7 ms·

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,

by 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
  - ptaipale 5y ago
    And the Swedes did not attack German train transports because the traffic was according to a pass-through agreement. USSR and Germany forced these pass-through agreements after Winter War. USSR was in pact with Germany, and both acquired permission to transit troops to their bases, Soviets to Hanko (Hangö) that it took in Winter War, and Germany to northern Norway which it took in April-June 1940. Sweden was surrounded from three sides by Germany, and in the fourth side was Finland badly weakened by Soviets attacking, with increasing Soviet pressure also after Winter War.
null_object 5y ago
> 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 I think you're being unfairly downvoted here, because the essential context is the collective amnesia that's a crucial part of a Swede's cultural identity. It's not in any way limited to just this one historical event, but spreads to all sorts of erasures, such as the very recent forced sterilization program and the strong belief in eugenics in the last century - which in itself was a close spiritual tie to the Nazis. People here in Sweden are extremely selective in their memories - but I've found they can reach way back in the histories of other cultures whenever they want to find faults.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  Do you even look at Swedish mainstream media ever? Both the neutrality during the war and the sterilisation programs are regularly brought up in mainstream media, written books about and discussed.
  - null_object 5y ago
    > Do you even look at Swedish mainstream media ever? These matters are definitely not widely discussed in "mainstream media" - I'd be interested in some citations if you think I'm wrong. I'd say they are known and discussed in certain circles, but they're definitely not taught in the school curriculum, in spite of being a large and intrinsic part of recent Swedish history. For instance, the country's largest home-rental organization (HSB) was reporting 'misbehaving' occupants of their apartments as candidates for sterilization long into the second half of the twentieth century. So sterilization was hardly a fringe issue, and yet I would be very surprised if Swedes under 20 have even heard of it.
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      Here are some resources currently used in Swedish schools about the forced sterilisation [0]. In the section about Sweden during the Second World War, there is a prominent section about Swedish "eftergiftspolitik" [1]. The second paragraph in the WWII article is about how Sweden sold iron ore to the Germans and how important that was to the Wehrmacht. So Swedens "neutralitetspolitik" is also prominently discussed in Swedish schools. Here is an overview of the large debate about tvångssteriliseringarna mostly in DN (Swedens largest newspaper) in 1997 and later [2]. Here is a documentary from Sveriges Radio from 2006 [3] about the forced sterilisations. It didn't take many minutes to find any of these sources. [0] https://www.so-rummet.se/fakta-artiklar/steriliseringspolitiken-i-sverige# https://www.so-rummet.se/fakta-artiklar/steriliseringspoliti... [1] https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/historia/det-korta-1900-talet/sverige-under-andra-varldskriget# https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/historia/det-korta-1900-... [2] https://www.levandehistoria.se/sites/default/files/wysiwyg_media/bilder_och_dokument_steriliseringsfragan.pdf https://www.levandehistoria.se/sites/default/files/wysiwyg_m... [3] https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/94014 https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/94014
Ma8ee 5y ago
It is certainly discussed in Sweden. Everything from transporting German troops and materiel though the country on Swedish rails to providing most of the iron the Wehrmacht needed. Could Sweden have joined the allies and fought against Finland though? Many Swedes even volunteered to help the Finns fight the Soviets, so don't be so cocksure that we would have joined the right side if we would have joined.
- wwtrv 5y ago
  Well earlier in the war France and Britain were considering sending an expeditionary force to Finland to help them fight the Soviets. Sweden did not allow them to use their territory to pass, because they feared that the Allies would occupy the iron mining center in the north of Finland (which would have basically brought Sweden into the war against Germany) and the Winter war finished soon after anyway. At the end of the day they might have made the right choice. Who knows what would have happened if the allies went to war with the USSR, their alliance to Germany might have lasted much longer.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    The Winter war finished because Stalin whole strategy was not to go to war with Germany or the Allies before the were at war with each other. He knew very well that France/Britain were seriously considering action, not just in Finland. A far larger danger would have been a massive attack by the RAF on Baku targeting the oil fields. The reason the Winter war ended with such comparatively good terms is that Stalin had to end it or risk escalation.
panick21_ 5y ago
> For the nazis, gaining the degree of control of Sweden they needed would have been a very formidable challenge Yes, but for the Iron Ore supply they would have done it. And that would have entailed very, very harsh reprisals against the population population if they engage in gorilla warfare. Bombing of the major cities and so on. Of course you always have to option. And Sweden would certainty have been far harder to take then Norway as Sweden was far more ready for war then Norway. A Sweden hell-bent on fighting the Nazis would have probably lead to an far earlier defeat of the Nazis. The problem is, they would not get support from anywhere because of the geographical situation. That is why I stress that the Norway situation was so critical. With Norway in Allied hands Sweden would have acted very differently.
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  > That is why I stress that the Norway situation was so critical. With Norway in Allied hands Sweden would have acted very differently. Even more so, it was all decided in September 1939. If the French went out and attacked Germans like they promised they would, Stalin would never join the war (he waited for full 17 days before moving into Poland, to make sure the Allies will be the cowards he and Hitler predicted they were), and Germans would be tied with fighting on two fronts. Hitler was actually super-nervous about the attack on Poland - he bet it all on has a hunch the French and British won't do anything about it, which was a massive risk for him.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Well, yes but the issue is that the French never wanted to fight that offensive war. They had not planned for it very well, the British were not gone be there in any numbers. Not even the Royal Airforce. And if you are gone put up a fight for Eastern Europe, then why do it for Poland, it would have been 100x smarter to it over Czechoslovakia. Germany was in a terrible supply situation at that point. The Allies had no way to help Poland other then an attack the other side. Unlike Norway where the Allies were perfectly positioned to provide help. So my opinion is that you either fight over Czechoslovakia or you leave Eastern Europe and focus on keeping Germany out of the North and try to keep Italy from joining them. The 'alliance' between Germany and the Soviets wouldn't hold very long. In that time you can build up your forces. Eventually Germany would probably force the situation with the Soviets and then the Allies are in control of the global supply routes and can basically decide who wins. Basically its 3 groups, France/Britain, Germany, Soviet. The one best positioned is the one that stays out of the war when the other two go to the war. The one that stays out can build up its army and industry while the others destroy each other. You end up the winner by default. The Soviets were that in 1940, but surprisingly for them France collapsed quickly and the German could turn around and attack them. Soviet strategy since 2022 was basically to keep Germany out of the 'capitalist' alliance, only for them to supply Germany with the vary resources they used to build an army to attack them. World War 2 has so many strange turns.
Ma8ee 5y ago
I don't think you listened when you were in school. This [0] is a quite typical example of how the history is taught in Swedish schools, and in even this quite short article about Sweden during WWII both the transport of German troops and the export of iron ore to Germany are prominent. [0] https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/historia/det-korta-1900-talet/sverige-under-andra-varldskriget# https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/historia/det-korta-1900-...

by bedobi 5y ago

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
- ptaipale 5y ago
  And the Swedes did not attack German train transports because the traffic was according to a pass-through agreement. USSR and Germany forced these pass-through agreements after Winter War. USSR was in pact with Germany, and both acquired permission to transit troops to their bases, Soviets to Hanko (Hangö) that it took in Winter War, and Germany to northern Norway which it took in April-June 1940. Sweden was surrounded from three sides by Germany, and in the fourth side was Finland badly weakened by Soviets attacking, with increasing Soviet pressure also after Winter War.

null_object 5y ago

> 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 I think you're being unfairly downvoted here, because the essential context is the collective amnesia that's a crucial part of a Swede's cultural identity. It's not in any way limited to just this one historical event, but spreads to all sorts of erasures, such as the very recent forced sterilization program and the strong belief in eugenics in the last century - which in itself was a close spiritual tie to the Nazis. People here in Sweden are extremely selective in their memories - but I've found they can reach way back in the histories of other cultures whenever they want to find faults.

Ma8ee 5y ago
Do you even look at Swedish mainstream media ever? Both the neutrality during the war and the sterilisation programs are regularly brought up in mainstream media, written books about and discussed.
- null_object 5y ago
  > Do you even look at Swedish mainstream media ever? These matters are definitely not widely discussed in "mainstream media" - I'd be interested in some citations if you think I'm wrong. I'd say they are known and discussed in certain circles, but they're definitely not taught in the school curriculum, in spite of being a large and intrinsic part of recent Swedish history. For instance, the country's largest home-rental organization (HSB) was reporting 'misbehaving' occupants of their apartments as candidates for sterilization long into the second half of the twentieth century. So sterilization was hardly a fringe issue, and yet I would be very surprised if Swedes under 20 have even heard of it.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    Here are some resources currently used in Swedish schools about the forced sterilisation [0]. In the section about Sweden during the Second World War, there is a prominent section about Swedish "eftergiftspolitik" [1]. The second paragraph in the WWII article is about how Sweden sold iron ore to the Germans and how important that was to the Wehrmacht. So Swedens "neutralitetspolitik" is also prominently discussed in Swedish schools. Here is an overview of the large debate about tvångssteriliseringarna mostly in DN (Swedens largest newspaper) in 1997 and later [2]. Here is a documentary from Sveriges Radio from 2006 [3] about the forced sterilisations. It didn't take many minutes to find any of these sources. [0] https://www.so-rummet.se/fakta-artiklar/steriliseringspolitiken-i-sverige# https://www.so-rummet.se/fakta-artiklar/steriliseringspoliti... [1] https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/historia/det-korta-1900-talet/sverige-under-andra-varldskriget# https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/historia/det-korta-1900-... [2] https://www.levandehistoria.se/sites/default/files/wysiwyg_media/bilder_och_dokument_steriliseringsfragan.pdf https://www.levandehistoria.se/sites/default/files/wysiwyg_m... [3] https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/94014 https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/94014

Ma8ee 5y ago

It is certainly discussed in Sweden. Everything from transporting German troops and materiel though the country on Swedish rails to providing most of the iron the Wehrmacht needed. Could Sweden have joined the allies and fought against Finland though? Many Swedes even volunteered to help the Finns fight the Soviets, so don't be so cocksure that we would have joined the right side if we would have joined.

wwtrv 5y ago
Well earlier in the war France and Britain were considering sending an expeditionary force to Finland to help them fight the Soviets. Sweden did not allow them to use their territory to pass, because they feared that the Allies would occupy the iron mining center in the north of Finland (which would have basically brought Sweden into the war against Germany) and the Winter war finished soon after anyway. At the end of the day they might have made the right choice. Who knows what would have happened if the allies went to war with the USSR, their alliance to Germany might have lasted much longer.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  The Winter war finished because Stalin whole strategy was not to go to war with Germany or the Allies before the were at war with each other. He knew very well that France/Britain were seriously considering action, not just in Finland. A far larger danger would have been a massive attack by the RAF on Baku targeting the oil fields. The reason the Winter war ended with such comparatively good terms is that Stalin had to end it or risk escalation.

panick21_ 5y ago

> For the nazis, gaining the degree of control of Sweden they needed would have been a very formidable challenge Yes, but for the Iron Ore supply they would have done it. And that would have entailed very, very harsh reprisals against the population population if they engage in gorilla warfare. Bombing of the major cities and so on. Of course you always have to option. And Sweden would certainty have been far harder to take then Norway as Sweden was far more ready for war then Norway. A Sweden hell-bent on fighting the Nazis would have probably lead to an far earlier defeat of the Nazis. The problem is, they would not get support from anywhere because of the geographical situation. That is why I stress that the Norway situation was so critical. With Norway in Allied hands Sweden would have acted very differently.

burntoutfire 5y ago
> That is why I stress that the Norway situation was so critical. With Norway in Allied hands Sweden would have acted very differently. Even more so, it was all decided in September 1939. If the French went out and attacked Germans like they promised they would, Stalin would never join the war (he waited for full 17 days before moving into Poland, to make sure the Allies will be the cowards he and Hitler predicted they were), and Germans would be tied with fighting on two fronts. Hitler was actually super-nervous about the attack on Poland - he bet it all on has a hunch the French and British won't do anything about it, which was a massive risk for him.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Well, yes but the issue is that the French never wanted to fight that offensive war. They had not planned for it very well, the British were not gone be there in any numbers. Not even the Royal Airforce. And if you are gone put up a fight for Eastern Europe, then why do it for Poland, it would have been 100x smarter to it over Czechoslovakia. Germany was in a terrible supply situation at that point. The Allies had no way to help Poland other then an attack the other side. Unlike Norway where the Allies were perfectly positioned to provide help. So my opinion is that you either fight over Czechoslovakia or you leave Eastern Europe and focus on keeping Germany out of the North and try to keep Italy from joining them. The 'alliance' between Germany and the Soviets wouldn't hold very long. In that time you can build up your forces. Eventually Germany would probably force the situation with the Soviets and then the Allies are in control of the global supply routes and can basically decide who wins. Basically its 3 groups, France/Britain, Germany, Soviet. The one best positioned is the one that stays out of the war when the other two go to the war. The one that stays out can build up its army and industry while the others destroy each other. You end up the winner by default. The Soviets were that in 1940, but surprisingly for them France collapsed quickly and the German could turn around and attack them. Soviet strategy since 2022 was basically to keep Germany out of the 'capitalist' alliance, only for them to supply Germany with the vary resources they used to build an army to attack them. World War 2 has so many strange turns.

Ma8ee 5y ago

I don't think you listened when you were in school. This [0] is a quite typical example of how the history is taught in Swedish schools, and in even this quite short article about Sweden during WWII both the transport of German troops and the export of iron ore to Germany are prominent. [0] https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/historia/det-korta-1900-talet/sverige-under-andra-varldskriget# https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/historia/det-korta-1900-...