Alternate WWI

>>33092300
No
Just no
Scandis were exclusively neutral, and had no dog in the fight whatsoever
Denmark disliked Germany, and Norway traded much more with the uk
Sweden liked germany but had a pathetic military and would never dream of wasting their resources
It would NEVER happen in any scenario

>>33092571
>implying neutrality helps not getting attacked
Tell that denmark, netherlands or belgium

File: 6587969743.jpg (282KB, 548x550px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 548x550px

>>33092669

>>33092300
>What would happen?
Britain had contingencies in place for blockading Scandinavia, and Churchill had numerous madcap plans for invading the Baltic. It wouldn't have been pretty, but given the Scandi countries' small populations and militaries, it wouldn't have done much to alleviate the central problem for the Central Powers in WW1 - dependence on imported materials. Swedish steel would have helped, but food would still have been a serious concern.
The destruction or impounding of the Norwegian commercial fleet would have been enough to knock them out of the war.
>Would Russia and Sweden both promise the Finns independence?
Tsarist Russia wouldn't, Communist Russia would. Sweden wouldn't be in a position to offer independence to Finland.
>Invasion of Scotland?
RN too dominant in the North Sea. The Scandi countries went in for coastal defence ships, not dreadnoughts.
>Would they get around Britain's blockade?
Certainly not. Being hostile to the Nordics would actually have made it easier for the British to blockade the Central Powers, as there would not have been the awkward question of Norwegian neutral territorial waters to dance around. Remember what happened with Norway's neutrality in WW2 when this question surfaced. This logic also applies to the Netherlands joining the Central Powers - even if it had made sense politically, or if Germany had invaded them, their small and backward military would have been of little use to the German-led coalition, and its decent navy would have been hard-pressed to prevent an Anglo-French dissection of the Dutch overseas possession. Germany's Navy and Empire were both larger than Holland's by 1914, and yet both were neutralised quickly (except, of course, for Von Lettow-Vorbeck).

>>33092684
10/10 image

File: 1486782494067.jpg (42KB, 526x479px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 526x479px

>>33092669

>>33092759
>>33092571

So I guess the Nords have always been cukced

>>33092789
Is it still cucked when you realise your country's position in the world is such that committing to continental warfare is a short cut to national suicide? Look up Swedish demographic changes as a result of mass conscription during the Thirty Years' War, Great Northern War etc. Dominating northern Europe came at such a cost that the Swedes realised they couldn't do it given the natural constraints on their domestic population.
By the mid-1630s less than 10% of the "Swedish" armies that dominated Germany were actually composed of Swedish men, due to casualties - they were having to rely on expensive and unreliable vassals and mercenaries. At one time there were more Scots fighting for the Swedish crown than Swedes, again owing to the Swedish manpower shortage.

>>33092828

Basically it seems that every eastern nation is too poor/ not advanced enough to maintain a modern army. And the western ones that are advanced and rich are too cucked to maintain a modern military.

>>33092300
>ywn own an m96 that saw combat