You don't know about the closeness between ua and the Finns at the time.
I don't have first hand knowledge about the relationship at the time, it is true, though unless you are 70 neither do you. Now why are people applying sentiments from
OTL from 1918-1939 when in stodge's TL you have events which could very well alter perceptions? Does anyone think that German sentiment towards...say Britain would have been the same as it was in WWI if Germany and Britain had been allies or if they had not gone to war? Would the British and Germans see each other in the same light in 1939 if the Nazis had not hijacked Germany and went on to spout a racist and expansionist policy? If the answer to those questions is yes, then of course we can apply OTL Swedish sentiment to Finland to an ATL in which Sweden was a defeated power from WWI and probably had to make some territorial concessions to Denmark and maybe Finland (and maybe, just maybe Norway) and which had to make reparations to the allies that would probably have crippled its economy.
I can barely imagine greater-Swedes attacking Finland, but there si no chance that they would do so in alliance with the Enemy.
Why not? In 1918 Sweden occupied the Aland Islands, even though they were administered as part of Finland and were thus Finnish territory upon Finland's independence in 1918. And this was under the government of OTL. It is true that Sweden gave the islands back, but not out of kind-heartedness. They returned the islands only after Finland went to the League of Nations about it and in the early 1920s the League was more respected. So imagine a National Socialist/Fascist Swedish government. I imagine they would have been like the Dutch nazis who advocated the incorporation of Flanders from Belgium, even though Belgium and the Netherlands had gotten along reasonably well once the Netherlands got over the loss of Belgium.
Also take a look at the defeated powers of WWI:
1) Germany- well no need to elaborate here
2) Austria- the nazis here allowed it to become a part of Germany (see above)
3) Hungary- went on a campaign to regain Hungarian lands, especially those that were populated with Hungarians.
4) Bulgaria- also went on a campaign to recover lands lost in 1918 and took even more to boot.
5) Turkey- Did the smart thing and forced an early renegotiation of the peace treaty but whilst doing so recovered a number of lost territories.
Even Italy who was on the winning side became expansionist.
Normally "greater-place any European group here" do not tend to look out for countries other than their own and also tend to be inherently racist or supremacist. So I don't see how the Finns whose language is unlike that of Swedish are going to be spared by greater-Swedes. The greater-Dutch in the Dutch nazis didn't give a hoot about the Walloons and the greater-Germans of the Nazis only tolerated non-Germanic groups and just accepted Germanic groups whilst believing Germans to be the best of them all. They considered Danes, Dutchmen, Norwegians and so forth as Aryan stock and almost German, which made them acceptable.
If we apply this to Sweden's fascist then they will either advocate a greater Sweden (which would either annex Finland or subordinate it) or else they cannot be greater-Swedes (if they wished Finland to remain independent).
That would be like Germany partitioning East Prussia with Russia. Won't happen.
No, that's not a good example. East Prussia was German territory, it was one of the scattered places where the Prussians
started and it was ethnically German. Your example if applied to Sweden and the USSR would mean Sweden and the USSR partitoning Svealand in central Sweden.
The Prussians in OTL held a sway over a larger section of Poland than what Germany from 1871-1918 and from 1939-1941 did. By the latter period, I exclude the General-Government and include those areas directly annexed to Germany. However, the Nazis had no trouble partitioning Poland and leaving out these areas from direct German rule, if only to further the cause of a fully united "Germany".
It could be entirely possible for Sweden to be a party to the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact which partitioned eastern europe. Sweden would of course understand that the rest of Finland would be regained later, just as how for Germany the rest of Poland was regained later.
And be careful about statements like "won't happen." People never though a Nazi-Soviet pact could happen, or that the people in general could become as barbaric as demonstrated by the Nazis towards the Jews in the Holocaust. Anything can happen given the right circumstances.
Sure conquerd them by force, but over the centuries they intergrated and by the Swedish Great Power Era they were firmly intergrated and loyal to the Crown.
That's true but it didn't mean that the Finns did not harbour nationalist ambitions. If they never did then Finland would have rejoined the Kingdom of Sweden after WWI and not gone independent. I didn't mean that they were oppressed, but I doubt the Finns consider themselves part of a Swedish heartland is all. More just a part of the Kingdom.
The Finns did stop the Ruskies in 1944. Not because of ASB, but because of bravery, self-sacrifice, courage and competence. Just like in 1940. Believe it or not.
Having done some more reading (nice quote by the way, what is the source?), I agree, although both your source and others noted that the Soviets had more important issue at the time like Berlin. Had the Soviets not had to focus on Berlin, then Finland would have had a worse time (though they probably would have made the Soviets pay a high price).
Finally, the Soviets were the #1 enemy of Finland, still they were Soviet leaning. Why? Out of neccesite.
So true, but apply it to Sweden and it breaks down because Sweden has no border with the USSR and so they can be more free to choose who to lean on, unless in the TL Finland is annexed to the USSR. In OTL Finland shared a border with the USSR which made accomodation with the USSR necessary. Also in the 1946 peace treaty
Russia imposed an ingenious stipulation that one third of the reparations [amounting to $100 million worth] were to be paid in machinery for which Finalnd had neither materials, plants, nor skilled labour. In September 1952 here reparations account was duly closed; but Finland was left with a new engineering industry which could not be scrapped and which was geared up entirely to Soviet needs and demands. Thus reparations were used as a way of perpetuating economic dependence.
that quote comes from
Europe Since Napoleon by David Thomson, pg. 840.
So had this not happened the Finns could have stopped leaning so much on the Soviets from the 1950s and maintained a policy of strict neutrality, but as it was they were economically dependent on the USSR.
Sweden would have been buffered from the USSR by Finland which would probably have turned out like in OTL and thus Sweden would have no need to lean towards the Soviets unless they had something similar applied to them by the Soviets as was applied to Finland in the quote above.
