James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Nov 16, 2019 10:25:14 GMT
Denmark had a communist resistance movement in the latter stages of Nazi occupation. It was nowhere as large as the one in Greece or even France & Italy. The non-communist resistance in Denmark was bigger. Still, the communists were there.
Occupation zones through Europe had already been decided at Yalta with Soviet forces meant to occupy the eastern half of Germany and the Western Powers the western half. Those zones were for after the end of fighting. As we saw with American advances especially, they went further forward than those Yalta agreed provisions and then withdrew after the end of fighting to hand areas of Germany over the Soviets: the Soviets handed over part of Berlin to the Western Powers too.
Just before the end of the fighting, Churchill ordered British forces to advance to Lubeck & Wismar on the Baltic to cut off a Soviet drive up into Denmark. That seems impossible with hindsight but at the time, Churchill must have thought it likely. If the Soviet Army had gotten into Denmark, under the Yalta Agreement they would have withdrawn (or maybe not: see Bornholm) but to Churchill, he didn't want them to get into Denmark to start with.
Let us say Churchill is shown intelligence that suggests that the Soviets will get nowhere near Denmark, scrubs any idea of Lubeck & Wismar being reached by the British Second Army, and the Soviets make a sudden push. Stalin's armies roll through Holstein, Schleswig and Jutland. Moreover, they make a small handing on Zealand. Stalin doesn't expect such ease of progress.
With the arrival of Soviet forces, even if they intend to soon withdraw, does this set off a communist attempt at a take-over? Does this ignite a civil war, even a small one? Does Churchill send in British troops to fight the communists - as done in Greece - or not do so with Soviet forces there and there being the risk of a clash between erstwhile allies? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 16, 2019 11:04:46 GMT
Denmark had a communist resistance movement in the latter stages of Nazi occupation. It was nowhere as large as the one in Greece or even France & Italy. The non-communist resistance in Denmark was bigger. Still, the communists were there.
Occupation zones through Europe had already been decided at Yalta with Soviet forces meant to occupy the eastern half of Germany and the Western Powers the western half. Those zones were for after the end of fighting. As we saw with American advances especially, they went further forward than those Yalta agreed provisions and then withdrew after the end of fighting to hand areas of Germany over the Soviets: the Soviets handed over part of Berlin to the Western Powers too.
Just before the end of the fighting, Churchill ordered British forces to advance to Lubeck & Wismar on the Baltic to cut off a Soviet drive up into Denmark. That seems impossible with hindsight but at the time, Churchill must have thought it likely. If the Soviet Army had gotten into Denmark, under the Yalta Agreement they would have withdrawn (or maybe not: see Bornholm) but to Churchill, he didn't want them to get into Denmark to start with.
Let us say Churchill is shown intelligence that suggests that the Soviets will get nowhere near Denmark, scrubs any idea of Lubeck & Wismar being reached by the British Second Army, and the Soviets make a sudden push. Stalin's armies roll through Holstein, Schleswig and Jutland. Moreover, they make a small handing on Zealand. Stalin doesn't expect such ease of progress.
With the arrival of Soviet forces, even if they intend to soon withdraw, does this set off a communist attempt at a take-over? Does this ignite a civil war, even a small one? Does Churchill send in British troops to fight the communists - as done in Greece - or not do so with Soviet forces there and there being the risk of a clash between erstwhile allies?
I can't see Churchill sending in troops to fight the Red army, plus the other factor is that he's very shortly going to lose the election inside the UK. Its unlikely that a Soviet occupation/liberation of Denmark would have an impact on that as it could be unclear whether they were willing to withdraw or not before votes are cast.
Not sure if Stalin would refuse to withdraw, as it would mean greatly increased tension with the western powers and either means the US correspondingly don't withdraw from the regions their occupied beyond the agreed partition line or do so then are angry when Stalin refuses. Suspect its unlikely to lead to war in the short term as the western powers have done so much to build up the Soviets as allies but it would definitely lead to an earlier chilling of the cold war. On the other hand the US is supposed to have used the threat of military action, including possibly nukes to get the Soviets to withdraw from parts of Iran a couple of years later so they might also act in terms of a western democratic state such as Denmark.
Suspect that if push comes to shuffle Stalin would withdraw as his forces are in no condition to really fight the western powers before the latter see their OTL massive demoblisation, especially if he has realistic knowledge of the impending nuclear development in the west.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 16, 2019 13:28:57 GMT
Denmark had a communist resistance movement in the latter stages of Nazi occupation. It was nowhere as large as the one in Greece or even France & Italy. The non-communist resistance in Denmark was bigger. Still, the communists were there.
Occupation zones through Europe had already been decided at Yalta with Soviet forces meant to occupy the eastern half of Germany and the Western Powers the western half. Those zones were for after the end of fighting. As we saw with American advances especially, they went further forward than those Yalta agreed provisions and then withdrew after the end of fighting to hand areas of Germany over the Soviets: the Soviets handed over part of Berlin to the Western Powers too.
Just before the end of the fighting, Churchill ordered British forces to advance to Lubeck & Wismar on the Baltic to cut off a Soviet drive up into Denmark. That seems impossible with hindsight but at the time, Churchill must have thought it likely. If the Soviet Army had gotten into Denmark, under the Yalta Agreement they would have withdrawn (or maybe not: see Bornholm) but to Churchill, he didn't want them to get into Denmark to start with.
Let us say Churchill is shown intelligence that suggests that the Soviets will get nowhere near Denmark, scrubs any idea of Lubeck & Wismar being reached by the British Second Army, and the Soviets make a sudden push. Stalin's armies roll through Holstein, Schleswig and Jutland. Moreover, they make a small handing on Zealand. Stalin doesn't expect such ease of progress.
With the arrival of Soviet forces, even if they intend to soon withdraw, does this set off a communist attempt at a take-over? Does this ignite a civil war, even a small one? Does Churchill send in British troops to fight the communists - as done in Greece - or not do so with Soviet forces there and there being the risk of a clash between erstwhile allies? I see the Swedish getting involved as they where planning to do in OTL. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 17, 2019 11:20:57 GMT
Denmark had a communist resistance movement in the latter stages of Nazi occupation. It was nowhere as large as the one in Greece or even France & Italy. The non-communist resistance in Denmark was bigger. Still, the communists were there.
Occupation zones through Europe had already been decided at Yalta with Soviet forces meant to occupy the eastern half of Germany and the Western Powers the western half. Those zones were for after the end of fighting. As we saw with American advances especially, they went further forward than those Yalta agreed provisions and then withdrew after the end of fighting to hand areas of Germany over the Soviets: the Soviets handed over part of Berlin to the Western Powers too.
Just before the end of the fighting, Churchill ordered British forces to advance to Lubeck & Wismar on the Baltic to cut off a Soviet drive up into Denmark. That seems impossible with hindsight but at the time, Churchill must have thought it likely. If the Soviet Army had gotten into Denmark, under the Yalta Agreement they would have withdrawn (or maybe not: see Bornholm) but to Churchill, he didn't want them to get into Denmark to start with.
Let us say Churchill is shown intelligence that suggests that the Soviets will get nowhere near Denmark, scrubs any idea of Lubeck & Wismar being reached by the British Second Army, and the Soviets make a sudden push. Stalin's armies roll through Holstein, Schleswig and Jutland. Moreover, they make a small handing on Zealand. Stalin doesn't expect such ease of progress.
With the arrival of Soviet forces, even if they intend to soon withdraw, does this set off a communist attempt at a take-over? Does this ignite a civil war, even a small one? Does Churchill send in British troops to fight the communists - as done in Greece - or not do so with Soviet forces there and there being the risk of a clash between erstwhile allies? I see the Swedish getting involved as they where planning to do in OTL.
Lordroel
Do you mean they were thinking of a preemptive intervention to block a Soviet occupation? At least of Zealand and the other islands in the straits? Can understand them not wanting the Soviets in Denmark, especially with them being in northern Norway at the time and having subdued Finland.
Mind you the former could be a marker here. The Soviets did occupy a section of northern Norway before the German surrender but, by their standards, were well behaved and did withdraw pretty quickly without any pressure from the west I think. It might have been different with Denmark as that's strategically far more important, giving control over the Baltic entrances but it might not.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 17, 2019 13:03:52 GMT
I see the Swedish getting involved as they where planning to do in OTL. Lordroel Do you mean they were thinking of a preemptive intervention to block a Soviet occupation? At least of Zealand and the other islands in the straits? Can understand them not wanting the Soviets in Denmark, especially with them being in northern Norway at the time and having subdued Finland. Mind you the former could be a marker here. The Soviets did occupy a section of northern Norway before the German surrender but, by their standards, were well behaved and did withdraw pretty quickly without any pressure from the west I think. It might have been different with Denmark as that's strategically far more important, giving control over the Baltic entrances but it might not.
Steve
As far as I know, peration Rädda Danmark" (Operation Save Denmark) in 1945 was also partly designed to prevent the Soviets from getting into Denmark. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 17, 2019 22:12:56 GMT
Lordroel Do you mean they were thinking of a preemptive intervention to block a Soviet occupation? At least of Zealand and the other islands in the straits? Can understand them not wanting the Soviets in Denmark, especially with them being in northern Norway at the time and having subdued Finland. Mind you the former could be a marker here. The Soviets did occupy a section of northern Norway before the German surrender but, by their standards, were well behaved and did withdraw pretty quickly without any pressure from the west I think. It might have been different with Denmark as that's strategically far more important, giving control over the Baltic entrances but it might not.
Steve
As far as I know, peration Rädda Danmark" (Operation Save Denmark) in 1945 was also partly designed to prevent the Soviets from getting into Denmark.
Interesting, thanks Lordroel.
|
|
