DBWI: Sweden stays neutral in WWII

I know this question is almost ASBish. How could Sweden remain neutral being so close to Finland, with all that iron ore and the norwegian coastline so near? But how would WWII have evolved with a neutral Sweden?
 
This is in best case a dubious DBWI.

OTL The Swedes was heavily pro Nazi in the first part of WW2 and heavily pro allied in the second part.:(
 
I would classify Sweden's actions as more along the lines of doing what was needed to not get invaded by one side or the other than opportunistic.

Like "free" movement of German troops and supplies over Swedish territory to both encircled troops in Narvik and later to Finland?

Oh yes, Im sure that was "needed" :rolleyes:

Btw, what excuse would you use to justify Swedens pro allied turn in the later periode? Was that also under treath of invasion??? :rolleyes:

Whats the big deal to admit that Sweden just not were particular neutral during WW2? And not during the cold war eighter. :confused:
 
Like "free" movement of German troops and supplies over Swedish territory to both encircled troops in Narvik and later to Finland?

Oh yes, Im sure that was "needed" :rolleyes:

I actually think it's worse that we weren't solidaric with Finland and joined them in the war against the Soviets. But we deserted them, like we've done in every war since Charles XII...
 
Sweden, what's all this talk about Sweden?:confused: Oh, right, one of the former countries now part of the Scandinavian Soviet Socialist Republic.
 
Good point, and in that case Norway was just as disgraceful :(

It's a bit of a difference, since they don't have the same historical relationship with the Finns as we do. Also, by the time they could have built up anything resembling a military, they were already occupied.
 
Like "free" movement of German troops and supplies over Swedish territory to both encircled troops in Narvik and later to Finland?

Oh yes, Im sure that was "needed" :rolleyes:

Btw, what excuse would you use to justify Swedens pro allied turn in the later periode? Was that also under treath of invasion??? :rolleyes:

Whats the big deal to admit that Sweden just not were particular neutral during WW2? And not during the cold war eighter. :confused:

The only transit Sweden allowed to Narvik was medical supplies and we allowed WIA to travel back to Germany.

The division that went to Finland was asked like this: Allow us to transport troops to Finland OR ELSE.

What were we going to do? Stand up to Germany and be invaded? Then we can add 5000 danish jews, thousands of norwegian jews that we took in and thousands of swedes to the death camps.

Its easy to sit 60+ years after the incident with hindsight and tell what we should have done.

What were we going to defend ourselves with? In 39 we gave 1/3 of our combat airplanes to Finland and the rest were outdated. It wasnt until 43 we had a decent chance of fighting the Germans of 1940.
 

~The Doctor~

I would classify Sweden's actions as more along the lines of doing what was needed to not get invaded by one side or the other than opportunistic.

They still aided and abetted one of the greatest evils to ever grace the Earth. The Swedes came out of the War as the strongest of all the minor Axis powers. The only combat they ever saw were a few minor British bombing raids.

Sweden, what's all this talk about Sweden?:confused: Oh, right, one of the former countries now part of the Scandinavian Soviet Socialist Republic.

OOC: Thanks for derailing the thread.
 
The division that went to Finland was asked like this: Allow us to transport troops to Finland OR ELSE.

What were we going to do? Stand up to Germany and be invaded? Then we can add 5000 danish jews, thousands of norwegian jews that we took in and thousands of swedes to the death camps.

Its easy to sit 60+ years after the incident with hindsight and tell what we should have done.

Sweden and Finland both had their own specific tightropes to walk, different in many ways, but in the end, with some good decisions (and a fair bit of luck) both countries managed to come out of the war preserving as much of their freedom and self-determination as was possible under the circumstances.

I know that in '39 many Finns were really disappointed that Sweden did not join the war on Finland's side. For example, my great-aunt's diary from that time makes the attitude plain enough. But ordinary people do not always see what is in the interest of nations...

It seems to me, that in Sweden a tradition of looking past events in a moralist hindsight is more common than in Finland. Just now there has been discussion in Finnish papers about a Swedish journalist demanding the Finnish government should apologize for the atrocities in the Finnish Civil War (it being 90 years from the events), similarly as another of your countrymen encouraged a big scandal last year about Finnish occupation policies in Eastern Karelia. In both of these cases, in Finland the prevailing attitude has been to criticize hindsight (and the reflection of modern attitudes to the past), spearheaded by professional historians.
 
The only transit Sweden allowed to Narvik was medical supplies and we allowed WIA to travel back to Germany.

Not true. Combat supplies was allowed in addition to personel disguised as medics that instantly became amed combatants when over the border.

Just to compare, civilian Norwegians were not allowed to use the same transit when they wanted to go from occupied southern Norway and north.

The division that went to Finland was asked like this: Allow us to transport troops to Finland OR ELSE.

One division only? :rolleyes:

What were we going to do? Stand up to Germany and be invaded? Then we can add 5000 danish jews, thousands of norwegian jews that we took in and thousands of swedes to the death camps.

Its easy to sit 60+ years after the incident with hindsight and tell what we should have done.

What were we going to defend ourselves with? In 39 we gave 1/3 of our combat airplanes to Finland and the rest were outdated. It wasnt until 43 we had a decent chance of fighting the Germans of 1940.

No problem. I actualy agree.

But please be honest about Swedens actions during WW2. Dont go around and brag about neutarlity... ;):)
 

sanusoi

Banned
Sweden join the allies later in the war and helped Finland to overcome the initial Soviet offensive. However, in the end there was a high cost for Sweden, a Soviet blackmail threat of marching into Scandinavia and burning all of it's towns.

DBWI: I don't really see Sweden staying neutral in WW2 unless of course they wre able to play a game of being good to one power and nasty to another power.
 

Jomazi

Banned
I dont know really, but it is an interesting speculation... Could the Finns have held of that many times more Soviets during the continuation war all by themselves?

Just think about it, when the Finnish army began to be pushed backwards the Swedes had no choice but to throw everything they had into the fight to tip the balance. The alternative would be to have a soviet-controlled Finland right next door, and perhaps (or even likely!) eventually Soviet armies marching into Sweden from the north...

The Soviets were sufficiently pissed to do that in 1944-45 if they had the chance, no matter that the costs would be great. Remember the rapes of Murmansk and Leningrad by the Germans. As an "unofficial minor axis power" the allies would'nt have done anything to prevent that from happening, just as they did nothing during the 1949 Ladoga crisis, or the 1958 one...

In fact, IMO had the Swedes not managed to produce nuclear weapons in time just before the 1958 the "58 crisis" would have ended very, very bad.
 
They still aided and abetted one of the greatest evils to ever grace the Earth. The Swedes came out of the War as the strongest of all the minor Axis powers. The only combat they ever saw were a few minor British bombing raids.



OOC: Thanks for derailing the thread.

It's a double-blind thread. By their nature, they are bizarre.
 
They still aided and abetted one of the greatest evils to ever grace the Earth. The Swedes came out of the War as the strongest of all the minor Axis powers. The only combat they ever saw were a few minor British bombing raids.

Aided and abetted? Thats really ridicelous! So small kids that have to give their lunch money to the bullys aid and abet their tormentors?! Sweden had, as MatteP74 mentions, really NO means to stand up against the Germans. And they knew that. Our armed forced where small and quite ill equiped to start with. In addition to that we sent not just a third of our airforce to Finland, but a lot of artillery, anti-tank guns, small arms and ammunition. As well as other equipment. More then we could do without. Not enough say some, but we didn't have more. The only other thing we could do was to join the war ourselfs. And get spanked as well. We took in 700.000 finnish kids, since their parents feared air raids and occupation. Not many expected Finland to survive, Estonia, Latvia and Lituania didn't.
The Germans requested transit of troops on leave to and from uccupied Norway, and that was without doubt a breach in Swedens neutrality. So was the transport of the Engelbrecht division in conjunction of Barbarossa. But as soon as Sweden had the means to defend itself in 1943 it stopped. Some say the Swedes where cryptonazis. And around 500 young men, mostly anti-communists rather then nazis, joined Whermacht and Waffen SS. But TEN times that number joined the allies. What does that say of the feelings of the Swedes vis a vie the Nazis?
 

Jomazi

Banned
Someone explain what a Double Blind is will you.

"What is something that happened did happen, seen from the viewpoint of an alternate timeline when it didnt" or the opposite around, something that happened didnt... you get it.
 
What the heck people?

Everyone knows that Sweden's leftist leadership in the 1960s does not make a socialist republic. (Their policies were out there, but that's not fair to the people who live there)

Sweden took a Pro-Allies posturing after Denmark and Norway got invaded by the Germans for essentially no reason, and they were REALLY small on the Soviets after they were bombed by them in their insane war against Finland.

Without Sweden, there would not have been a 'unified Scandinavian' bloc in northern europe. And goodness knows--Finland might have lost that war against the Soviets; without those five Swedish Divisions backing them up, the Finns could have been overwhelmed.

And of course, let's not forget the half-million Axis soldiers that Germany wasted "pacifying" Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Those guys might have made a real difference on the eastern front--instead, the Germans got stuck in Smolensk against the Red Army. With those extra men, they might have been able to take Moscow.

And without those men, golly, the Germans probably would have fought for another year--the defection of the Italy into the Allies and the redeployment of the Allies into Austria against an overwhelmed Wehrmacht would no longer be possible.
 
Top