The Atlantic and the Northern Countries

[Lundgren]

Just poking around a bit on the timeline and the involved countries for the 2.2 setting.

As I see it, the battle of the Atlantic decide if US troops and supplies can reach Europe or not. So a decisive victory there would have a great impact on the war on the ground.

But for the Soviet to get the fleets into play, they have to sail past northern Norway with the fleet stationed at Murmansk, and through the narrow gap between Denmark and Sweden with the fleet at Leningrad.

Controlling either side of that narrow passage would mean quite a pounding of the Leningrad fleet. So taking and holding that part of Denmark is vital. If the Soviet doesn't trust the Swedish neutrality, they would need take the Swedish side as well.

As I understand it, there are four important airfields in Norway that would be "like adding four extra carriers to the battle." Controlling them, or denying access to them, would be important. One can take the long route, as the Soviet Union and Norway share a border; or one can cut through Finland and Sweden.

The reason of the Finnish Winter War during WWII was because the Soviets wanted more area around Leningrad to protect the naval base. Beside a lot of forest, and industry, I'm not aware of any strategic resources in Finland. As trees isn't really something the Russians lack, I don't think they would be much more interested in Finland than possible that Shortcut to get to Norway.

Same thing with Sweden. Sweden has an iron mine in Kiruna (far north) and a copper mine (about in the middle) as well. But the output are probably to small for the Soviets to bother, unless they want to deny the enemy the option to buy from Sweden. So mainly, as with Sweden, the reason would be said shortcut.

While Finland may be east oriented on paper, there is no love between them and the Soviet Union, and the army is geared to give them a new nosebleed if needed. Some of the Soviet leaders might remember the last time.

While being neutral on paper, information gathered by Swedish intelligence is passed on westward and the equipment used by the Swedish army is NATO compatible. Not attacking Sweden is a gamble (at least from the Soviets point of view), but attacking would tie down troops that might be needed elsewhere. During the first half of the '90s, Sweden did some upgrades of the military. Replacing the 7.62 battle rifle with 5.56 assault rifles (giving the former to the home Guard), new multi-role jets, and buying quite a load of Leopard I and II's from Germany.

Any thought of the battle of the Atlantic or the situation of the Nordic countries?

[Targan]

IIRC there was a Finnish Handbook produced back in the day which had lots of information about Finland (obviously) and Scandinavia during the Twilight War. I don't know if an English-translated version was ever made available though.

[Legbreaker]

I do believe one of our members who just so happens to reside in the area in question began just such a translation on these very boards a year or so back. I don't believe they finished but a good start was made.

Edit: Hmm, looks like it was just the timeline. Still, there's a lot of good info in there!
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1437

[Lundgren]

I have seen references to that sourcebook, and always thought it was some fan made material. So they made their own licensed stuff over there? Cool

Unfortunately, considering the language it would be not be much point of getting my hands on it. If it had been in Swedish... Oh, well.

Reading on wikipedia I can see that the Baltic fleet at Leningrad has the task of securing the coast of Germany and Poland, and give amphibious capability to be able to attach Denmark and Germany.

So no reason to break out and engage in the battle of the Atlantic, thus southern Sweden or eastern Denmark would not be considered an immediate threat.

Denmark and Holland (and possible Belgium depending on if they stay in NATO or not) would be transit lands for US and Canadian troops and supplies. While denying access to those ports would be of interest, I don't think it would be done by an amphibious invasion of Denmark. Strategic bombing and later nukes would probably be the method of choice.

If the invasion of Norway would be halted in Lapland, then the rest of Norway would probably be quite untouched until the nukes starts to fly. If the invasion of Norway is successful, I would guess quite a few resistance group would have their bases on Swedish soil. The later could mean the same type of tension as the one between Colombia and Venezuela/Peru as FARC and other groups have used bases across the border.

But it can be worth to remember that one of the main objective to invade Norway during WWII was to secure the import of Swedish steel. Apparently, there was some plans by the British to invade northern Sweden to deny Germany the option to import from Sweden. Those plans was scrapped. So a question is, how important would imports from Sweden be to Germany and Great Britain in the Twilight war?

[Legbreaker]

WWII and T2K are very different situations logistically. In WWII, Germany had to fight virtually all it's neighbours in an effort to secure resources.

In T2K, the situation is very different - Germany, and most of Nato (obviously not including the effectively isolated Turkey and Romania) have a relatively open back door to the west. Likewise, the Pact have the vast natural resources of the USSR in addition to that which can be found within the client states themselves. Nobody on either side in T2K really NEEDS resources from neutral countries (although they do help), so I doubt resources alone would be enough (in the early years) to make anywhere a particular target.

Later on, say 1999-2000 even just the rumour of a single resource type could make a general offensive a real possibility.

[Lundgren]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

WWII and T2K are very different situations logistically. In WWII, Germany had to fight virtually all it's neighbours in an effort to secure resources.

True. So it is back to "the only point of attacking Sweden is to get to Norway from another angle"; which sounds to be to costly and time consuming.

Later on, say 1999-2000 even just the rumour of a single resource type could make a general offensive a real possibility.

After the Soviet offensive during the summer of 2000, not many would have the resources needed to go on the offensive again. I also guess food is the primary resource on most minds.

While Sweden might not have the best soil in the world, with a rather small population and large land mass, it would probably be able to handle a wave of refugees from Norway. But it would probably lock down its border. By assisting Denmark in locking down its border against Germany, I see it as quite unlikely that any larger amount of refugees would reach Sweden.

Finland has quite a border against Russia. So it is a question of how well Finland would be able to keep starving masses out. If they would retake Karelia (lost to the Soviet during WWII), they would get a shorter border due to lake Ladoga adding as a natural barrier. So depending on how far Russia collapses, that might end up as an option.

With its railroads, hydropower and nuclear power plants, Sweden would probably be able to fairly well adapt if undamaged. Methanol and charcoal are produced from the same process, and there is a lot of forest to make it from. But everything would probably be rationed, so when the normal idealistic naivety of Swedes might not be as common anymore; creating a higher readiness of keeping people out in the same way as France.