WI Hitler invades Sweden
- Thread starter NapoleonXIV
- Start date
NapoleonXIV
Banned
All by himself?
Seriously, I don't see why he'd do this.
Yep, sorta like Hess in England, only hostile.
I use "Hitler" instead of "Germany" to save the whole businss of saying its in WWII, that's a standard convention, wisenheimer
Wasn't he upset about the Brits using steel merchants as spys one time, and/or didn't he get antsy about the continued supplies of Swedish steel?
Yep, sorta like Hess in England, only hostile.
I use "Hitler" instead of "Germany" to save the whole businss of saying its in WWII, that's a standard convention, wisenheimer
Wasn't he upset about the Brits using steel merchants as spys one time, and/or didn't he get antsy about the continued supplies of Swedish steel?
Everybody spied on the Swedish but Sweden did a god job capturing them. Stockholm was a sort of open city to spes exept for the Swedish secret police and they did a good job. There where some atemps that might have lead to some kind of intervention (Brittish blowing up a harbour comes to mind).
Max Sinister
Banned
Sweden would be occupied by Germany for the rest of the war, similar as Norway or Denmark. Except for the North, which'd become Finnish. After the war, everything'd be restored. Unless the Allies decided to land in Norway instead of Italy / Normandy (or in addition - Stalin wouldn't like it).
To make this plausible you need to make the Swedes not accept Hitler invading Norway or something like that.
I don´t know what would need to happen, but having Sweden join the allies, fight the germans, end up occupied would be interesting.
How would it affect the way Swedes think of themselves.
La resistance-Svenska modstanden?
Anyway, how would it affect them postwar? Stronger military? A less strong social democrat party? Swedes would definitely be more poor in the beginning of the 50s affecting how they act. Would they go even more left? Or more to the right?
It´s an interesting speculation.
I don´t know what would need to happen, but having Sweden join the allies, fight the germans, end up occupied would be interesting.
How would it affect the way Swedes think of themselves.
La resistance-Svenska modstanden?
Anyway, how would it affect them postwar? Stronger military? A less strong social democrat party? Swedes would definitely be more poor in the beginning of the 50s affecting how they act. Would they go even more left? Or more to the right?
It´s an interesting speculation.
Why would it?
The Finns were quite wery of things like this. It did not happen to the northern of Norway, even tough the Germans offered some parts.
Yes. There would be no reason to avoid it since neutrality would have failed. (Given that the Soviets dont take over)
so long for the svenska krona^^....wonder who'd be portrayed on the back of the swedish euro coins maybe *that king they have*
maybe *that king they have*Huh
Excatly what do you have in mind when you say "populistic right-wing party" in Norway's case? FrP?
The rise of that party certainly can not be traced to anything remotly conected with events during ww2.
Yes I am aware of that
but what has that got to do with your aleged "populistic right-wing party"
Germany probably surrenders months earlier after the US/UK and Swedish resistance destroy vital industry such as ball-bearing plants.
Both the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine U-boat production would have effectively collapsed without Swedish(and Swiss) industry.
Both the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine U-boat production would have effectively collapsed without Swedish(and Swiss) industry.
Max Sinister
Banned
OK, didn't know that. The nazis wanted to give northern Sweden to Finland, but if the Finns decline...
So nothern Sweden would become a part of Germany but seperated, like Crimea would be?
Oddball: "but what has that got to do with your aleged "populistic right-wing party".
Because people often associate nationalists with nazis. If the nationalists in Sweden had to fight the nazis (like Norway) the nationalists would have been seen as heroic, but since they never had to fight them, or at worst even were pro-nazi, nationalism often is today seen as pro-nazi also. When a party like FrP is created in Sweden they will be seen as very suspicious, of course it doesn't help that many of the founders or members have past in less democratic organisations. But would a leader Pia Kjærsgaard or even Carl Hagen stand a chance?
Oddball: "but what has that got to do with your aleged "populistic right-wing party".
Because people often associate nationalists with nazis. If the nationalists in Sweden had to fight the nazis (like Norway) the nationalists would have been seen as heroic, but since they never had to fight them, or at worst even were pro-nazi, nationalism often is today seen as pro-nazi also. When a party like FrP is created in Sweden they will be seen as very suspicious, of course it doesn't help that many of the founders or members have past in less democratic organisations. But would a leader Pia Kjærsgaard or even Carl Hagen stand a chance?
Last edited:
But this is were you draw wrong conclusions.
I hardly think you can label those who fought against the germans in Norway for nationalists. Those who did was rather from a well mixed political stand, only the far right and (initialy) the communist did not.
The phenomen of FrP is of a much newer carracter. Carl I Hagen would probably not stand a chance in the political environment in Norway in the 40ties, 50ties and 60ties neither.