The Admiral Esssen POD- Effects of Sweden in the CP

Well, in the first days od the World War 1, the Commanding Officer of the Russian Baltic Fleet, the Admiral Nikolai Essen has the thinking than the Sweden are colaborated with the Germans to trap russian in the Baltic(in base for some rumors about the envoy send to Sweden for the proporssal to Join the Centrals Power in Exchange of Finland and the Baltic, the Finland Situation and the Sweden support, and maybe bad vodka) and Was planning a preemptive strike against the Swedish Fleet and historically was only stoped few moments before that(maybe some detail can vary. that come from a book in my university.. A Spanish one)

That is the Background.. now the pod is: What If the Russian Admirality don't discover the Essen Plans and he perfectly Strike the NEUTRAL Swedish Fleet in the first's day of the Great War?

A lot will say than the Sweden will do nothing... and that personally is an ASB, a foreign power, who is/was their historical nemesis strike them without provokation or war declaration is enought for all the swedish society rally for the war...

Well, in general here is for discuss how will the butterfly blow in this scenario? specially about the relations between the great powers(with the precedent than the Entente attack a neutral nations without excuse), the Swedish contribution to the Eastern Front, and a long etc

Fell freed of discuss, i need feedback for a timeline

Att
Nivek von Beldo
 
BUMP

Nani te? No takers?, hey i made a very interesting question, and someone(Like 50) have pass in the topic and haven't even: MOO, or repeated or solved topic...

if someone have an idea, plesea comment there

Att
Nivek von Beldo
 
Sweden is now at war with Russia, unless the Russians make deep concessions to Sweden. Hmm, release Finland if you want us Swedes to give you peace?

I wonder what happens with Norway.

dilvish
 
This topic has been discussed before, and I gamed it in an on-hold timeline here.

Links please(sorry if i sound arrogant), i want to see that, in fact i i think thant is scenario was explore... who what to see the discussion about that and your the timeline(an your game too,),

Please.

ATT
Nivek von beldo

P.S. to Dilvish, We're talking of the ruskies here... they will not cede any inch even defeated(aka Brest-Litov), and we Nicky start to do their manouvre.... the russia are in a rock an a hard place
 
The Eastern Front ends earlier, allowing Germany to move its resources to the west a bit earlier than OTL. Counting Swedish troops which would be sent to the West after beating Russia, it may be enough to win the war.

Better yet, it might make Italy think twice about abandoning Germany and Austria, due to obvious Russian aggression.
 
Here's what typing "Admiral Essen" will get you.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/search.php?searchid=4159328

The "Fire in the Farosund" thread was an earlier attempt of mine that didn't have all of the information I needed. The following post is the result of my wargaming of a hypothetical combat.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=3232136&postcount=39

The First link doens't show me anything. but your short history was excellent.. was who was i need it(for some details, thanks), in general the topic is no close(because the another topic are the Eurofed/General Zod one an he forget the logic sometimes in his discussion) , for that keep the topic active...

Snowtalker: You touch a very good point, with having the bod sides without enought moral blame and with the precedent of a surpresive attack(for the Entente, the CP give an ultimatum a belgium and they chose fight), and with more support in the Eastern Front... that means that Austro-Hungary will avoid in the short term a lot of their collapse(and with more manpower thank to the swedish... even maybe defeat Serbia more early), and that will Put Italy in the same position than Nehtherland... in a Pro-Entente Neutrality... who is for far the best for Austro-Hungary and Italy.

And with more front and more pressure in the Eastern Front.. the Tsar maybe will considered a peace propossal to not being defeated so bad(even if we know the danger of Both revolution... the Russian Nobility NOT), that is now my open question...

Someone can give more detail for Sweden... and the Swedish-American(if they can become a pressure group in the USA)

Att
Nivek von Beldo

P.S. the topic is stillongoing, please comment
 
speaking of stupid

This would be a wonderful thing to do if the tzar wanted to cause the deaths of millions more people.

And speaking of stupid: I believe good-ol winston churchill wanted to pull a denmark on the german fleet (ambushing the kaisers fleet while it was in harbor)

I only mention that because both of the actions would seriously damage the legitimacy of the allied cause. (the allies pretended to be fighting for the rights of small nations and against german agression) and a suprise attack on the swedish fleet by the russians would not help the allied case too much, but it would make great german propoganda.
 
This would be a wonderful thing to do if the tzar wanted to cause the deaths of millions more people.

And speaking of stupid: I believe good-ol winston churchill wanted to pull a denmark on the german fleet (ambushing the kaisers fleet while it was in harbor)

I only mention that because both of the actions would seriously damage the legitimacy of the allied cause. (the allies pretended to be fighting for the rights of small nations and against german agression) and a suprise attack on the swedish fleet by the russians would not help the allied case too much, but it would make great german propoganda.


Actually, it wasn't Churchill who suggested that. It was Admiral Sir John Fisher, who in 1905 proposed to Edward VII that it might be a good idea to "Copenhagen" the German fleet. The King (when he finally believed his ears) reasonably responded "Good Lord Fisher! You must be mad!"

Does anyone else feel there was sometbing a bit weird about the Edwardian Age? Wilhelm II, TR and Fisher were all a little psychologically abnormal. Was there something in the drinking water?

I agree with the rest of your post. Attacking Sweden that way would have been an incredibly stupid thing to do - but in WW1 incredible stupidity often seemed to be the norm, so it can't be ruled out.
 
First of all, the Swedish navy never was at Fårösund. The intelligence von Essen got was faulty. At the time, Kustflottan was conducting exercises in the sourthern part of the Stockholm Archipelago. At Fårösund von Essen will sink maybe two 3rd class torpedo boats and a few fishing vessels. Fårösund has never been a major naval base and cannot sustain the Swedish navy.

On the other hand, von Essen sent a destroyer squadrong to mine the aproaches in the southern part of the Stockholm archipelago - they might run into the full Swedish fleet.

Sweden at the time had 6 line, 6 reserve and 1 cavalry division, plus a strong Landstorm. In total about 370 000 men. There were also dedicated units to defend Gotland and the great fortress at Boden. During exercises 1912 both German and Russian observers commented on the high standard of training, the new Bofors 105mm howitzers and the competence of Swedish officers.

Cavalry
In 1914, Sweden raised 50 squadrons of cavalry (of which 8 were depot/training/field replacement squadrons).

Each of the line divisions had one cavalry regiment of 4 squadrons each for a total och 24 squadrons. A further 2 squadrons were for the garrison of the fortress city of Boden.

The cavalry division had 16 squadrons in 2 brigades of 2 regiments each.

Cavalry regiment
4 squadrons of cavalry
1 MG platoon (2 MGs)

Cavalry squadron
120 combat men + 15 others

Swedish cavalry trained sabre chocks until 1942 and de-horsed totally in 1967, but started to convert to a recoinnasance role in 1936. At the time of ww1, this process had yet to start. All Swedish cavalrymen were equipped with sabre, revolver (switched to pistol during the war) and 6,5mm mauser bolt-action carbine. There were no lances and no cuirasses. De-horsing and fighting on foot WAS trained, but not focused upon.

It seems like the cavalry, like the infantry had all NCOs and officers permanently employed and the conscripted men trained for 365 days. This was increased with a further 100 days after 1914. However, training focused a lot on drill and formal moments (this seems to have been the case with many nations in 1914 though) and little on mission-related training. Conscription did not start until 1901 though, and a lot of employed specialists and even normal soldiers remained in the organisation until they retired, giving the cavalry a higher % of volunteers or employed men than the infantry.

Infantry
When conscription was introduced fully (1901), the infantry was drilled and trained for 240 days. From 1914 and onwards, all infantry would train 365 days like the cavalry, artillery and navy. All would also have at least 100 days of extra training due to the partial mobilisation.

1909 this equipment was ordered:
Every second man - a spade. Every squad - one saw and four axes. Every platoon - one wire cutter. For the rifle 100 shots.

Decently well-trained and equipped by the standards of the day. The Germans expressed favourable opinions of the Swedish army when observing exercises (like at Falköping 1912). Cadaver discipline was used, but probably quite a bit lower than in the German army. Officers, NCOs and men usually camped together, ate the same food and shared the same burdens. Officers, NCOs and men where trained at the same time. Regiments were local and drew men locally (only the garrison of Boden and Gotland drew men from other parts of the country). Conscript NCOs were very common and even conscript officers were not unheard of. There were still a large sprinkling of professionals from before the 1901 introduction of conscription, especially among specialists. MGs were few and I have not heard of hand grenades being used before 1914.

Planes
Sweden had 5xFarman HF 22 and 6xBleriot XI before the war.

Artillery
Sweden had;
338x75mm field guns
204x84mm field guns (old from 1881 without recoil system)
~50x105mm howitzers (modern bofors design)
? (probably around 30)x120mm field guns (old from 1885 without recoil system)
56x150mm howitzers (modern krupp design)

The organisation of a Swedish line division.
Divisions are named I. to VI. Arméfördelningen.

2 infantry brigades
-2 infantry regiments
--3 infantry battalions and 1 MG company (with 6xMGs)
1 cavalry regiment
-2 cavalry battalions
--2 cavalry squadrons and 1 cavalry MG platoon (with 2xMGs)
1 artillery regiment
-3 light field artillery battalions (each with 12x75mm field guns) and 1 field howitzer battalion (with 8x105mm field howitzers)
1 field engineer company
1 bridging column
1 field telegraph company

Organisation of a Swedish reserve division.
Reserve divisions are named XI. to XVI. Arméfördelningen.

2 reserve infantry brigades
-2 reserve infantry regiments
--3 infantry battalions and 1 MG company (with 6xMGs)
1 reserve cavalry battalion
-2 cavalry squadrons
1 reserve artillery regiment
-3 light field artillery battalions (each with 12x75mm field guns)
1 field engineer company
1 bridging column
1 field telegraph company

Organisation of the Swedish cavalry division.
The cavalry division is named Kavallerifördelningen.

2 cavalry brigades
-2 cavalry regiments
--4 cavalry squadrons, 1 MG platoon (with 2xMGs)
1 riding artillery battalion (12x75mm field guns)

Landstormen
Landstormen consisted of battalions and regiments and usually manned the older artillery. They lacked operational and strategic moblity and was used for border and coast defence, usually in prepared fortificatons. They had no MGs in 1914. They consisted of the older conscripts (35-42 year olds) that had military training but was discharged from their field units.

Boden's Garrison
The fortress city of Boden had;
In armoured, fully rotating turrets:
8x15cm howitzers
12x12cm cannons
20x8,4cm cannons

Point defence:
4x8,4cm cannons
36x6cm cannons

In dug in permanent positions:
14x8,4cm cannons

Five heavy forts and many smaller stood in a ring around the city, protecting the railroad to Kiruna and Narvik. The Russians cannot attack from Finland without dealing with Boden.

The garrison had one infantry regiment, two field artillery battalions and one engineer regiment as well.

Gotland's Garrison
Gotland had one infantry regiment and one field artillery battalion plus the local Landstorm and some smaller fortifications.
 
Last edited:
Well, if Sweden is dragged into the war it would eventually end badly for them. A British naval base on Gotland?
Highly doubtable, for three reasons:
One, that there is a non-neglible chance of an Alliance victory, if one takes into account that the effects of this POD will not only be purely military. If nothing else, an Entente victory will be more of a near-run thing, with all that implies of exhaustion.
Secondly, the nature of Sweden's entry means that the Entente have a good reason to be lenient on them in case of an Entente victory.
Thirdly, little reason to be harsh on them. Even without any power-reducing treaty terms, Sweden isn't really a threat to the Entente powers.
 
The Russians had no major fortifications in northern Finland, as far as I know. One could simply march on the ice in winter, or take the railorad bridge between Haparanda and Torneå/Tornio. Landing in northern or central Finland is quite possible.

Dagö and Ösel is far too close to the Russian navy's bases and the mine hell that is the central and southern Baltic sea (the northern ice damages minefields so they are not reliable there). Perhaps in cooperation with the German Hochseeflotte.
 
Highly doubtable, for three reasons:
One, that there is a non-neglible chance of an Alliance victory, if one takes into account that the effects of this POD will not only be purely military. If nothing else, an Entente victory will be more of a near-run thing, with all that implies of exhaustion.
Secondly, the nature of Sweden's entry means that the Entente have a good reason to be lenient on them in case of an Entente victory.
Thirdly, little reason to be harsh on them. Even without any power-reducing treaty terms, Sweden isn't really a threat to the Entente powers.

Indeed. Compare to Bulgaria, which was an aggressor, but still got to retain their 1914 territory and had lenient war damages etc assigned to them. Their demilitarization was not that enforced either.
 
Dagö and Ösel is far too close to the Russian navy's bases and the mine hell that is the central and southern Baltic sea (the northern ice damages minefields so they are not reliable there). Perhaps in cooperation with the German Hochseeflotte.


That's what I wondered about. From what I've read, the Germans several times toyed with the idea of capturing the islands, before finally doing it in October 1917. It occured to me that with Sweden as an ally they might look in that direction sooner.

Incidentally, how rapidly did the Baltic bcome a "mine hell"? It was certainly one later, but was it in 1914?
 
Very quickly - come winter 1914 it was very hard to move anywhere without clearing mines. The Russians made extensive use of offensive mining, using quick 1st class torpedo boats and destroyers that operated alone and was hard to spot and intercept to drop mines outside German aproaches and ports. Defensive mining was also used extensively. On the day of the outbreak of war between Germany and Russia, the Russian navy laid 2124 mines - on a single day!

Late September 1914 Kolchak laid about 1500 mines in German waters. The Germans also laid massive number of mines.

Most of the Baltic is STILL mined from ww1 and ww1 mines floating ashore from having broken their rusting chains is a common occurance in Sweden - about 10 per year or so.

So mine hell pretty much happened during August and September.
 
Indeed. Compare to Bulgaria, which was an aggressor, but still got to retain their 1914 territory and had lenient war damages etc assigned to them. Their demilitarization was not that enforced either.

True.

If the Russian revolution happens nonetheless, Sweden might actually be awarded even if its team lost. If Sweden proves to be military capable, they might receive Finland or protection over the Baltics to guard them against the Soviets. Generally, with Sweden in the war Northern Europe will be more in the focus, and Sweden will take a more active role after the war. Maybe we'll see at least a Swedish-led defense union which includes Finland and the Baltics, which is rather friendly to its former friends the Germans.
 
One other point. Could the Swedes have any chance to capture Murmansk?

If they do, the CPs could have a u-boat base conveniently located to intercept supplies to Archangel. Or weren't there enough to make it worthwhile?
 
Top