Footsteps In The Snow - The Swedish Intervention April-May 1945

Status
Not open for further replies.
Day 7 - May 3rd 1945
Part 14 - Day 7 – May 3rd, 1945:

Soon after dawn, Doenitz told the German delegation to accept the unconditional surrender terms and the treaty of surrender was signed at 10am with a Swedish liaison officer present and broadcast live to the United Kingdom.

The surrender, to both the western allies and Sweden, covered all German land, sea and air forces in north-western Germany, Holland, Denmark and Norway

Communicating the surrender through the almost destroyed German military communications network was the next challenge.

The German delegation returned to Murvik – the British had occupied both Rendsburg and Schleswig by this time but had not reached Flensburg though some spearheads had crossed the Danish frontier further west.

Doenitz and his fledgling Government were determined to continue resisting the Russians but the situation in northern and north-western Europe had deteriorated to such an extent most resistance had ended.

In Holland, Blaskowitz still commanded a sizeable force behind the flooded Grebbe defence line outside Amsterdam – the airborne drops of food to the civilian population, which had started the previous week, were continuing – but neither side relished the prospect of a protracted urban battle in difficult conditions. Once it was clear Doenitz intended to surrender the whole front facing the western allies, Blaskowitz was keen to include his command and would surrender separately to Charles Ffoulkes and the Canadians at Wageningen later that day.

In Denmark, the day dawned with continued skirmishes between Danish Resistance and SS fighters in some of the major towns and cities. Wehrmacht forces had, in Copenhagen and Odense, joined with the Resistance while in Jutland, British advance spearheads had crossed the border near Tonder and had reached Esbjerg where a detachment of the Kriegsmarine had capitulated unconditionally. Most other towns and cities were effectively under Resistance control with crowds openly defying curfew and waving the Danish flag.

Lindemann wanted the surrender to proceed swiftly, and the British had initially asked the Swedes to send a force into Copenhagen, but Stockholm was reluctant for historical and diplomatic reasons to send Swedish forces so instead a force made up of Danish soldiers, sailors, and airmen, who, like the Norwegians, had escaped from German occupation, was assigned the mission. The Danish military delegation arrived by boat at noon and were conveyed direct to Lindemann’s headquarters.

In scenes which would be the stuff of legend and not some little embellishment, the Danish Resistance also demanded to be part of the surrender process. In a moment of inspiration, it was proposed Lindemann surrender, not to the British, but to King Christian X. After some frantic preparation, at 3pm, Lindemann and his staff arrived at the Amalienborg Palace and in the State room signed the capitulation in front of the Danish King and a group from the Danish Resistance as well as liaison officers representing the exiled Danish forces.

The occasion was of course filmed and would be made into a highly successful movie in the 1960s. The absence of Swedish forces ironically did much for Danish-Swedish relations while for the Danes themselves, the humiliations of 1864 and 1940 were erased in an instant.

The outpouring of national joy was profound, and the Danes emerged from the occupation and liberation with a new sense of national pride.

While all this was going on, events were moving fast in Norway – Swedish forces had advanced with no resistance during the morning but had held positions since news of the capitulation.

Just after 5pm, General Franz Boehme and his staff met a Swedish delegation in Bergen and formally surrendered his command to the Swedes and the western allies. There were concerns Germans in the far north would continue fighting the Russians, but the Norwegians and Swedes had strong forces in Troms and Nordeland and the German and Russian forces were far apart.

The full ceasefire in Norway came into effect at 7pm – Swedish and Milorg forces moved quickly to disarm the remaining German troops. One thoughtful Swedish commander recommended sending a force to Lofoten and to Svalbard to take the surrender of German forces operating observation and weather stations and by May 7th these islands were securely in allied hands.
 
An interesting story but I fail to see how this would have had any impact on the post war world. Sweden would have had no more a say in the post war order than Norway or Brazil. Sweden would have maintained its 1939 borders; it might have become a UN member in 1946 rather than 1947; would have received no reparations.
 
It would also likely be super unpopular in Norway because let’s face it, the only meaningful difference ATL is that a lot of extra fighting has happened on Norwegian soil, a whole lot of extra people are dead, and a whole lot of Norwegian stuff is wrecked. All because after having (quite sensibly) sat on their hands for 5 years the Swedes couldn’t sit on them for one more week.
 
Perhaps this could lead to closer Swedish integration and co-operation with NATO and associated anti-Soviet programs during the Cold War?
 
It would also likely be super unpopular in Norway because let’s face it, the only meaningful difference ATL is that a lot of extra fighting has happened on Norwegian soil, a whole lot of extra people are dead, and a whole lot of Norwegian stuff is wrecked. All because after having (quite sensibly) sat on their hands for 5 years the Swedes couldn’t sit on them for one more week.
Except of course that's not how it was or would have been.

The Norwegian Government-in-Exile openly pressed the Swedes to intervene militarily as they feared the Germans would try to create a "Festung Norge" (as Terboven wanted). They believed only the Swedes could prevent Norway becoming a battlefield possibly involving the Russians coming down from the north.

The Swedes also had 12,000 or so Norwegian "police troops" - members of the Norwegian armed forces and civilians who had crossed into Sweden after the German invasion. Said troops had links back to the Norwegian Resistance and were desperate to play their part in their country's liberation just as resistance movements in the rest of German-occupied Europe had been.

We know there were arguments within the Swedish Government over what could be done - in truth, the speed of the German collapse meant plans were quickly made redundant.

I wouldn't also want to overplay the death and destruction. Yes, in Kongsvinger and near Oslo, the fighting is fierce but large parts of Norway are untouched by fighting and in many instances the German troops surrender quickly - it's more analogous to the campaign in northern and central Germany after the crossing of the Rhine. Some acts of resistance but in general the liberating forces advanced quickly and without much opposition.

I'd also offer the thought that countries like Belgium, Holland and France also saw death and destruction during their liberation - was said unpopular? Perhaps but it was a price paid for being free.
 
An interesting story but I fail to see how this would have had any impact on the post war world. Sweden would have had no more a say in the post war order than Norway or Brazil. Sweden would have maintained its 1939 borders; it might have become a UN member in 1946 rather than 1947; would have received no reparations.
Perhaps this could lead to closer Swedish integration and co-operation with NATO and associated anti-Soviet programs during the Cold War?
I'll deal with these together.

I've offered some thoughts in my epilogue which I'll publish later.

Agreed, it doesn't stop the Cold War or have huge post-war impacts - some ATLs don't end with the nukes flying and the apocalypse - beyond Scandinavia but I think for that area and for the rest of Europe it would have been significant,

It would have created a closer Scandinavia - all the states would have been involved in the greater European conflict. Both Sweden and Finland would have had questions to answer about aspects of their wartime behaviour but "in the end" all of Scandinavia had united to drive out the Germans. The Scandinavia of the shared experience would have re-discovered its combined cultural, social and political identity.

Sweden in NATO? I suspect not but a shared aim (with NATO) of defending Norwegian independence. As for Finland, perhaps a less comfortable ATL with Sweden and the USSR jostling over Finland but nothing close to armed conflict. Would this "pan-Scandinavianism" (as I've called it) extend to Estonia for example? Perhaps culturally.

Sweden in the EEC? Again, I'm doubtful but I could envisage a Scandinavian Economic Area - Sweden, Norway and Denmark (perhaps Iceland) rather than an EFTA. The SEA is formed in the early 1950s and EFTA is formed in 1960, not in Stockholm but in London and is the UK, Switzerland, Portugal and Austria.
 
Sorry I just don't see a couple of week participation in World War II as changing anything. Sweden " would have had [the same] questions to answer about aspects of their wartime behaviour but 'in the end' all of Scandinavia had united to drive out the Germans." Driving out the Germans in 1943 or even 1944 might have meant something. In 1945 it is meaningless. Indeed joining the war in 1945 could well be interpreted as an admission of being pro Germany for too long.
 
I'll deal with these together.

I've offered some thoughts in my epilogue which I'll publish later.

Agreed, it doesn't stop the Cold War or have huge post-war impacts - some ATLs don't end with the nukes flying and the apocalypse - beyond Scandinavia but I think for that area and for the rest of Europe it would have been significant,

It would have created a closer Scandinavia - all the states would have been involved in the greater European conflict. Both Sweden and Finland would have had questions to answer about aspects of their wartime behaviour but "in the end" all of Scandinavia had united to drive out the Germans. The Scandinavia of the shared experience would have re-discovered its combined cultural, social and political identity.

Sweden in NATO? I suspect not but a shared aim (with NATO) of defending Norwegian independence. As for Finland, perhaps a less comfortable ATL with Sweden and the USSR jostling over Finland but nothing close to armed conflict. Would this "pan-Scandinavianism" (as I've called it) extend to Estonia for example? Perhaps culturally.

Sweden in the EEC? Again, I'm doubtful but I could envisage a Scandinavian Economic Area - Sweden, Norway and Denmark (perhaps Iceland) rather than an EFTA. The SEA is formed in the early 1950s and EFTA is formed in 1960, not in Stockholm but in London and is the UK, Switzerland, Portugal and Austria.

Wasn't there an attempt to form a Scandinavian defence union in OTL after the war that foundered because the Norwegians and Danes wanted to have a US security guarantee or at the very least have an Anglo-French security guarantee for the said defence union? In the end the Norwegians and Danes went for NATO but Sweden didn't.

Perhaps here a Scandinavian Defence Union might actually be formed among the three but then Norwegian and Danish desires to join NATO might mean some tweaking of both the NATO and SDU treaties to ensure that the rest of NATO isn't obligated to join Norway and Denmark if they are attacked in the process of defending Sweden when the SDU is activated and vice versa?

EDIT: it wasn't the lack of Western security guarantees that sank the SDU it seems but the fact that the nascent western alliance would not be able to supply armaments to the SDU before first meeting their own needs entirely.
 
Last edited:
Epilogue - May 1945
Part 14 - Epilogue:

By the end of May 3rd, 1945, all fighting had ended in Norway, Denmark, Holland and the remaining areas of northern Germany.

Canadian troops swiftly moved into Amsterdam while British forces reached the north German coast at Oldenburg and eventually Cuxhaven. Most German naval assets at these ports had been destroyed by allied bombing and while U-Boats and other vessels would come in to surrender intermittently over the next week or so, the Kriegsmarine in the west was destroyed.

In Denmark and the eastern ports of Schleswig-Holstein, evacuation ships continued to arrive for the next couple of days bringing soldiers and civilians from the Baltic and Hela. Other vessels at sea were intercepted by Swedish naval craft and brought to Swedish ports. One or two ships were then allowed to make one final passage east, but most were interned with their crews.

Swedish forces moved to take the surrender of the German garrison on Bornholm who had refused to surrender to the Russians.

British and Swedish forces helped to facilitate the disarming of the thousands of German troops still in Denmark and Norway over the coming days.

The capitulation of German forces in northern and western Europe followed on from the surrender in Italy on May 2nd and would form part of the chain of surrenders which would end the war in Europe on May 6th.

In Norway, Boehme and the remainder of his command co-operated fully with the Swedes and the small British force which arrived in Oslo on the morning of May 4th. The Swedes handed over Vidkun Quisling and his former Cabinet to the Norwegians. Quisling would be tried and executed.

Boehme went into British captivity and would face trial for his actions in Serbia in 1941-42. However, he committed suicide on 29th May 1947 by jumping from the fourth floor of Nuremburg Prison.
 
In Denmark and the eastern ports of Schleswig-Holstein, evacuation ships continued to arrive for the next couple of days bringing soldiers and civilians from the Baltic and Hela. Other vessels at sea were intercepted by Swedish naval craft and brought to Swedish ports. One or two ships were then allowed to make one final passage east, but most were interned with their crews.
one final passage east? I think you meant west right?
 
Perspectives
Part 15 - Perspectives:

Extracts from an English translation of “The Intervention: A Retrospective” by Professor Julius Carlsson, University of Uppsala, 2020

“Looking back from the vantage point of 75 years, it’s hard not to recognise the Intervention in Norway at the end of the Second World War as a crucial moment in Swedish, and Scandinavian History.

After an extended period of aloof detachment, Sweden took the courageous decision to re-engage with the community of nations and took the opportunity to, in the eyes of most historians, assist in the liberation of the long-suffering Norwegian and Danish peoples.

Those brave Swedes and Norwegians who were lost in those days of fighting, especially at Kongsvinger and at the Nietvala River, are justly remembered as true Scandinavian heroes and patriots fighting for the causes of freedom and the end of oppression which are an integral part of what it is to be Scandinavian.

To our allies then and now, as always, our grateful thanks. It is not largely known how valuable British, American and indeed Russian co-operation was in those fateful days and while relations with the USSR became more difficult after the war, there was, I believe, a mutual respect founded in those days which helped preserve the peace in the decades that followed.

For our Scandinavian brothers and sisters, those days brought us back together – we had drifted apart in the earlier part of the 20th Century, but the Intervention started us on the road back. The image of Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish soldiers at the Cairn, the pictures of Swedish and Norwegian as well as Swedish and Danish soldiers and civilians working together in those times reminded us all of our shared roots, heritage and culture.

The brave actions of Christian X during the Occupation and the Surrender led even Iceland to maintain their monarchical links to the “old country”.

Post war pan-Scandinavianism had to contend with the reality of an ideologically and militarily divided Europe. Repeated proposals for a “neutral” Scandinavia came up against the reality of a powerful Red Army not far from Denmark and the reality of a powerful Red Navy seeking to close the Baltic, Kattegat and even the Skaggerak in the event of a conflict with NATO.

It would take the Warsaw Spring and the fall of the Berlin Wall to realise the coming together of the Scandinavian nations and with the Stockholm Treaty, they have gone their own way, no longer relying on western arms and nuclear technology but more than willing to defend themselves against any potential aggression.

Economically, Scandinavia has a complex relationship – Sweden, Norway and Denmark formed their own free trade area in the 1950s and moved to a common currency, the Krone, in the 1990s. Finland would, after the end of the Soviet era, join as an associate member with Iceland also involved. In terms of trade, the Scandinavian Economic Union (SEU) enjoys free trade with both the EFTA countries and those in the EEU and the Visegrad Pact.

There remains a small minority in Sweden who believe we should have remained true to the Policy of 1812, that we sacrificed the moral high ground by getting involved. The counter argument is Sweden could no longer not be involved and indeed our neutrality had forced us to make compromises to appease the Nazi aggressor in 1940 and 1941.

For those who fell, their sacrifice led to the Scandinavia we enjoy these days – culturally, socially and politically, united and prosperous but with an outward looking view on the world. Quite apart from the generous aid programmes backed through international agencies, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish troops have served as peacekeepers in many conflicts and do so to this day in Syria, Myanmar and Haiti whether as intermediaries between warring factions or serving with others to help re-build shattered nations and lives.

The legacy of the Intervention remains one of a nation overcoming a resistance to fight in the face of a neighbour asking for help. The Kongsvinger Memorial, the Nietalva River Memorial and others in Norway as well as the Museum of the Cairn stand as inspirations to new generations of the sacrifices of their forebears and a reminder that we are more than just Swedes, Norwegians, Danes and Finns and that, together, we are much stronger than we are alone.

FIN
 
I enjoyed this. I can't comment knowledgeably on the plausibility of the politics or the battle scenes, as I don't know enough. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it. A nice little tale, with an epilogue hunting at the ripples caused by the changes wrought.
 
Interesting work. The Swedish intervention had reignited the Scandinavian unity and fostering help among their relatives which is both Danes and Norwegians, so what is Scandinavianism?
 
Part 15 - Perspectives:

Extracts from an English translation of “The Intervention: A Retrospective” by Professor Julius Carlsson, University of Uppsala, 2020

“Looking back from the vantage point of 75 years, it’s hard not to recognise the Intervention in Norway at the end of the Second World War as a crucial moment in Swedish, and Scandinavian History.

After an extended period of aloof detachment, Sweden took the courageous decision to re-engage with the community of nations and took the opportunity to, in the eyes of most historians, assist in the liberation of the long-suffering Norwegian and Danish peoples.

Those brave Swedes and Norwegians who were lost in those days of fighting, especially at Kongsvinger and at the Nietvala River, are justly remembered as true Scandinavian heroes and patriots fighting for the causes of freedom and the end of oppression which are an integral part of what it is to be Scandinavian.

To our allies then and now, as always, our grateful thanks. It is not largely known how valuable British, American and indeed Russian co-operation was in those fateful days and while relations with the USSR became more difficult after the war, there was, I believe, a mutual respect founded in those days which helped preserve the peace in the decades that followed.

For our Scandinavian brothers and sisters, those days brought us back together – we had drifted apart in the earlier part of the 20th Century, but the Intervention started us on the road back. The image of Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish soldiers at the Cairn, the pictures of Swedish and Norwegian as well as Swedish and Danish soldiers and civilians working together in those times reminded us all of our shared roots, heritage and culture.

The brave actions of Christian X during the Occupation and the Surrender led even Iceland to maintain their monarchical links to the “old country”.


....FIN

Wait if the POD is in 1945, how does Iceland retain the monarchial link with Denmark given that they held a referendum in May 1944 on abolishing the union and establishing a republic and actually did so by mid June 1944?
 
Is a "Scandinavian" cooperation and identity stronger ITTL than the "Nordic" development of OTL? The writeup above makes it seem that the knock-on effects involve more cooperation between Sweden, Norway and Denmark, with Finland being left comparatively more to the wayside (and thus under more Soviet/Russian influence). From a Finnish perspective, this isn't a good look.

I can also see the Swedish attitude towards WWII being even more "holier than thou" ITTL than IOTL, considering Sweden having been an Ally in the end. I can see this result in even more demonisation of the Finnish alliance with the Nazis in Sweden than we have seen in the realized history. This would also tend to drive a wedge between Sweden and Finland on a history-political sense.
 
So did the Scandinavian countries leave NATO after the fall of the Warsaw Pact ?
The post-war defensive relationship was complex.

Basically, Sweden, Norway and Denmark agreed to guarantee each other's independence in a show of collective defence but only Norway and Denmark accepted the US nuclear shield provided by NATO membership.

Sweden's position remained ambiguous and nuanced - there were joint Swedish-Danish and Swedish-Norwegian military exercises but Sweden did not participate in nor permit any NATO forces to be stationed on its territory.

With the fall of the Warsaw Pact in the late 80s, the Swedes moved to create a defensively-linked non-aligned Scandinavia so joined with Finland and Norway initially (Denmark took more persuading) - this new Stockholm Treaty re-enforced collective security but established a clear line of communication with NATO which continues to this day with joint exercises starting in the 1990s. The big problem for the Swedes has been Estonia and the historical links to that country - Estonia joined NATO because Scandinavia would not guarantee its defence in the event of a Russian attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top