiency from Europe and the NATO alliance but the Swedes have no such motivation.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes way back when Sweden was quite a power. Ironically and historically Sweden, Austria-Hungarian Empire, Russia, as well as various German state have all had their time with time-sharing Poland and the Baltic States. As well as Poland at one time was just as big of a player in the region.

[Panther Al]

One of the biggest reasons you see Sweden if I read my history right is that back in the day you had lutheran swedish Vasa's claiming Poland, and polish catholic Vasa's claiming Sweden. And with each side perfectly willing to fight about it, well... The existing Swedish royal family on the other hand is french: one of napoleon's generals took the throne. Bernadotte if I recall correctly.

[Mohoender]

For my part I have a Sweden being at the center of a new Kalmar Treaty. However, not as a so-called Empire but as defensive/economical Union.

I tend to have Norway and Finland in it with the king of Norway heading the Union. If Sweden initiated it, it doesn't intend to rule it on an absolute manner.

I also tend to have Sweden maintaining commercial exchanges with Estonia but that can go a lot further IMO. I wouldn't have the Swedes going in Poland (too much of a mess) but more likely in Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania and Schleswig-Holstein (Germany).

Again, I don't have them doing this with conquest in mind but defense and common-interests. About, their neutrality, I integrated the fight between Sweden and USSR as depicted by "Antenna". I integrated it so fully that I can't say anymore if it is part of cannon or not.

About their means of actions (ships I mean), I consider that they have quite enough especially in regard to the situation in the Baltic.

First, I had the Swedish Navy being joined by surviving vessels from Norway and Finland (These are quite enough in the Baltic Sea with the German, Polish and Soviet navies virtually gone).

Second, their navy still receives replacements as Sweden retains a functionnal industry with quite some ressources at hand. For my part, I have Sweden taking over the Sjkold design from Norway. THerefore, the backbone of their navy are Visby-class corvettes, Göteborg-class corvettes, Sjkold-class Missile Crafts, Spica-class Missile Crafts (including Helsinki-class as a matter of convenience) and Götland-class submarines (with a few German Types).

Third, they have enough landing crafts: 3 LST (may be a couple more from Norway), 60+ LCT and more than 200 Stridsbät 90 (including some from Norway). I agree that these ships are short range but the distances involved are short as well (mostly around 200km with the most being probably 300).

Last, as I don't consider that Sweden conducts invasion but responds to calls from its neighbours, most troops are brought by civilian ferries with very little naval landings involved (in the true sense).

This is for the potential (IMO) but in my timeline I have the following:
- The New Kalmar Union was established in response to NATO (Finland) and Soviet agressions (Norway and Sweden).
- Finland, Norway and Sweden are now one country under the leadership of Haakon VIII with troops heavily involved in Northern Scandinavia. Despite losses within the navy, these losses had been partly replaced and they effectively control the Baltic along with most of the Norwegian coast.
- As in v2.2 I consider that nothing was subjected to nukes. On the other hand, I have the region being more organized with chaos essentially concerning Finland and the mountainous center of the peninsula.
- Access to strategic materials is greatly reduced but not down to zero. Between these three countries, you get about everything you need. As a result, industrial production remains a reality even for a limited amount of civilian goods. I adopted the idea of Antenna about sunthetic fuels but since the drying down of combat, oil is available as well. Oil/Gas rigs had been reopened in the North Sea and production is increasing.
- That's stictly me but I have Denmark being independent and out of the war. Not part in the New Kalmar Union, it maintains commercial relations with Sweden.
- Estonia also maitains some relations with it and Lithuania might see a Swedish intervention. However, I don't have the Swedes entering Latvia and Poland while it is the Danes which are being involved in Schleswig-Holstein after a late and short border war with Germany easily won by the Danish Army (and no, Denmark doesn't invade Germany).

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

However, I don't have the Swedes entering Latvia and Poland while it is the Danes which are being involved in Schleswig-Holstein after a late and short border war with Germany easily won by the Danish Army (and no, Denmark doesn't invade Germany).

Is this before or after the Germans receive hundreds of AFVs from the Americans as part of the Operation Omega deal?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

Is this before or after the Germans receive hundreds of AFVs from the Americans as part of the Operation Omega deal?

Actually before and if I call it a war, it is in fact not trully a war. While France is dealing with a refugee problem of her own, Denmark had one earlier. When the nukes started to fall over Hamburg and some major cities, refugees arrived into Schleswig-Holstein. With the collapse of the German government, a number of them along with several rear-area units of the Bundeswehr attempted to cross the border into Denmark. Fighting was short and the Danish Army easily came on top.

Unlike France, Denmark doesn't establish a buffer zone (after all the border is only a bout 50km wide). Instead, the Danes make a deal with German authorities in Schleswig-Holstein to provide a substential relief effort.

Denmark never really went to war with Germany. People at the border often having relatives in Germany pushed for the deal and the last thing I assumed is that the number of refugees piling up at the Danish border is much lower than the one at the French border.

[Mohoender]

If the Swedes establish themselves somewhere in Germany, I would assume that they might control Sassnitz and the Rügen Island (probably called in by the locals themselves).

[dragoon500ly]

Now I can see a couple of the larger islands being occupied, early warning and forward bases sort of thing. I can even see a garrison on either side of a critical strait/choke point. But getting involved in the mainland mess that is Poland, nope, at least not for a couple of years after Omega, giveing time for things to settle down and stabilize. But their first movement towards Poland will more likely be commercial rather than military.

When I looked over the Swedish Navy for my earlier post, I did not the 60+ landing craft, but the largest of them is 70 tons and the majority are under 20 tons....not what one would want for an extended sea voyage.

[Legbreaker]

As indicated, Poland is a mess. What self respecting nation is going to want anything to do with it in the short term?
Sweden, although largely untouched by the war (if you ignore EMP, Fallout, waves of refugees, shortages of just about EVERYTHING especially the imported products) isn't likely in my opinion to want to risk it's relatively tenuous position as the last bastion of civilisation in Europe, just to try for a little land grabbing. A couple of closer islands might be garrisoned, but that's about it.
That's not to say they won't send the odd recce team to take a look, or some of the more adventurous diplomats might try brokering a cease fire or two (and fail), but anything more than small groups of say a dozen or so just isn't likely.

[HorseSoldier]

I can't see Sweden not getting fragged by the Soviets to neutralize them as a potential threat when the nukes fly. I picture Sweden as intact but rough on the edges and not able to project serious power across the Baltic. I tend to see them more interested in Denmark, Finland, and Norway, but some fighting merchants and limited government ops in Poland and elsewhere could definitely happen.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

When I looked over the Swedish Navy for my earlier post, I did not the 60+ landing craft, but the largest of them is 70 tons and the majority are under 20 tons....not what one would want for an extended sea voyage.

I haven't seen your post but here is the listing of landing crafts of Sweden by 2002:

- 3 Grim class Landing Craft (dating back to 1960's, 5 were still seeing service by 1990) being 327t and 36m in length. Probably in the LCU class but I haven't been able to find one illustration. They are potentially the only ships capable of landing tanks and heavy equipments.
- 63 Landing Crafts (Hull N°:207, 208, 211-213, 215, 217, 220-223, 225, 228, 230-239, 241, 243-245, 247-249, 252, 253, 256, 258-265, 267-269, 273, 274, 281-283, 603, 604, 606-612, 652-658). 40 to 50t and 21m in length. Probaly in the LCM class.
- Potentially 200+ (may be 300) Stridsbat-90 capable of 40knts and capable of carrying 20 troops. (really usefull for raiding parties)
- Potentially a dozen hovercrafts Typ ABS M10 (6 had entered service between 1995-1997)
- To this, you can add a fairly large number of Civilian Merchant Ferry that can be converted for naval support. I counted no less than 40 such ships for Sweden alone.

Of course, and I think we all agree, this is not enough to conduct any large offensive landing. However, it is more than enough to ensure regular supplies and to bring troops in a fairly unhostile environment (especially in a Sea which is fully under Swedish control).

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As indicated, Poland is a mess. What self respecting nation is going to want anything to do with it in the short term?

For my part: What self respecting nation is going to want anything to do with it in any kind of term?

Poles are a pain even in peaceful time and I don't mean this as an insult. I say it full of respect as these people survive about anything and never give up.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As indicated, Poland is a mess. What self respecting nation is going to want anything to do with it in the short term?
Sweden, although largely untouched by the war (if you ignore EMP, Fallout, waves of refugees, shortages of just about EVERYTHING especially the imported products) isn't likely in my opinion to want to risk it's relatively tenuous position as the last bastion of civilisation in Europe, just to try for a little land grabbing. A couple of closer islands might be garrisoned, but that's about it.
That's not to say they won't send the odd recce team to take a look, or some of the more adventurous diplomats might try brokering a cease fire or two (and fail), but anything more than small groups of say a dozen or so just isn't likely.

I think that's a fairly spot on summary...

[Legbreaker]

It's my belief that Switzerland will also be in serious strife in 2000. They may catch a few nukes "by accident" and being landlocked by waring nations certainly isn't going to help their trade efforts.
In fact I see neutral nations being in almost as bad a shape as some of the waring parties. Neutral nations by their very nature don't tend to develop alliances and so if they get attacked in the chaos of WWIII, who's going to help them out? It's not like they've really got the strength to strike back in any significant way...

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's my belief that Switzerland will also be in serious strife in 2000. They may catch a few nukes "by accident" and being landlocked by waring nations certainly isn't going to help their trade efforts.

Why not for the nukes but still I doubt it. Then, given the geography of Switzerland damaged would be very limited. Being a land locked country could effectively be a problem but that overlooks the fact that Switzerland's neighbor is France. Both countries will certainly be collaborating with their borders being opened.

Of course, you still have the EMP but that shouldn't be a huge problem as well. EMP damages can be repaired and in countries remaining organized they will, at least to some extend. The length of the exchange is not really an issue as well because policies will be implemented in countries such as Switzerland to reduce the impact of these EMPs.

[HorseSoldier]

I'd think Switzerland gets ragged around the edges and very decentralized with electronic communications eliminated or severely degraded and motor transport greatly reduced. Things might get desperate enough that crime internal to the Swiss population would become a significant problem, and there'd be a constant issue of marauders drifting in from neighboring European battlefields. Probably the need for organized military response to marauders will keep the population in Swiss territory bordering the outside very keen on the nation-state and very identified as nationally Swiss (provided the government doesn't much the job up and create resentment instead). People in quiter more internal areas might be less sold on the benefits of central government outweighing the costs circa 2000, but I doubt it rises to the point where anyone thinks organized resistance makes sense.

[Mohoender]

No Switzerland will not suffer that much.

First, 100% of the population has access to shelter. These also include hospitals, command posts and emergency storage (with EMP in mind).

Second, fortification were dismantled in the 1990's but that wouldn't be the case in T2K and these would have been extended instead. These linked to the high mountain of switzerland will make it very hard to enter the country. Not to forget, the Swiss had built huge cavern complex that could hold their air force with every piece of strait road that could be transformed in a runway (as in Sweden by the way).

Third, the fully mobilized Swiss army would be at 625,000 men fully trained with the addition of a 480,000 strong civil defense (300,000 of them fully trained). At last you can add 11 border brigades which will be fully mobilized. Every village as a shooting club and rifle range.

Fourth, knowing the Swiss, you can expect any non-citizen to be pushed out in no time. Marauders?? They'll be like nuts under a hammer and forget about an invasion, there is nothing worth it.

Switzerland was the best prepared country in the world, it can sustain T2K with no problem. Also it can feed its population and again, knowing the Swiss, don't expect much panic. Of course, Switzerland can't sustain a direct attack but there is simply no reason for such an attack.

[Legbreaker]

Switzerland may be able to field that many troops short term, but they can't sustain it for long. To do so would absolutely cripple the countries ability to produce food and goods, and destroy it's economy.

What's to say the defences were retained? What's to say the situation in the early 90's didn't convince them they, and the ongoing maintenance costs could be disposed of?

Obviously roads doubling as airstrips would not be effected, and the shelters, etc remained, however their readiness may have been downgraded if the international, or more accurately regional situation allowed for it.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Switzerland may be able to field that many troops short term, but they can't sustain it for long. To do so would absolutely cripple the countries ability to produce food and goods, and destroy it's economy.

Actually No. These numbers are in facts the viable figures. The country had about 3.500.000 people under military age (16-49) and that lives more than enough to produce foods and goods especially in a country were good's production is already down.

What about economy? Anyway, the Twilight War has destroyed world economy. Economy is not an issue for any country worldwide and Switzerland won't escape that.

As long as Sig-sauer, Pilatus, Oerlikon and Nestlé are producing a trickle of goods, the Swiss make a fortune. I usually have Switzerland making ammo and spare parts for the Bundeswehr and Italy but only after the nukes stop raining. In return, what remains of these two country provide what they can in term of raw materials.

I realize I forgot one last thing. The Swiis are in no way engaged in full scale military operations. They secure their borders and fight marauders, understrength military units. Nothing to bring them to exhaustion.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I haven't seen your post but here is the listing of landing crafts of Sweden by 2002:

- 3 Grim class Landing Craft (dating back to 1960's, 5 were still seeing service by 1990) being 327t and 36m in length. Probably in the LCU class but I haven't been able to find one illustration. They are potentially the only ships capable of landing tanks and heavy equipments.
- 63 Landing Crafts (Hull N°:207, 208, 211-213, 215, 217, 220-223, 225, 228, 230-239, 241, 243-245, 247-249, 252, 253, 256, 258-265, 267-269, 273, 274, 281-283, 603, 604, 606-612, 652-658). 40 to 50t and 21m in length. Probaly in the LCM class.
- Potentially 200+ (may be 300) Stridsbat-90 capable of 40knts and capable of carrying 20 troops. (really usefull for raiding parties)
- Potentially a dozen hovercrafts Typ ABS M10 (6 had entered service between 1995-1997)
- To this, you can add a fairly large number of Civilian Merchant Ferry that can be converted for naval support. I counted no less than 40 such ships for Sweden alone.

Of course, and I think we all agree, this is not enough to conduct any large offensive landing. However, it is more than enough to ensure regular supplies and to bring troops in a fairly unhostile environment (especially in a Sea which is fully under Swedish control).

Looking over a copy of Combat Fleets of the World, most of the Swedish landing craft are short-range boats, basically intended for ship-to-shore or island-to-island movement. The stumbling block to any major amphibious movement falls onto how many of the medium-to-large ships can be used. This then falls onto the shoulders of just how many ships, merchant or otherwise, that would be afloat and usable in the T2K world.

If the Soviets go Sweden, then these simple become additional targets to fire SS-N-19 missiles at. If Sweden gets near missed, the "oops, your ship was in a warzone and got tagged by accident" sort of thing, then it becomes more likely that these ships survive.

There is another way of looking at as well...the neutrality of Switzerland and Sweden has actually been of use to the Soviet Union, both from a political, a military and a intelligence viewpoint. Even during the worse days of WWII, for example, Soviet diplomatic efforts channeled through Switzerland were deleivered to the Nazis...and GRU intelligence gathering found being able to funnel through a neutral nation eased a lot of problems in the fast delivery of intell. During the Vietnam War, a political think tank based in Sweden was very useful to North Vietnam in many ways...one of this groups "findings" was that cluster and napalm bombs were intended as anti-civilian muntions and thus the US was guilty of genocide against the Vietnamese people.

So looking at the neutral nations from this viewpoint, how is it to the advantage of the Soviet Union to invade or nuke.

Just a point to consider.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's my belief that Switzerland will also be in serious strife in 2000. They may catch a few nukes "by accident" and being landlocked by waring nations certainly isn't going to help their trade efforts.
In fact I see neutral nations being in almost as bad a shape as some of the waring parties. Neutral nations by their very nature don't tend to develop alliances and so if they get attacked in the chaos of WWIII, who's going to help them out? It's not like they've really got the strength to strike back in any significant way...

International law allows neutral nations to conduct trade with both sides.
Switzerland, for example, in WWII was allowed to import coal from Nazi Germany and allowed to pay for this material by exporting food, optics and machined goods by the Allies. Indeed, these delivery trains were marked and allowed to proceed through areas where other train traffic was being bombed/strafed. Sweden was allowed to ship ore and other material and there ships were escorted through the various minefields by both sides.

And don't forget that because they are neutral nations, embassies from both sides can be maintained, diplomatic letters exchanged, PoWs to badly wounded to fight on can be exchanged, and the various intelligence agencies have a safe haven to operate from, its also an excellent means of passing propaganda through, trade for specific goods, and so on. Both sides have a lot to gain by respecting the neutrality of a nation. Now, that does mean that accidents will not happen, accidental bombing raids have taken place, but overall, both sides work at protecting and respecting, the neutrality of a nation.

[Legbreaker]

I use Australia during WWII as a basis for my arguement that Switzerland cannot sustain an active military strength of 625,000 for long.
Australia in the early 1940s had a total population of a little over 7 million (approximately the same as Switzerland today). It had 724,000 men serve during WWII in the army, 39,650 in the navy (as at June 1945) and 216,900 in the RAAF (air force) for a total of approximately 1 million, or about 14% of the total population.
The military had to be downsized during the war, even though plans had been for an even larger force, because there simply wasn't the manpower to support it.

I don't understand where you are finding 625,000 trained soldiers? From what I can see, in July 2009, "the armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty, of which 4,230 are professionals, with the rest being conscripts or volunteers". There are a further 77,000 reserves. It seems very doubtful that anyone not in the military will be given a military weapon, although it is possible they would have sporting rifles, shotguns, etc.

Further research shows the military in 1995 with a strength totalling 400,000 (including inactive reserves)- closer, but still less than 2/3rds.

Adding the 480,000 civil defence personnel strength to the 625,000 military strength and we've got more than a million in service, or approximately 16% of the total population - a higher percentage than Australia was able to support 50 or so years before.

Furthermore, using current figures, "Swiss agriculture meets sixty-five per cent of the domestic food demand". In a T2K scenario when large scale trade effectively ceases with the outside world, a much larger percentage of it's population will be forced into agricultural production and therefore unavailable for military service.

To sum up, it just doesn't seem feasible for Switzerland to field a strong military for more than a few weeks in a 12 month period. Even training time would be restricted due to the pressing need to feed the population.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It seems very doubtful that anyone not in the military will be given a military weapon, although it is possible they would have sporting rifles, shotguns, etc.

I'm sure I read somewhere that there was some law in Switzerland that required large numbers of citizens to keep a military issue weapon in their home, the premise being that they would then form a Home Guard type of organisation in time of conflict / tension?

A quick check of wiki would suggest that's still the case for every male under the age of 30...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

If I'm reading it correctly, that article suggests there are nearly three quarters of a million assault rifles in private possession in Switerzland (420,000 military issue and 320,000 non military issue). (I know wiki isn't always 100% accurate and there might be a problem with ammo supplies, but that's still a lot of guns...)

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I use Australia during WWII as a basis for my arguement that Switzerland cannot sustain an active military strength of 625,000 for long.

You are perfectly right but Australia was fighting a bitter war. It was fully mobilized in WW2. Switzerland in T2K is not. It simply has to protect its borders. Also in WW2, Switzerland had mobilized as much as 850.000 troops out of a population of, then, 4 Millions. However, I doubt that they were serving full time.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I don't understand where you are finding 625,000 trained soldiers? From what I can see, in July 2009, "the armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty, of which 4,230 are professionals, with the rest being conscripts or volunteers". There are a further 77,000 reserves. It seems very doubtful that anyone not in the military will be given a military weapon, although it is possible they would have sporting rifles, shotguns, etc.

I have the 1990 figures, these coming from before the "Army 95" (the current number are difined by "Army XXI") that sized down the military force to 400.000. Then, the 625.000 include reserve as you should remember that the Swiss Army at the time was a militia (I have seen somewhere that it could mobilized 800.000 but I can't confirm that figure). About the civil defense, don't forget that they don't serve as full time and can be assimilated to an emergency reserve.

About guns, you are wrong. It is normal policy for Switzerland to have its militiamen keeping his assault gun at home. By 2001, they were still 800.000 around in Swiss private home. In T2K (a cold war situation), you can at least add a further 400.000. Back in 1990, I was at school with a swiss guy who was 21. At the time, as all men under 50 he had to do military training for a week each year. He had his own assault gun at home. Switzerland was, then, capable of full mobilization in less than 72 hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

To sum up, it just doesn't seem feasible for Switzerland to field a strong military for more than a few weeks in a 12 month period. Even training time would be restricted due to the pressing need to feed the population.

I agree with what you say about feeding but Switzerland will certainly turn to what it did in WW2 and that means turning any arable land into food production. Moreover, industry will be working at a very low level (due to raw material shortages and power cuts). As a result, the number of workers needed will be much lower than during peace time. Non-strategic production will be downed to zero and these workers will be sent to farm the land.

[Targan]

I like the Swiss system as described in that Wiki article. It seems to work well for the Swiss.

[Mohoender]

Is that me or was this supposed to be a thread on Sweden? I plead fully guilty.

[Adm.Lee]

Yeah, well, back to the Swedes.

IMO, they wouldn't cross the Baltic to Poland for more than (armed) trade. Maybe they'll be willing to be hired for transportation (see the XI Corps threads, maybe that's how the Danish division goes home).

[Mohoender]

I agree with you Lee. They could also conduct several coastal raids all over the Baltic Coasts.