Seen a few threads on this forum in which sweden and its actions during ww2 was discussed. I´m very interested in reading what you guys( brits, yanks aussies, etc) think and what you know about sweden during ww2. Many swedes are far from proud of sweden´s actions during the war. And its a very controversial subject still today in sweden. Cheers
Pity Sweden didn't throw their lot in with the Finns in 1939 and given the Soviets an even bigger kicking.I know several thousand volunteers went to aid the Finns and died side by side with them.Perhaps if it had been "offical" the map of Europe may have been different. Then the Finns may not have needed to ask Adolf for help.
I would have preferred Sweden be neutral. As a supplier of Hitler's war machine, I always thought she was fair game for a good bombing.
The finns fight against usssr in 1939 was very heroic. And many swedes feel guilty that we did not help them out more. With hindsight the swedish goverment probably made a correct decision. Sweden did not have a strong enough army,airforce and navy to make reel difference and still keep the guard up agaist Germany. I think the finnish writer/ diplomat probably was right when he wrote that Finland could not expect help from sweden against usssr when it wasn´t ready to back up Sweden against Germany. Jimbotsome, what do you mean when you say that sweden was a supplier of Hitler´s war machine? Are You referring to the iron ore? Thanks both of you for your point of wiews!
I think thats what Jimbo is referring to. Sweden was a major producer of iron ore and indeed Germany invaded Denmark and Norway specifically to secure it.
The finns fight against usssr in 1939 was very heroic. And many swedes feel guilty that we did not help them out more. With hindsight the swedish goverment probably made a correct decision. Sweden did not have a strong enough army,airforce and navy to make reel difference and still keep the guard up agaist Germany. I think the finnish writer/ diplomat probably was right when he wrote that Finland could not expect help from sweden against usssr when it wasn´t ready to back up Sweden against Germany. Jimbotsome, what do you mean when you say that sweden was a supplier of Hitler´s war machine? Are You referring to the iron ore? Thanks both of you for your point of wiews! Yes, without iron the war machine was impossible. But not all swedes were on the wrong side. For instance Raoul Wallenberg helped a least 20,000 Jews escape from the Nazi occupied Hungary, so you folks have your WWII heroes too. Of course our "ally" Russia had him arrested and either put to death or helped him die in a Russian gulag in Jan 1945. Got to love those wacky allies! I am still waiting for someone to tell me a single redeeming thing that Russia did to help their "allies" other than a relatively meaningless tie up of German troops. Remember, abusing US/British POWs and downed pilots and even stealing their watches, doesn't count for a "good" thing they did, nor does intentionally shooting down US aircraft in the Pacific count either. Raping all the women in Berlin does not help the allies either so you’ll can’t use that. Come on folks, they were our “allies”, surely someone can think of something redeeming they did. It was a 4 year war folks, there has to be something!
I am still waiting for someone to tell me a single redeeming thing that Russia did to help their "allies" other than a relatively meaningless tie up of German troops. Usual idiot ranting from our usual uneducated troll. 3 millions German Soldiers killed in the East, 80 % of all German military losses during WW2. Enough said, does Jimbo know anything about WW2 ? Also note that he seems to have some reading problems since, well, its kinda obvious the topic wasnt about the Soviet Union.
A Meaningless Tie up of German Troops???? You are genuinely trying just to stir things up. There is no way any serious student of WWII could make that statement. The European War was won and lost in the East. It took the Allies nearly a year to progress across France and into Germany and that was with nearly 180 German divisions fighting in the East. No amount of P-47’s, P-51’s, B-17’s, B-24’s or other Allies aircraft would change that. The sole reason for the Alliance was the defeat of Nazi Germany, nothing more. I agree that they weren’t as helpful to the other allies in terms of providing support and help to downed pilots but they certainly helped on the battlefield. In fact, c’mon Jimbo and prove to me how their contribution on the battlefield was not helpful to the Western Allies. Take off your blinkers about Russia and for once objectively state how the Russians did not help the Allied Cause. And while we’re at it, when you charge that the Russians were on a par with Nazism explain please why the Americans let the Russians take half of Eastern Europe even whilst Churchill correctly foresaw what was happening and his warnings fell on deaf ears because Roosevelt felt he could deal with “Uncle Joe”.
a relatively meaningless tie up of German troops..............It was a 4 year war folks, there has to be something! ??????? and DDay was of course a family outing to the beaches, and a couple of people were hurt at the camps, kursk was a minor scuffle, i'm told at Stalingrad as many as two men were actually killed, and at Iwo Jima once some men had a big argument, crockery was broken! and of course the most effective air raids were the ones crewed by pixies..??????? Just thought i'd try and think like 'Jimbo'. (Four year war for some mate, Nearer six for others..) Eastern Front??? Meaningless tie up??? Which war is the man referring to exactly??? I do hope he's just winding people up........
I do hope he's just winding people up........ Either that or he can't stand the FACT that the Russians did more to defeat Germany than the Americans.
Either that or he can't stand the FACT that the Russians did more to defeat Germany than the Americans. Ow, Max. That is gonna hurt.
Switzerland, Sweden and Spain to name but a few all remained neutral during WW2 or so some of the history books tell us. Maybe it's time for some truth to come out. What happened to all the 'Nazi Gold' liberated from the camps? How did Germany pay for its trade in Reichs Marks? I don't think so! Britain suffered after the war economically, lend lease, disappearing overseas trade with the Empire, restructuring industry but Switzerland and the rest just sailed on doing what they have alway done, trading with anyone who will pay the price.
Most countries if they had the choice would have stayed out of the war: Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Poland and Yugoslavia all fell to German invasion; Greece was initially brought into the war by the invasion of Italy; Finland by the Soviet Union; Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria threw in their lot with the Axis. Invasion was either strategic or agrrandisement with many but not all of the above armies providing little opposition. At the height of the Nazi new order Sweden and Switwerland were isolated from the world, politically and economically and therefore had to kowtow to the most powerful nation on the continent. In effect these countries had to look after themselves and had very little room to manouevre. The British may have made warnings to these nations about collaborating but did not have the power to back up these threats and they knew it. Having blocked the entrance to the Baltic by the invasion of Denmark the Swedes were isolated and consequently had to reorientate their economy to that of Germany. This isolation actually came about because the British were worried by the former peacetime trade in Iron Ore the Swedes had with the Germans and actually had at one time during the winter of 1939-40 contemplated a joint Franco-British occupation of the country particularly with an eye to assisting the Finns in their fight with the Soviet Union. Sweden itself had a couple of levers to help keep the Germans out of the country, one of which was the destruction of the iron ore mines which meant for the time being the Germans applied pressure but only to a certain degree until they won the war and could end Swedish independence at any time of their choosing. Basically Sweden's view was that refusing to help the Allies would mean unkind words whereas refusing the Nazis may bring far more tangible dangers. What I'd also add is that throughout the early years of the war Germany was usually willing to pay for goods imported from Sweden and this itself may have influenced certain sections of Swedish society, where there was money to be made, ethics went out of the window. In fact trade did not really cease until the end of 1944, when the Swedish government knew the Germans would not retaliate. Which in essence is the crux of the whole question, the Swedes were isolated and could be threatened. Within that parameter the Swedish government chose to co-operate obtaining their terms when they could but they were by no means an equal partner in agreements. It suited both countries to have transit and trade agreements, for the Swedes they needed German agreement to trade and for the Germans they needed Swedish neutrality for them to benefit by it. On the plus side the Swedes provided safe havens for Allied and Jewish escapees which was used as a means of underlining their liberal traditions, plus Stockholm like Geneva was a useful neutral meeting point for all nations at war. In the end the choice really boils down to who will win and what would the repercussions be from the winners? A slapped wrist from the Allies or destructive invasion from the Axis. Added to that is the need for the country to continue functioning whilst wages around it, therefore if dirty money is coming in to make the country and its inhabitants richer as a whole is it the government's right to look after it's own?
SMC I agree that many countries preferred neutrality in WW2, but some didn't have a choice. Sweden had a choice. To have one foot in the Nazi Germany camp and one in the Allied camp was morally wrong. I suppose when the war finished, whoever won, the Swedish government could be pleased they had been spared a war, and that the country was economically sound. The argument you put forward is for a Allied victory, have you also got one for a Nazi Germany victory. http://www.feldgrau.com/sweden.html
I'm not sure deep down they wanted a Nazi victory because then it would be a question of how Hitler would use them, it was known that there were plans to end the independence (or have it truncated severely) of both Sweden and Switzerland once Germany had won the war. I disagree about the choice regarding Sweden, particularly once Norway and Denmark had been occuppied which left her geographically isolated. Then it was a matter of playing their cards in a way that retained independence and spared the country from occupation itself. Hence, the decisions they made regarding transit rights and trade. You can argue that it was morally wrong but at the time no government was blessed with a vision of the future. They had to guess and had to play it by ear at that particular juncture. I am not saying what any of the neutral countries did was correct, but they followed what they believed was the correct policy at the time. And as with other neutral countries some profited more than others, c'est la guerre.
ourbill I Find it very hard to belive that more then a handfull of extremist, in Sweden wanted a nazi victory. Very few voted for a nazi or a facist party. Some conservatives were not that keen on democrazy and very anti communist butt it was obvios for almost any swede that germany was a threath against sweden. Especially after 9 april 1940. Did sweden hava choice, Could she haved declared war against Germany? Of course sweden could have done that. Butt would have been against all logic. After the fall of Norway and Denmark sweden was tottaly surrounded by german forces. The swedish armed forces was not strong enough to defend Sweden, and totally incapable of attacking the germans. The allies had after the fall of Norway no real means of aiding sweden. Sweden did some things during the war that was not so pretty, butt then again who acted like a perfect gentleman during 1939-45? If you wonder about the swedish public opinion check out this link. Cheers http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____32059.asp
Oh I forgott that there where a plan for a intervention in the war. There was a plan for invading denmark wich would take place when germanys might crumbled(operation save denmark). protect the danish civilians, make sure that the germans and danish nazis made a stande i Denmark, make sure that denmark didn´t get liberated by the soviets, and open communications with the allies. After Denmark had been liberated Norway could been liberated aswell(there where also an Operations save Norway).
Can anyone explain how Sweden was allowed to claim neutrality when it was common knowledge it was supplying iron ore to the Germans? Downed allied airmen etc made it back from Sweden but this in itself wouldn't balance the equation. Switzerland may share a common language with their northern neighbours - but they still had heavy defences in place as well as natural defences to keep them out. It's been mentioned about Nazi funds being in Swiss hands, but if a BBC programme I think it was Timewatch was anything to go by, a member of a well known British institution didn't help matters.
Lancesergeant Selling irone ore was not a breach of neutrality. A neutral nation has that right. What you could discuss is the morality of it, perhaps. Keep in mind that the iron ore trade was also regulated in the swedish/british trade agreaments. The iron ore question is also complicated by swedens relience on imports from germany and later on ocupied Europe. If Sweden had ceased export of iron ore germany had ceased exports of for an example coal that sweden had to have for heating and fuel. And ofcourse the risk of a German invasion wich Sweden would have faced alone. That would probably be the answer to a stop to the iron ore. Cheers
Yeah I see what you are getting at. Morality could be a part in it. I wasn't aware that the iron ore was regulated by a Swedish Briitish trade agreement. Why didn't they invade Sweden. The threat of blowing the mines yes, but they would also like you say - would get no coal from Germany. The Germans in my view had the cards. They violated other nation's sovereignty why hold back for the Swedes. Diplomatic juggling act does offer one suggestion. It is appreciated when people add relevant information to the discussion so one can make a reasoned judgment. Thanks for the input.
