7 ms·

Oh man, the Swedes stubbornly taking pride in being "neutral" really grinds my gears first of all, given how much Sweden helped the nazis, including literally

by bedobi 5y ago

Oh man, the Swedes stubbornly taking pride in being "neutral" really grinds my gears first of all, given how much Sweden helped the nazis, including literally transporting nazi troops to invade neighboring countries, and providing resources etc, they can hardly be called neutral, second, in a conflict of *literal nazis* vs everyone else, being neutral is nothing to be proud of - any sane person can see that but Sweden's education system very successfully brainwashes the population into eating that nonsense up, hook line and sinker

panick21_ 5y ago
To a significant degree the complete failure of the allied defense of Norway (not help by Norway complete incompetence of defending itself) plays a significant role here. It is one of those under-appropriated parts of WW2. Had Norway been defended Sweden would have been in a massively different position. They could have exported Iron Ore to Britain instead and Britain would have been in a position to help Sweden in its defense from potential German attack. The Sweds had the Germans very close on one side and practically no other trading partner to sell to. Iron ore was vital to the Germans and there is no question they would have gone to war to get it, Germany controlled all export routes. At the same time you have the Soviets, who are now often seen as the second biggest evil, but this was not at all clear back then. Lets remember that the Soviets had just conducted the Katyn massacre for example. The Soviets had invaded Finland and all the Baltic states. And their treatment of those places was far harsher then the Nazis were in Norway. 10000s of people from the Baltic states were transported to the Gulags at that time and most were never seen again. So Sweden was stuck between a aggressive Germany and an aggressive Soviet Union with no way for the allies the help them in any meaningful way. Germany very much had the capability of invading Sweden, specially once they controlled Norway. Just as the Swiss had no question that if Germany wanted to they could invade and take most of Switzerland. Not being in that positions its easy for us now to be morally outraged. However, at the time a wrong choice could lead things mass starvation, air attacks against civilian population, mass rape and many other things. > second, in a conflict of literal nazis vs everyone else You should go back and actually look at WW2. It was not Nazis vs everybody else. In fact, because of Soviet actions in Finland, Baltic, Romania and so on, it was actually the case that many countries looked to Germany to protect them from the Soviets. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia were allies of Germany. And Italy of course but for other reasons. > they can hardly be called neutral, Diplomatic neutrality does not mean you treat everybody equally. I don't know about Sweden as much. But Switzerland changed is policies quite a bit once the allies had freed France and a Nazi invasion was no longer as acute a possibility.
- bedobi 5y ago
  I'm not saying it wasn't a complicated situation. But that's not how this is depicted or thought of in Sweden. In Sweden's blinkered, self glorifying version, Sweden really were neutral (in the intuitive, common sense understanding of the term), when in reality they aided the nazis a lot and they were neutral because neutrality is the correct lofty moral ideal which only the few and enlightened nations like Sweden and Switzerland understand and commit to, when in reality, they were "neutral" only because they didn't even care to entertain the thought of putting up a fight. Last but not least, I for one doubt the popular notion that Sweden had no option but to appease the nazis - this is always just taken for granted with zero real thought or justification. (which again says a lot about how effective Sweden have been at controlling the narrative in their favor) For the nazis, gaining the degree of control of Sweden they needed would have been a very formidable challenge - it's a huge country with diverse terrain, and ww2 was well before the current modern highway network. Sweden could have easily destroyed the nazi troops they transported by rail, or the rail itself so it couldn't be used to transport troops or resources, period. Granted, at the end of the day this is all speculation and people will never agree on everything, I'm just saying, I think their version of events is very dishonest and people let them off the hook far too easy.
  - ggm 5y ago
    Couldn't the same be said of Norway? I believe Allied invasions on Norwegian islands (Lofoten) and other places (Narvik) contributed to German army being forced to station there, when all they really wanted to do after 1941 was to attack the Russian Convoy route. But, think how much better things might have been if British hadn't faced the loss of Norway for other reasons. It's argued the british walk-out from Norway precipitated some of what happened in Finland and Sweden. A functional defence of Norway surely would have been as viable as Sweden or Finland? (the Finns completely hammered the Russians. Ultimately to their geopolitical cost by 1945 but at the time, they were doing ok. I hate to imagine what a finnish attack on Leningrad (they stood back) would have done)
    - bedobi 5y ago
      Denmark is tiny and flat and mechanized German troops could and did take meaningful control of the country in a matter of hours. Norway is really mostly tiny towns dotted along a coast of impassable mountains. So taking control of the whole country isn't really required, but any transport has to happen by sea. (and the British successfully attacked nazi ships in the North Sea) ...which is why the nazis desperately needed Sweden and it's rail to transport troops and resources. But that rail is laid out over the full length of Sweden, a vast, vast area, that the nazis could never hope to meaningfully and safely control. The rail would have been easy to attack or disrupt even without a huge army of conventional troops and the Swedes could have done that, but they didn't. /The Expert - I'll have you know I was a four star general during WW2 (or at least I used to play Hidden and Dangerous and Close Combat 2 on PC), AMA :P
pc86 5y ago
It's easy for us to pull out the "but literal nazis!" trope now, some 70+ years later. But in 1940, in another country weren't they just another ruling power in a neighboring country? I was always under the impression the majority of the atrocities, and in particular the camps, weren't really known outside of Germany itself until the end of the war or as Germany started to fall.
- hulitu 5y ago
  I was under the impression that at least the british knew, but keep quiet so that they can use the situatian in their favour later. Just like happened these days with Belarus for example.
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  Already in 1940, the Polish government-in-exile was informing the rest of the Allies (incl. the British, the US) about German crimes against civilians in occupied Poland. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karski%27s_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karski%27s_reports I don't know how much the Swedes knew at that point though... However, given that they were a modern state, they must have had some intelligence agency, and the Germans weren't really working that hard to cover up their crimes either.
dotancohen 5y ago
> Sweden The conversation was on the other European ^Sw.*$ nation.
- ggm 5y ago
  Yes I brought Sweden to the table because the complex story of neutrality in Europe is latent in both. And turkey of course. My fault for "starting a hare"
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
>> second, in a conflict of literal nazis vs everyone else, being neutral is nothing to be proud of - any sane person can see that So you're saying they should only be neutral towards one side?

by bedobi 5y ago

panick21_ 5y ago

To a significant degree the complete failure of the allied defense of Norway (not help by Norway complete incompetence of defending itself) plays a significant role here. It is one of those under-appropriated parts of WW2. Had Norway been defended Sweden would have been in a massively different position. They could have exported Iron Ore to Britain instead and Britain would have been in a position to help Sweden in its defense from potential German attack. The Sweds had the Germans very close on one side and practically no other trading partner to sell to. Iron ore was vital to the Germans and there is no question they would have gone to war to get it, Germany controlled all export routes. At the same time you have the Soviets, who are now often seen as the second biggest evil, but this was not at all clear back then. Lets remember that the Soviets had just conducted the Katyn massacre for example. The Soviets had invaded Finland and all the Baltic states. And their treatment of those places was far harsher then the Nazis were in Norway. 10000s of people from the Baltic states were transported to the Gulags at that time and most were never seen again. So Sweden was stuck between a aggressive Germany and an aggressive Soviet Union with no way for the allies the help them in any meaningful way. Germany very much had the capability of invading Sweden, specially once they controlled Norway. Just as the Swiss had no question that if Germany wanted to they could invade and take most of Switzerland. Not being in that positions its easy for us now to be morally outraged. However, at the time a wrong choice could lead things mass starvation, air attacks against civilian population, mass rape and many other things. > second, in a conflict of literal nazis vs everyone else You should go back and actually look at WW2. It was not Nazis vs everybody else. In fact, because of Soviet actions in Finland, Baltic, Romania and so on, it was actually the case that many countries looked to Germany to protect them from the Soviets. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia were allies of Germany. And Italy of course but for other reasons. > they can hardly be called neutral, Diplomatic neutrality does not mean you treat everybody equally. I don't know about Sweden as much. But Switzerland changed is policies quite a bit once the allies had freed France and a Nazi invasion was no longer as acute a possibility.

bedobi 5y ago
I'm not saying it wasn't a complicated situation. But that's not how this is depicted or thought of in Sweden. In Sweden's blinkered, self glorifying version, Sweden really were neutral (in the intuitive, common sense understanding of the term), when in reality they aided the nazis a lot and they were neutral because neutrality is the correct lofty moral ideal which only the few and enlightened nations like Sweden and Switzerland understand and commit to, when in reality, they were "neutral" only because they didn't even care to entertain the thought of putting up a fight. Last but not least, I for one doubt the popular notion that Sweden had no option but to appease the nazis - this is always just taken for granted with zero real thought or justification. (which again says a lot about how effective Sweden have been at controlling the narrative in their favor) For the nazis, gaining the degree of control of Sweden they needed would have been a very formidable challenge - it's a huge country with diverse terrain, and ww2 was well before the current modern highway network. Sweden could have easily destroyed the nazi troops they transported by rail, or the rail itself so it couldn't be used to transport troops or resources, period. Granted, at the end of the day this is all speculation and people will never agree on everything, I'm just saying, I think their version of events is very dishonest and people let them off the hook far too easy.
- ggm 5y ago
  Couldn't the same be said of Norway? I believe Allied invasions on Norwegian islands (Lofoten) and other places (Narvik) contributed to German army being forced to station there, when all they really wanted to do after 1941 was to attack the Russian Convoy route. But, think how much better things might have been if British hadn't faced the loss of Norway for other reasons. It's argued the british walk-out from Norway precipitated some of what happened in Finland and Sweden. A functional defence of Norway surely would have been as viable as Sweden or Finland? (the Finns completely hammered the Russians. Ultimately to their geopolitical cost by 1945 but at the time, they were doing ok. I hate to imagine what a finnish attack on Leningrad (they stood back) would have done)
  - bedobi 5y ago
    Denmark is tiny and flat and mechanized German troops could and did take meaningful control of the country in a matter of hours. Norway is really mostly tiny towns dotted along a coast of impassable mountains. So taking control of the whole country isn't really required, but any transport has to happen by sea. (and the British successfully attacked nazi ships in the North Sea) ...which is why the nazis desperately needed Sweden and it's rail to transport troops and resources. But that rail is laid out over the full length of Sweden, a vast, vast area, that the nazis could never hope to meaningfully and safely control. The rail would have been easy to attack or disrupt even without a huge army of conventional troops and the Swedes could have done that, but they didn't. /The Expert - I'll have you know I was a four star general during WW2 (or at least I used to play Hidden and Dangerous and Close Combat 2 on PC), AMA :P

pc86 5y ago

It's easy for us to pull out the "but literal nazis!" trope now, some 70+ years later. But in 1940, in another country weren't they just another ruling power in a neighboring country? I was always under the impression the majority of the atrocities, and in particular the camps, weren't really known outside of Germany itself until the end of the war or as Germany started to fall.

hulitu 5y ago
I was under the impression that at least the british knew, but keep quiet so that they can use the situatian in their favour later. Just like happened these days with Belarus for example.
burntoutfire 5y ago
Already in 1940, the Polish government-in-exile was informing the rest of the Allies (incl. the British, the US) about German crimes against civilians in occupied Poland. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karski%27s_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karski%27s_reports I don't know how much the Swedes knew at that point though... However, given that they were a modern state, they must have had some intelligence agency, and the Germans weren't really working that hard to cover up their crimes either.

dotancohen 5y ago

> Sweden The conversation was on the other European ^Sw.*$ nation.

ggm 5y ago
Yes I brought Sweden to the table because the complex story of neutrality in Europe is latent in both. And turkey of course. My fault for "starting a hare"

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

>> second, in a conflict of literal nazis vs everyone else, being neutral is nothing to be proud of - any sane person can see that So you're saying they should only be neutral towards one side?