Sweden a Ally of Nazi Germany
- Thread starter Euroman26
- Start date
True. I suppose Sweden might become neutral again after the war, but maybe not - unlike Finland, it didn't immediately border the Soviet Union. AFAIK, one of the reasons that Finland didn't join NATO is precisely because it was on that Cold War border.
Also the reason the Soviet never pushed Finland into the the Warsaw pact was Kremlin fear (worry) that a Warsaw pact Finland would drive the Swedes into NATO.
Remember no love lost, even as a "non-aligned" between Sweden and the Soviets.
I know, but what if the USSR had anexed lets say the North Part of Sweden (as punishment for a Swedish allied with Nazi-Germany) allowing the USSR to have navy presens closer to the atlantic?
/Fred
Glen
Moderator
I suspect that's too strong a statement, but anyway....
No. Agree that it would probably go more the way Finland did, quietly staying non-aligned. I mean really, what is an Axis-aligned Sweden going to do? Help with Norway is probably the extent of it, maybe even 're-annex' it.
And the Royal Swedish Navy used to covertly partake of NATO manoeuvres. Hardly neutral. They knew which side they'd be on in WW3 and took measures accordingly.
A swedish journalist released a book last year detaling the defacto alliance between Sweden and Germany before and during WW2, the title in english would be "My Dear Reich chancelor" based de-classified official Swedish State documents from the era.
Sorry about the geography mix-up, but what if the USSR had taken the area marked by me on the map here?
/Fred
Sorry about the geography mix-up, but what if the USSR had taken the area marked by me on the map here?
/Fred
Then they'd have a small port a couple hundred miles west of Murmansk and just as north of the Arctic Circle. I doubt Stalin would give a damn and send needed men and equipment to a frozen theater when the war that really interested him was being waged to the bitter end in Central Europe.
Also, I think the Allies might have taken steps, diplomatically - another conference - and militarily - an invasion of German-held Norway - to prevent a Soviet takeover of northern Scandinavia.
Also, I think the Allies might have taken steps, diplomatically - another conference - and militarily - an invasion of German-held Norway - to prevent a Soviet takeover of northern Scandinavia.
Wasn't there a minning area in Northern Norway/Sweden? Were Iron ore was minned?
The British/French Invasion of Narwik in 1940 failed? Why should they try again?
To give the Royal Navy something to do?
Seriously though, I expect that the British armed forces will have learned from its amphibious failures - Norway, Dieppe - and now knows how to do it right. You know, like D-Day.
Yes.
A British expedition to the Continent in 1939-40 failed, as did a raid on Dieppe two years later. Why should they try that again?
The Narvik expedition "failed" because the Germans had launched an overwhelmingly successful offensive in the west in the spring of 1940, which was a more vital theater of operations than northwestern Norway. Different factors for different times.
Sorry to say this, but you truly display lack of knowledge about the northern theater of operation during ww2.
Stalin DID commit rather large forces to the Murmansk - Kirkenes area. And so did Hitler. And this is in adition to the rest of the Finnish-Soviet border.
And Stalin DID actuly liberate Kirkenes from the germans in the late stages of the war. But the soviets withdrew after peace was made, according to the Jalta agreement.
Btw, the important mines was in Petsamo, Finland (nickel) and Kiruna, Sweden (iron ore).
No Uranium (not even today), and the iron mine was not very important.
Dont confuse the iron mine in Kirkenes withe the ones in Kiruna, Sweden
Dont confuse the iron mine in Kirkenes withe the ones in Kiruna, Sweden
Damn. I'm always doing that. No wonder I never get invited to the right sort of parties anymore...