Suggestion: Scandinavian dynamics

[Exel]

In my current game the Axis AI skipped the conquest of both Denmark and Norway entirely. Now I don't know if the AI is even programmed to do that, but nevertheless it made me think.

Germany not occupying Denmark and Norway should have consequences to the game events. Most directly it should effect Finland; should Norway and Denmark remain neutral, Finland would be a lot less keen to join the war against Soviet Union. It might even align towards the Allies. Historically Finland only allied itself with Germany because after Denmark and Norway were occupied it could no longer expect any aid or support from Britain. After Winter War Finland was strongly pro-Allied, largely thanks to the military support given by them, but also for political reasons.

In a similar fashion, if Germany does not occupy Denmark and Norway, Britain itself should be more aligned towards influencing Norway and Sweden to its cause. Before Germany invaded Norway, Churchill even considered the option of invading Norway and moving troops from there to Sweden to stop the Swedish deliveries to Germany. That of course should diplomatic efforts to the same end fail.

The effects in the game need not necessarily be this complex. My point is simply that any action taken or untaken towards Denmark and Norway should not be as indefferent as they are now and that those actions should have consequences in the game world.

[jon_j_rambo]

Are Europeans really that weak minded to decided right/wrong course of action based on their neighbors decisions?

That's the great thing, "We don't have to believe anything"..."I already do believe". -Legend 2006

[Lars]

Originally posted by Exel:

Historically Finland only allied itself with Germany because after Denmark and Norway were occupied it could no longer expect any aid or support from Britain. After Winter War Finland was strongly pro-Allied, largely thanks to the military support given by them, but also for political reasons.

Whaaat?

The French and British never sent anything in the Winter War other than promises.

[Blashy]

UK Troops were ON ships and ready to land in northern Norway, when Germany invaded they called the ships back.

So yes UK was close to going to Scandinavia.

I doubt Finland would have changed its mind.

It was not pro Axis, it was just against Russia. Classic example of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Exel]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Are Europeans really that weak minded to decided right/wrong course of action based on their neighbors decisions?

Realpolitik. Situation: Soviet Union with proven hostile intentions in the East, common border over 1000km. France occupied, UK out of reach, Sweden wont be helping. What do we have left? Germany. Ideologically not on the same planet, but at least in the same galaxy (as in versus Soviet Union). They are willing to help both economically and militarily. So we either ally with them and fight the Russians to reclaim our territory or we attempt to stay neutral and quite likely become a "neutral" battleground between the two giants. What would you choose?

Originally posted by Lars:

The French and British never sent anything in the Winter War other than promises.

They did send a lot of economical aid, some military advisors and volunteers and sold military hardware on bargain. Same goes for the US. True, most of those shipments arrived too late for the war, but they were on our side nevertheless.

Originally posted by Blashy:

I doubt Finland would have changed its mind.

It was not pro Axis, it was just against Russia. Classic example of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

While that is true, Finland would have more likely allied itself with the British had it been a practical possibility (ie. Norway granting passage or at least not occupied by Germany). Alliance with Britain would probably not have diminished any grudges against the Soviets, but Finland would have more probably stayed out of the war nevertheless.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Exel:

So we either ally with them and fight the Russians to reclaim our territory or we attempt to stay neutral and quite likely become a "neutral" battleground between the two giants. What would you choose?

Stay home.

You were never going to become a "battleground" between Germany and USSR. Finland is a bit off the beaten path.

True, most of those shipments arrived too late for the war, but they were on our side nevertheless.

And that tilted Finland radically towards the Allies how?

Alliance with Britain would probably not have diminished any grudges against the Soviets, but Finland would have more probably stayed out of the war nevertheless.

Alliance with Britain, eh? Were you thinking of invading Germany? Cuz I don't think the Germans would have been too happy about it.

Best course for Finland would have been to just stay out of it.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Lars:

Stay home.

You were never going to become a "battleground" between Germany and USSR. Finland is a bit off the beaten path.

Germany wanted to use Finnish territory to attack Murmansk railway and Leningrad. They were only happy to get Finland to do that for them (although in the end we did neither, despite Hitler's many requests). Still, German forces attacked towards Murmansk through Finnish Lapland, though with little success.

In 1944 when Finland had made peace with the Soviets, the Soviets forced Finland to fight the Germans out of Lapland. And we did, for the Reds were waiting for the tiniest excuse to enter Lapland themselves.

We were damn near about to become a battleground between the two and having to fight both at the same time as it was. I have little trouble imagining it going that way had we not picked a side at all.

Let's also not forget that Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1939. In 1941-44 Germany sent considerable amounts of men and material to Finland, stuff that they didn't give to any other of their allies. In 1944 both sides deployed huge military force to the region and Karelian Isthmus saw one of the biggest battles of the entire WW2.

So no, I can't agree that "Finland was a bit off of the beaten path".

And that tilted Finland radically towards the Allies how?

Finland was pro-Britain before 1939. Winter War and the support given by the Allies only strenghtened that alignment. And Britain was the most desirable ally, not least importantly because both Finland and Britain were democratic unlike the other two remaining European powers.

Alliance with Britain, eh? Were you thinking of invading Germany? Cuz I don't think the Germans would have been too happy about it.

Alliance with Britain in terms of having security from the Soviets. Finland wanted to stay neutral but after Winter War it was obvious that foreign support was necessary for the eventuality of any future Soviet hostilities.

Once UK was out of the question and Sweden was unwilling to help, the only remaining option was Germany. That meant taking sides, but it was deemed better than taking on the Soviets alone for a second time. Plus it removed the threat of a possible two-front war.

Best course for Finland would have been to just stay out of it.

Agreed, had it worked.

[Exel]

In order to not drift too far off-topic I would just like to remind that I really only want for the occupation of Norway (or lack of it) have an influence on other countries, namely Finland, Sweden and the UK.

[Liam]

Oddly enough Norway would move Finland very little seeing as Norway is a Key to England. Sweden and Denmark together along with Norway would look like Scandanavian conquest to me! Personally anyways I'd be weary as Fins

I know that Fins fought hard an inflicted what hundreds of thousands of casualties? I may be off, but that is considerable, all that Wintery weather I think that Stalin would've done best to remain neutral toward Finland. The only thing to really gain there is Helsinki and the rest is worse weather than there is Russia. Which is grave attrittion. I do know that Traditionally the Reds have claims on Finnish lands going back centuries. At one time the Fins dominated down the Rivers Russia..Old disputes there folks but a little country in the middle of god knows nowhere has a greater impact than could ever be imagined? They help cut of Leningrad in WW2, very well could've spelt the end of Joe Stalin

oh by the way, This Game is inaccurate, the damage from Finnish and Scandavian Winter should be triple that of Middle Russia their best Fortress Not Men or Equipment, Winter worse than the Reds

[Exel]

Originally posted by Liam:

The only thing to really gain there is Helsinki and the rest is worse weather than there is Russia. Which is grave attrittion.

oh by the way, This Game is inaccurate, the damage from Finnish and Scandavian Winter should be triple that of Middle Russia their best Fortress Not Men or Equipment, Winter worse than the Reds

Well, maybe not quite. The winter in 1939 was very harsh even by our "standards" and it crippled some Soviet units not prepared for such conditions and expecting a 2 week war, but generally speaking the Russian winters are worse. Also during the 1941-44 war the winter didn't play such a large role on the Finnish front. The great battles of 1944 were fought mostly during summer.

Btw, as a minor sidenote, there was no Mannerheim line after Winter War and the area where it is now located in the game was surrendered to the Soviets in the 1940 peace.