How Sweden Almost Joined World War II
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- Sweden was officially neutral during World War II, but at one point they were preparing to jump in the fight.
➤ Support this channel with my Patreon!: / emperortigerstar
Information Sources:
- Carl-Axel Wangel m. fl. ”Sveriges militära beredskap 1939-1945” (Köping 1982)
- Danish Military Society / Dansk Militærhistorisk Selskab
- Klint, Helge. “Operation Rädda Denmark.” Samrådetno. 3, 1970.
Music used:
"Hitman" by Kevin MacLeod
found at www.incompetech.com
Hi!
Swedish military historian here. A small correction: Operation Save Norway was prepared to be launched in case the German forces in Norway did not surrender along with the rest of the Wehrmacht. It was also a contingency plan to be launched in case the German occupational authorities in Norway increased the oppression of the Norwegian Jews and other “undesirables”, or in case of a massive revolt by the Norwegian population (as had happened in other occupied countries by the end of the war). The main goal was basically to save the Norwegian and Danish populations (hence the names).
The invasion plans of Norway had been years in the making. Originally, Sweden had contingency plans in case of a war with Norway, and in 1940 these were adapted in case of a German war with Sweden. The Swedish army pushed hard for an offensive into Norway to capture the vital western ports in case of a war with Germany. This was due to keep the flow of oil and other vital goods into the country, and also to give the western allies the possibility to send help directly to Sweden. The Swedish navy on the western coast was to distrust German naval communication between Norway and mainland Europe.
Sweden also had a contingency to intervene in Norway in case of a western allied invasion of occupied Norway. Sweden had told Germany that if the western allies landed in Norway, or if a large scale revolt happened, Sweden would immediately exit the treaty of “leave traffic” (permittenttrafiken), which made it possible for Germany to move (unarmed) military personell between occupied Norway and mainland Europe via Swedish trains. This fact pressured the German military high command and Hitler to keep more forces in Norway than actually needed, to both counter a western invasion and to be able to open if the vital routes via Sweden by force.
Finally; something that is rarely talked about when it comes to Sweden and WW2 is the fact that Sweden was basically in a low-intensity naval conflict with the USSR for the whole war (at least from 1941). Soviet subs operated in Swedish territorial waters and attacked Swedish shipping a long the cost. The Swedish navy was engaged in quite a few battles with the soviet navy during the war. But of course, it was politically convenient for both sides to not talk about it in public nor escalate. Sweden did not want an open war with the USSR, and the USSR did not want Sweden to side with the axis.
Hey dude, swede here. Some o this stuff Ive never heard of, wish i did.
I assum you didnt learn all this from Wikipedia.
So where can i read about this stuff? ( What sources are you using i guess is my question haha)
Same situation and same questions as Yollmanontherun. Or is it ”classified” stuff?
@@yollmanontherun9074 Don't have any book recommendations for you as I'm a lazy bum getting all my history "second hand". But it's honestly surprising how little we learn about our role in ww2, and it's even more astonishing the amount of absolutely false claims which are widely accepted as true somehow. I've talked both online and in real life with people genuinly claiming sweden shipped german troops for the invasion of norway, some even saying sweden actively promoted a german invasion (WHY??? what could sweden possibly gain from that).
You forget that most Swedes were pro-German, right? No one wanted anything to do with the Bolsheviks and the Communists and sided with Germany, many fought for the Viking Division because of the Soviet Union. The same thing when the civil war broke out in Finland, the Swedes sided with the white side in Finland which defeated the red side.
Why did Swedes allow Germans to match through their country to attack Norway ( June 1940)? To save Norway?
You note Swedish Air support as if it is some minor thing, but at the time, the Swedish Air Force had some 800 operational aircraft. More than the brits had defending in the Battle of Britain. A significant force in a limited area of operations.
We Swedes are weird to most of the world, but we do some things well. I am proud to be Swedish.
@@TheBcoolGuy yeah, giving your country away for no reason... Good job.
@@AKUJIVALDO giving away our country?
@@AKUJIVALDO explain pleasr
@@albinskold8792 han e rasist
Regarding Bornholm, it remained occupied by Soviet until 1946. And they probably would have wanted to keep it, but didn't want to anger the west at this point.
LOL they had already taken over Poland, Hungary, the Balkans... what would occupying Bornholm do?
@@gustavoritter7321 Its a perfect place to control the inlet to the Baltic Sea.
After the war, and once the Danish government finally got round to asking the Russians to leave Bornholm, the last Russians left on 5th April 1946.
@@gustavoritter7321 A big part is also that the soviets did not take over denmark, just the small island of bornholm = They cant plant a puppet state like they did in the other eastern countries.
So, they cant take the island without a very loud shouting denmark screaming they stole our land lol
Which makes Bornholm, along with Finnmark, the two places (correct me if I'm wrong) which the Soviets invaded, but actually relinquished control of back to the former rulers.
I like the rush - freewill reference
“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”
RIP Neil Peart, his lyrics were just as important as his drums
Great song, great band, great musician, and you have great taste
Wasn't expecting to see a quote from Neil Peart. RIP
Incredible song by an incredible band. RIP professor
same
E
It's important to remember that Denmark and Norway weren't involved in the war by any choice of their own. As mentioned in the video, they were invaded by Germany. Had the Germans (and the British) left them alone, they would certainly have remained neutral as well, just as they were in World War I. Sweden managed to stay neutral through a combination of being less geographically vital and performing a delicate balancing act to make themselves more useful to both sides as a neutral than they would have been as a conquered territory. My favorite Sweden-related World War II thing, though is "En Svensk Tiger", as I am an enthusiast for wordplay (hence the palindrome in my screen name).
I always say: If someone attacks a neutral nation, the attacking nation decides the side the former neutral nation is fighting on.
Neutrality on it's own never kept others from invading or attacking. It always has to be paired with other good reasons to work. (In this case Sweden and that it didn't completely refuse trade and being surrounded by "friendly" forces to the germans, Switzerland because of the territory, trade and place to bunker money...)
@@nirfz I don't think this take really works for Norway. We'd already shown that our neutrality could not be trusted; we turned a blind eye to Germany abusing our neutrality to move British POW's through our waters, telling London that our neutrality would not be strictly upheld against Germany. We allowed British ships to violate our waters to board a German vessel on a mere suspicion (albeit correct), telling Berlin that our neutrality would not be strictly upheld against Britain. Neither side could trust Norway to stay neutral if push came to shove and both sides relied on iron ore shipped through Narvik.
Thusly, both sides prepared to invade Norway, both on the flimsy pretense of defending Norway from the other side (Britain first intended to hide the invasion under the pretext of aiding the Finnish in the Winter War, but then that war ended too soon). While British and French forces had already left port in Britain to invade Norway, they received word that they were a week too late; Germany had already invaded. But we know that while the British invasion plan (R 4) was pre-emptive, designed to force Norway into the war on the Allied side and deny Germany iron ore during winter, the German plan (Weserübung) was reactive; they had become aware of British plans and realized they had to strike first.
Another aspect that explains why Germany was in more of a hurry to strike (and why they struck more violently, with naval bombardments, bombings and a greater force) is that Norway had traditionally been aligned with Britain for a long time, quietly using our vast merchant marine to aid the Entente during the First World War, and still leaned heavily towards Britain, albeit not desiring to join a war. British planners strongly expected their landings in Norwegian ports to be totally unopposed (as happened later on Iceland), which was not an unfounded expectation. Knowing that Norway was very weak militarily and would likely bend like a pretzel under British military pressure, Germany rushed off to war, but brought their big guns (expecting that Norway would indeed try their best to resist German pressure, as relations had been cool ever since the Night of the Long Knives).
@@Snipppss While i agree with most of what you mention, i have to say i don't see where it shows that my argument doesn't work for norway. 🤷♂
What i meant was that norway didn't have anything that could have helped them additionally to their neutrality. They didn't have the geographical "safety" and ore sweden had, and they weren't the money storage like switzerland. (And after the occupation of norway, sweden was pretty safely not going to be invaded by the allies when set inbetween "friendlies" from the german pov)
Switzerland also was unlikely to be invaded and strategicalls used by the allies due to it's geography.
And norway had all the things you mentioned which "encouraged" both sides to not care for norway neutrality.
I also wouldn't say norways neutrality was untrustworthy. Neutrality can mean to treat both the same, and as you mentioned norway pretty much didn't defend it's waters against either side. Which is kind of that. (->treating both sides the same)
But due to the geographical situation that's exactely where the other point comes in: if there is nothing else that prevents an invasion, neutrality doesn't prevent invasion.
I am aware of the allied invasion plans and how operation Weserübung worked out roughly. I got interested a few years back out of personal reasons and tried to find books i can read about the land actions and specifically the part about Narvik in which i was "semi successfull."
I fond one book in german, but none in english. (I don't speak norwegian and i so i also can't read it.)
All the YT videos and books in english concentrate on the naval action. (Apart from a few mentions on the WW2 channel who covered the invasion somewhat)
Which is no surprise, as the naval action is where the british were successfull.😉
@@nirfz What you miss is that neutrality must be defended. Norway could have but didn't. Much because they thought they were geographically peripheral protected by the Atlantic and it's land an endless series of fjords and mountains difficult to occupy. Thus they allocated virtually nothing to defence and let challenges to it's neutrality remain unanswered. The belligerents concluded that it was free real estate and raced over who would be first to claim it.
Sweden wasn't occupied mostly because it actually had a defence force that greater powers had to take seriously.
I myself am a fan of "En svensk håller truten", often accompanied by a hand holding a gull by the pout. Similarly to "En Svensk Tiger" it can have two meanings, one of which basically is "A swede shuts their mouth" and the other meaning being "A swede holds a gull". Thereby the image also having a double meaning.
Sweden also nearly joined Germany in the first World War because Russia remilitarised Ääland
Åland*
Sweden briefly occupied Åland during WW1. Technically it was part of the Finnish Civil War but WW1 was ongoing at the time and Germany and Soviet Russia were involved in that civil war.
@@Karpaneen Fun fact about the occupation of the Åland islands: A large majority of the Åland population had signed a petition to let them "reunite" with Sweden. When Swedish forces arrived many raised Swedish flags because they thought they were being liberated from Finland.
@@joelthorstensson2772 why did Sweden return the islands
@@pocketmarcy6990 There was no juridical reason to stay after the civil war ended in Finland. Also Germany voiced their dissatisfaction to Sweden having troops there.
The official reason why Sweden occupied the Åland islands was to protect the Swedish speaking population from the war and not to annex the islands. So after the hostilities ended, it became rather awkward for Sweden to hold troops there. Sweden was even at the time a liberal country that wanted to portray itself as a nation that respected international treaties and law so simply annexing neighbours territory with military force was out of the question. Sweden and Finland resolved the Åland issue few years later diplomatically with the help of the League of Nations.
There were many crazy propals on the governments table during ww2, and a lot of drama that never really hit the public. Such as Gustaf V sending congratulations on operation barbarossa to Hitler, proposals to join Finland and declare war on the USSR, and both the king and prime minister threatening to leave their possitions on numerous ocations. It fills me with shame that we didn't help our neighbours as much as we could have, but I still see why we did it.
Were* proposals*
Other than that, you spelled that sentence pretty good
@@kommandorob8691 And the fact that many Swedes didn't want to involve themselves on the same side as Germany. Joining Finland outright would cause a big political shift in favour of the more "right leaning" political parties.
So you are pro-nazi?
@dump Haha bro you have no idea wtf you're talking about. Swedish culture is very centralized, I can without shadow of a doubt say Sweden has a clearer sense of 'we' than moist other countries in the west.
People really think Sweden is some muslim caliphate when they their only source is people on reddit shitposting about us.
Joining Finland would have required the USSR to fully occupy Finland in order to conduct their further efforts in defeating Sweden. Staying out, allowing Finland a clear back where food and industry worked un bombed close by probably helped way more than. The Swedish army could have. Also Sweden of course would have had to choose between war with Finland or with Norway so staying out wasn't so strange. Very few parties to the war actually entered willingly so it's not like Sweden did anything different, it was just mainly luck.
"Friendly with all other nations and strongly linked to our neighbors, we look on no one as our enemy. There is no place in the thoughts of our people for aggression against any other country, and we note with gratitude, the assurances from others that they have no wish to disturb our peace, our freedom, or our independence. The strengthening of our defense preparations serves merely to underline our fixed determination to keep our country outside the conflicts that may erupt amongst others and, during such conflicts, to safeguard the existence of our people."
- Per-Albin Hansson,
Folkhemmet enjoyer
They were Nazi allies in all but name.
It is not tue though, we are not friendly with Russia.
Norwegian Prime Minister Johan Nygaardsvold in a letter to party colleague, minister and government representative in Stockholm during the Second World War, Anders Frihagen:
No, it is Sweden that causes us the worries and that I am amazed at... ... if you could get on private terms with Pehr Albin Hansson (Sweden's Prime Minister) then you could greet him from me and say that there are two things I long for to experience and one is that the Germans will be chased out of Norway and the other is that I must live long enough to be able to scold him and his entire government - perhaps even his entire party. Tell him: that if I can get anything more to say in Norway, everything that is Swedish will be considered as pestilential as what is German... Tell him: that now I spit on him not only for his cowardice, but for his contemptible betrayal to the case of the Nordic countries. Tell him: that as long as I live and breathe, Sweden shall never be regarded as part of the Nordic region, but as a jack of all trades who stands at the service of Germany... Tell him: that there is no one, no one, no one I hate so flamingly and so wildly like Sweden - and it's his fault.
@DropkicktheDecepticon Well, the Norwegian King Haakon 7 hatet the Swedish King Gustav 5 for his action during WW2 and just barely went to Gustav 5's funeral in 1950. The prime minister were not alone with distrust towards Sweden after the war. There is a saying in Norway that it is a reason for the yellow stripes in the Swedish flag.
4:30 Operation "Rädda Norge" not "Rädda Norway".
Sweden helped Finland during war also very unusual way. Swedish newspapers published fake news concerning Finland. Example that our capital Helsinki was already nearly in ruins. USSR´s Embassy in Stockholm send ASAP this kind of information to Moscow. Stalin was satisfied but truth was that Helsinki was not in ruins. When diplomatic relations returned after war Soviet diplomats and journalists wondered how quickly Helsinki was repaired even it got so heavy damages by Soviet planes and bombs.
This kind of "warfare" will still work on internet manipulating pictures.
Interesting, something I didn't know about... just like they publish fake news about the Ukraine war these days.
Sweden is the country in Northern Europe right?
south
Nah it's by Bulgaria
East
It’s the Minecraft and Pewdiepie country.
it's the country that's so full of immigrants it's a third world country
we just had about ww2 in school not too long ago and this was never mentioned and i've never heard about this before thanks for making this, also is finally something new i've learned about ww2! love from Norway :P
We actuly trained several norwigen soldiers during the war. After it ended those trops where the main force for a loong time.
//Swedish soldier
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_police_troops_in_Sweden_during_World_War_II
cause school doesn’t go in depth enough :c
@@jonastheswede6256 wow
@@ajmod73 unfortunatley true :|
Let me guess they only skim over the war as a vessel exclusively to cover the holocaust
Just a small note, Yugoslavia was never a puppet state as they had liberated themselves and never liked the USSR (To the point both sides were constantly sending assassins) and Albania basically got abandoned by USSR shortly afterwards
My grandfather served in the german submarine force and navy in the WW. His vessel hit a mine and sunk, he survived thanks to swedish fishermen who brought him onto the land. He spent some time in swedish internment. German military personnel was kept in camps and sent back "home" as soon as possible. My grandfather cut off one of his fingers to be able to stay longer. But after healing his hand, he had to go back, too.
Sweden did not want to provocate Hitler by allowing thousands of german "deserters" to weaken his army. It was enough with all the socialist politicians having found a safe heaven in Stockholm.
Swedish neutrality was well-balanced, a bit more leaning to the axis side when that was the stronger side, and later leaning a bit more to the western allied side as soon as that turned to be the stronger side :)
That must have been at the beginning of the war. Sweden changed policy later in the war when Germany was not so dangerous anymore. But you are correct when it comes to which side to lean on. Sweden's main goal was to stay out of the war. Sweden was near war against; 1939 - Soviet Union 1940 - Allies or Germany 1941- Germany 1943 - Germany and 1945 - Germany. The Swedish government was competent and had a lot of luck.
Sweden didnt lean to the Axis side. We leand towards not having a threat from the soviets but were not really keen on the side that just invaded our brothers either.
Was more that we didnt want be attacket by a superpower (at the time) that had just invaded half of Europe and had us surrounded.
@@pellejoens7886 Yes, i see you estimate neutrality as a competent policy. While a majority in Sweden today seems to want Nato. I just cant get that, it is incredible.
@@kellymcbright5456 Sweden doesn't have the luxury of other neutral european countries of being far away from Russia (Ireland) or literally surrounded by NATO countries (Austria, Switzerland, most european microstates). Although i personally see no reason for Russia to cross the baltic sea and start a war with Sweden. As an austrian, i get that submitting to NATO and giving up your (possibly identity-establishing) neutrality is a drastic step, but i really can't blame them for doing so, either.
The strategy have been neutral on the winning side but never on the Russian side - just try not to provoke Russia. All from Napoleon to now more or less.
Crazy if that would have hapend I woudn't be alive because my Grandfather was stationed in Denmark (he was 17).
Sweden started to lower their trade with Germany in 43 and stopped in 44 if I remember correctly. They had also cracked the G Machine, a code machine that German high command used, it had more combinations than the Enigma I think. Through this they new of Barbarossa before it happened and they sent a lot of info to the allies that they obtained through this code breaking. Arne Beurling cracked the machine in two weeks by pen and paper. In 43 the Germans found out about it through the Finns.
Occupied Denmark just had their resources extracted. Germany put quotas of resources their occupied states and client states had to supply. Denmark had their government intact but there was a flow of danish agricultural products into Germany during the occupation.
Last ship arrived in December 44 if I remember correctly. You should also note that Sweden had a deal since before the war to supply Germany with about 10 million tonnes of ore a year.
They kept the deal and secretly starting to send more pure ore so Germany got more iron but Sweden didn't upset the British further by sending them more ore.
@@hnorrstrom Well it was either that or dying by starvation , since we couldnt sustain 6 million people or freezing to death. Since we didnt have enough coal to last 1 winter , ontop of the need to scale up all the armed forces by a factor of 10
@@matso3856 I would have done the same thing. Keeping the country out of war and protecting and caring for their own citizens is what all leaders should be doing.
"not unheard of"
Correction, even as it was, Germany was barely a hairsbreadth from invading Sweden several times. The panzerdivision in Norway was there solely for the reason of marsching into Sweden if it was needed.
And iron ore was nowhere near the most important export from German point of view. The ballbearings were much more important to them, especially after the war started, as Germany quickly increased their sources of iron ore, while pretty much noone could deliver highquality ballbearings.
But again, Sweden simply could not stop trading, as even with the limited "resistance" that DID happen, which mostly amounted to not renewing trade agreements that ran out and "random" delays to deliveries, but even those relatively small things almost caused Germany to invade.
Sweden tapping into the German diplomatic teleprinter cable to Norway was what saved Sweden.
Thanks to the monumental work by Arne Beurling. He essentially broke what amounts to the diplomatic corp version of the Enigma, by himself, with nothing but pen and paper, in just two weeks.
It wasn't until 1943 when Germany made MAJOR improvements to their encryption that Sweden found it impossible to keep cracking the codes.
However, what isn't usually talked about is the fact that while openly, Sweden pretended to be very cozy with Germany, yet behind the scenes, Sweden cooperated extremely closely with the UK, despite the fact that when germany invaded Norway, the UK was originally intending to invade Norway and through them, northern Sweden.
And yet, when the Bismarck went from the Baltic to the North sea, and was spotted by a Swedish destroyer patrolling, the detailed information was in the British admirality in less than two hours. This is extremely exceptional, not only because it is very fast for ANY such communication to happen between nonallied nations, it is in fact faster than most such information moved between USA and UK even after they were at war together.
This despite the information having to be handdelivered by a courier, to a British courier, covertly.
"essential for Germany's warmachine"
No, it was not. The numbers look really big and impressive if you look at 1938 and 1939. Up until you go look further and realise that Germany did NOT have a lack of sources for iron ore, Sweden simply provided them with the best quality at a comparatively decent price.
So, if Sweden had completely stopped trading with Germany, and for some miraculous reason was not invaded for daring to say no, it would have taken Germany 2-4 months to make up for the iron ore production, it would cost them slightly more and it would slow down production of steel a bit due to the lower quality. The ballbearings would be a bit more annoying, but just because they're the best option for some things, like shrapnel for AA gun shells, it was still a relatively small matter of replacing them with other things and increasing domestic production to cover its full needs.
More importantly, after the conquests of 1939 and 1940, Germany could make up for the absence of Swedish exports even more easily.
So no, definitely not essential. Highly useful and extremely CONVENIENT, oh yes. But not essential.
Removing the Swedish exports could in theory maybe have shortened the war with a month or two, but that is unlikely.
However, it is just as possible that the absence would have caused Germany gear up for a full war economy earlier to more easily make up for the absence.
And THAT would without any doubt have made the war WORSE.
Either way, it doesn't really matter, because the Germans were a bit obsessed with Sweden, looking towards it as an ideological friend and for some reason repeatedly believing Sweden to be vastly more powerful than it was, but Germany would still without slightest question have invaded if Sweden had tried to stop trading.
"valid concern in the beginning of the war"
HAH! Germany's last KNOWN moment of "we were minutes away from invading Sweden when the counterorders came" was in 1943!
...
"18 may 1945"
The reason for the date was simply to make sure that it was POSSIBLE to conduct the landings of troops. And the operation against Denmark was considered the higher priority, as it would also cut off German supply lines to Norway. Essentially, if the Danish operation succeeded, absolute worst case and taking too heavy casualties in the Denmark operation, they could simply let the German troops in Norway starve.
So, it wasn't that Sweden CHOSE to start operations late, it was simply a requirement due to climate. The landings would have been done mostly with very small ships and boats, even the slightest harsh weather would have spelled disaster. So, summertime or near summertime weather was hard requirement, meaning, May or preferably June. So May 18th was in fact already cutting things close.
...
Well, that was at least unusually objective depiction of reality, well done.
4:30 My guy forgot to translate "Norway" into Swedish. Also, that pronunciation on "rädda" was painful...
How is it pronounced?
@@TheAmericanPrometheus Sort of like "red ah", pronounced with British RP with a rolling/trill R, if you're going for standard Swedish.
@@TheAmericanPrometheus In my dialect, something like [ˈrɛdːa].
But will they join WWIII?
They will
Probably they're attempting too join NATO
yes
they'll start it
If article 5 of Nato is triggered then they will have to
Sweden did send 8000 volonteers, trained, equipped and commanded by the Swedish army, to Finland during the Winter War. With the weapons they brought with them, it was the most heavily armed infantry unit in the Finnish army at the time.
Sweden also deployed a full third of its Airforce to Finland, planes, pilots, groundcrew, fuel, ammunition and spareparts.
Along with staggering amounts of ammunition for rifles, machineguns and artillery.
Sure but do not gloss over the other volunteers like Norwegian, Italian, German, Estonian, Danish, and English. Swedish volunteers get too much credit. Sweden did not carry Finland in the war, Finland could technically still hold off the Soviets ON THEIR OWN. We appreciate ALL help, but we are Finns alone.
Stop saying Sweden sent them, they went on their own ackord. Sweden did not ever " Send " them, these volunteers sent themselves
the volunteers sent themselves, not sweden
"Neutrality". So much for that. But I can understand, to an extent.
Key word: Volunteers.
As in, Sweden didn't send them, they volunteered to join the cause :)
3:49 small correction on the pronunciation, swedish Ä and danish Æ sounds more like english E.
Other than that, (and maybe Swedens slightly shameful “neutrality”) great video!
In 1st WW, Spain was neutral but traded a lot with France, that required plenty of resources. As it was almost impossible to trade with Germany. It was a similar situation for Sweden too.
Just a little note about Sweden's neutrality during WWII. We where not, in reality, so very neutral. The day before Germany's invasion of Denmark, the Danish gold reserve was transported, under the highest secrecy, to Sweden for safe keeping in an unknown location. Also, Swedish men with local knowledge of the border area to Norway, would ski into Norway to escort Norwegians (and others) to safety in Sweden. This was witnessed by my father and told me on numerous occasions.
But Sweden also let German supplies (and also some troops) across their territory to reach Narvik where the local German expedition force was under attack by the Brits, causing the attack to fail and forcing the Brits to leave Narvik to the Germans. So Sweden was indeed neutral in the end, if not a bit in favour of Germany.
I remember an alternate history story where one of the parts of it was Sweden joining the allies and liberating Norway
Basically Germany steels a swedish ship and uses it to launch a chemical attack on the us and the sweeds after learning about what happened immediately declare war and invade to keep people from thinking they were involved
USA* Swedes* steal*
Still a good comment
It would have ment war against axis Finland tho, and probably civil war because of that
.
’Rädda’ is pronounced “Redda”, and Norway is called ‘Norge’ in both Swedish and Norwegian. They would never have used the English word at the time, people didn’t know it
Varför är det så viktigt med uttalet?
In german it would be Rettet Norwegen
@@kristofferhellstrom People tend to be very anal about pronunciation on the internet. That's how it goes usually. Men det finns väl de som tycker att det är viktigt antar jag.
@@jonathanarnfeltramstrom8022 Orka lägga energi på att rätta en engelsktalande på svenska uttal. Helt hjärndött.
One thing that's lost in arguments regarding Swiss and Swedish neutrality is that there was never any possibility of them joining the Allies. Their choices were: neutrality, being conquered by Germany in like 5 minutes, or joining the Axis formally.
Neutrality is the best option of those.
True. Look at the situation in June, 1940. Sweden was surrounded by Germany and the USSR. The British had retreated to their island, the French were knocked out, and the Americans had another six month before entering the war. There was no realistic way of joining any "Allies".
Switzerland is a completely other story. There was no intention from the Nazi's to disrupt the safehaven of their private illegal earnings, together with the fact that all border passes and mountain passes were mined. If there would have been an invasion attempt on Switzerland, it would have to be by air, and what to do with the country after a successful invasion? Completely cut-off? That would be a severe backlash.
The British Empire were attempting to invade and occupy Sweden in 1940 under the ruse of sending help to Finland. The Plan R 4. The troops the Empire used to "help Norway" were the same troops originally intended to occupy Sweden and Norway, if the ruse had been successful.
@@martinan22 Well, both the Norwegian and the Swedish governments identified this scam, and refused transit over Narvik to the north of Sweden (basilcally passing the iron ore and the iron ore mines). The only reason for this was to deny the export to Germany. As things progressed well for the Axis in Europe mainland, this became an obsolete object. Also the fast that Finland did proclaim sease fire and negotioated with Soviet Union, made it impossible. The West always need a good 'reason' to occupy a small, soverign democratic state.
@@JohnOlimb And invading and occupying neutral Iceland in WW2 was just to, uhu, something.
2:55 The Soviet Union was in no way the prime liberator of the eastern front, they did not liberate any country
Sweden was neutral (unlike the USA before it joined the war) for it copperated with bough sides roughly equally.
Sweden was aiming for the Scandinavia achievement irl
I know thousands of swedish volunteers went to help Finland. I would have imagined Sweden's foremost solidarity and self-interest could have been directed to join Finland against the Soviets.
Sweden was militarily very weak. Most people need help understanding the situation Nov 1939. Germany and Soviet Union were allied. The Western side was making plans to take over Narvik and Northern Sweden. The Swedish populace wanted to go to war on the Finish side. The government realistically understood that Sweden couldn't do so. The government also wanted Sweden not to be a battleground for Germany and the Western allies. Historical and cultural reasons and fear of the Soviet Union were significant reasons why many Swedish people volunteered. Of the 15000 volunteered, 8000-10000 "saw" combat.
@@pellejoens7886 The Finnish cause is ours! 600000 thousand copies were made from 1939 and distributed
@@pellejoens7886 Sweden became very weak after the winter war because we gave literally twice the amount of the finnish defence budget as a gift to keep them in the fight. We donated artillery, machine-guns, ships, planes and literally hundreds of trains-worths of ammunition.
The reason we had the 4th world's largest air force in the 1960s (no, that's not a typo, look it up) and why we had so much domestically-produced weapons is so that a situation like 1939 could NEVER happen to us.
We have seen that the best way to defend yourself is to rely on no one but yourself, at least that was the doctrine of the cold war. No one would come to our aid, except the Norwegians, Danes and Finns, those were the only ones we could truly count on.
Sweden was actually not neutral in the war between USSR and Finland. It was on Finland’s side but did not take part in the fighting; it was non-belligerent.
@@pellejoens7886 There was a good and easy solution, ally with Germany and join your Finnish and German brothers in the fight to save Europe. If Britain invaded, then Germany would have helped.
Ofc this was also the best option for Denmark and Norway but they had traitors in power just like Sweden did so their governments refused to side with Germany so the Germans had to step in and save them from the British, a fact that is nearly always overlocked today.
Interesting video. I work as a tour guide in Scandinavia and talk about WWII here. So I familiar with the subject but was not aware of Sweden's plan to join the allies.
Pet peeve: The correct pronunciation for Copenhagen in English is CopenHAYgen not CopenHAAgen. The later incorrect pronunciation comes from the song Wonderful Copenhagen song by Danny Kaye in the film about H.C. Andersen. From my experience working with tourists, it's often educated American trying to be authentic who use the incorrect pronunciation.
About pronunciation: The later e is pronunced in English either like in bed or like in event, never ey. I could never understand why English speaking people pronunce e in foeighn words as ey. It is BEthoven or ChilE, not Beythoven or Chiley. Although English people might say CopenHAYgen, it is correctly CopenHAAgen.
@@jiritichy7967
Sometimes English speaking people that want to be sophisticated pronounce, or try to pronounce, foreign words as done in the source language. Thus some would be sophisticates say ChilEY or MeHEECOO.
About Copenhagen, the correct pronunciation in English is CopenHAYgen. You can check on Google if you doubt me.
It is frustrating to listen to as a Dane. It's called København in Danish, so the "hagen"-part is not even present in the city's native name. There is no authenticity in saying the German version of the city's name - Kopenhagen - instead of proper English version that you've mentioned above. Furthermore, the pronunciation of the letter g is usually soft in Danish, so the "CopenHAAgen" is not in authentic in any way on that front either, since it puts a lot more emphasis on the g than the normal "CopenHAYgen".
@@gustav331 It's interesting to speculate what's the cause of many US speakers incorrectly saying CopenHAAgen. I mentioned Danny Kaye using that pronunciation in singing "Wonderful Copenhagen", a song that was a hit in 1953 (ruclips.net/video/t1YMv_qx5Cw/видео.html)
You mentioned the influence of the German pronunciation. A third factor could be Häagen-Dazs ice cream. Many Americans believe it to be an authentic name with Scandinavian roots , but it's a made up name fabricated by a company in New Jersey.
@@jiritichy7967 Your name doesn't really give away if you are Danish or not, but I assume you aren't. So please trust us as actual Danes when we tell you, that it is correctly pronounced CopenHAYgen. CopenHAAgen just sounds German. If you wanna pronounce it properly, then say København. Copenhagen is meant to sound English, because it is the English name for the city.
It wasnt soviets who pushed Germans out of lapland, but Finns themself. Soviets did make an ultimatum though because the Lapland war beginning was just germans retreating on their own pace which soviets didnt like and said that they will come help if things dont change.
3:21No he is correct since they did continue to push the germans out of lapland thats inside Norway , he is not talking about lapland in Finland which you mention
@@matso3856 Do you mean to say that Finnish troops were passing the Norwegian border? That is a new to me. But what I know for sure is that the Soviets demanded that the Finnish troops could not be the experienced standing army that defended Finland from Soviet invasion. Finland had to recruit new soldiers to this. By the way, the map shown in 3:21 is erratic. North Cape is Norwegian, not Russian.
@@JohnOlimb No , at 3:21 the narrator is talking about soviet troops pushing german troops out of lapland in northern Norway , which is correct. Finnish troops only pushed germans out of Finland
Swedish neutrality in WWI is also a bit iffy, they fought a shooting war with the Russian submarines that ended with the German navy being allowed to setup a naval base in Sweden with the 2 navies coordinating convoy escorts in the Baltic.
But they balanced this out but cutting the other corners of neutrality like releasing British merchants from internment and allowing large amounts of military aid to be shipped through Sweden to Russia.
russia remilitarized åland
I am very curious about this naval base in Sweden, something i have never heard of, can you please provide a source for this claim? Or was this perhaps on the Åland islands? That could make better sense.
1:28 I like how the map refers to winters all the way up north as "mild"
WW2 have a lot of interesting scenarios that never played out. Never knew of this, definitely learned a thing or two
It's wholesome that Sweden cared about their neighbors and made operation names like "Save Norway" and "Save Denmark"
But it was still the main raw material trading partner with Germany. It's a bit controversial but it also makes some sense. If Sweden had not been a trading partner of Germany probably Germany would have invaded Sweden as Germany was also planning to conquer Switzerland
Damn I never knew this.
Interesting! Small bit of feedback: the background music is both distracting in how loud it is relative to your voice, and also rather annoying (personal taste). Happy to see you making content again!
Sweden was split with helping Norway and Denmark and especially their jews finding safe heaven, to helping Finland with ALOT of volunteers.
2:55 Liberated? It's more like under new management in the case of the Soviets
God damn Sweden struggles at joining. They tried to join NATO with not succeeding and then this
Finnish a-hole i guess?
That unexpected Rush reference was much appreciated. I actually listened to Permanent Waves on RUclips earlier today, I wonder if this video being recommended was the algorithm working or just a happy coincidence.
Sweden was not neutral in winter war 1939-40. It declared itself non beligerent, as in completely on Finland's side but not sending government troops. But sending everything else.
Biggest invasion threat against Sweden in WW2 was British Empire and France in 1940, Plan R 4. They were planning on occupying Northern Sweden under the ruse of "sending aid to Finalnd" in 1940. Empire and France also had plans to fight WW2 along the "lake line" of Mälaren, Hjälmaren and Vänern, meaning Sweden's most populated areas.
How is Copenhagen pronounced?
A) "kopen-hey-gen"
B) "kopen-hah-gen"
It's A in English, B in other languages.
-Dane
@@ParadoxNinja
Polish: Kopenhaga "kopen-hah-gah"
@@ParadoxNinja
Finnish: Kööpenhamina
København
Coe-pen-hey-gen. Copenhagen is a purely English name for the city, so trying to pronounce it in a Danish way makes no sense. It's either Coe-pen-hey-gen or København. Unless you are German of course. Then it's Kopen-hah-gen. :-)
Seaborn Swedes invading Denmark. Bit on the nose
Great job on this video.
Great! Now I urgently need to learn more about this!
4:30 the swedish name is not "rädda Norway" but "rädda Norge"
Why isn't this the topic of a Mark Felton video?
Agreed
Whoa whoa whoa. Tigerstar is a Rush fan?!?!?! I like him even more now
Literally just watched Mark Felton’s video on operation Bodenplatte. He suggested there that had the operation not been gone through with, Germany would’ve likely been able to halt the Allied bomber raids for a bit. Were those pilots, planes and fuel not lost, perhaps the war would’ve lasted a few more weeks or a month, and then we would’ve seen these Swedish invasions come to fruition. It would be a killer alt hist campaign in a few games I can think of!
Wow, thank you for making this video! I'm Swedish and have been interested in history all my life and I've never heard of these plans!
This plans sound doable. You could basically swim across the strait to Denmark. The Allies would definitely send naval support towards Denmark and the Finns and Soviets may assist towards Norway - it would have bind more German than Allied forces. Maybe it would've opened up a third minor front towards Northern Germany with US/GB units, maybe even the Soviets would've joined in on it. Ending the war a little bit earlier.
The plan to go to Denmark was completely undoable. The Swedes had no ships to bring any force to Denmark. You can't swim several kilometres to Denmark with equipment, armour, etc.
@@gustav331 It is 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide at its narrowest point between Helsingør in Denmark and Helsingborg in Sweden. There are rivers in Eastern Europe wider than this, fe the Volga with 65km or the Dnieper or Danube in the Balkans. All crossed multiple times under combat. The Brits crossed the channel in rubber boats multiple times to raid the Wehrmacht.
@@MrDainemudda What are you talking about? The Volga isn't 65 kilometres wide, lol. It is only 3 kilometres wide at its widest. At its narrowest it is merely 450 meters.
There is a difference between a commando raid and an invasion. A commando raid only involves a few hundred men, and you don't have to factor in maintaining supplies. A commando raid also only faces a small garrison. There were 250.000 German soldiers in Denmark in 1945. Even with the support of the Danish underground army (more than 50.000 strong), and the cooperation of the 12.000 Hungarian troops in Denmark (whose commanding officers had made a pact with the Danish resistance), the Swedes still simply didn't have a force capable of landing on Sjælland and taking on those numbers.
As a Swedish historian on a history board once wrote about this absurd plan, which you for some reason take seriously:
"Operation Rädda Danmark was, unfortunately, the navy's pipe dream.
Sweden at this time had no landing ships at all. The crossing was supposed to be done in converted trawlers.
Lieutenant Colonel Karl Wärnberg, the army's planner for the operation, kept pestering the Chief of the Navy, Admiral Fabian Tamm with the question "How do we get ashore?" over and over and over and over again. The navy could never answer that - Sweden did not have the capacity to land against defended beaches, and the plans remained plans because of it.
Operation Rädda Norge, on the other hand, was a much more realistic thing."
Here's a photo of the type of boat that the Swedes would've used in this impossible operation: i.imgur.com/MmyBLgC.jpg
There was a lot of things the UK needed to do at the time. There was a few raids in Norway but no larger intervention. Britain is also juggling a lot of war fronts right then.
@@MrDainemudda You can take a ferry across the place. In modern times there's a bridge connection, but that did not exist at the time.
Denmark is small and flat and right next to Germany. The invasion of Denmark was extremely fast.
Other countries in WW2: maybe we should attack here, or there?
Greece: HOLD THE LINEEE
EmperorTigerstar with another banger video! Love your vids and I hope you hit 1,000,000 one day. ❤
Can you do Argentina history every year 🙏🏻?
How big was the Swedish airforce in 1945?
Around 600 planes of diffrent types and origin.
We had planes from Germany , Italy, USA, GB and Sweden.
That beeing said around half where modern effective types and the rest where from the era 1935-1941.
We had our own varient of the stuka. Yes sweden co developed that. But we also had tactical bombers and fighters of good standard.
@@jonastheswede6256 Will not call Saab 17 a Stuka, its a little bit more modern, and more in line with Douglas Dauntless.
@@kirgan1000 dident say it was a stuka, i said we had our own varient.
The wings was made very strong for the dive bombing roll. Somthing enginers from USA helped with.
@@kirgan1000 A dive bomber, which the Saab 17 was, is literally a Stuka, short for Sturzkampfflugzeug in German. The Germans referred to the Ju-88 twin bomber as _a_ Stuka as well.
3:22 I think you may have confused the name of the Norwegian Finnmark county in the north with the Lapland region in Finland.
He technically was correct Germans did briefly occupy Lapland Finland
While Lapland is a formal name for a province in Sweden and a region in Finland, it is also the name for that whole northern region of Fennoscandia, including Finnmark in Norway, since that is the traditional homeland of the Laplanders. In the modern day, Laplanders are also commonaly called Sami, and their traditional homeland called Sapmi (as Laplanders and Lapland are considered to be a bit more offensive when refering to them and their history).
@@fyeahusa Yes, but I think using Lapland when referring to the whole of the traditional territories of Sapmi is outdated and considered derogatory these days. The name Finnmark comes from the historic name for Norwegian Sapmi, or "Lapland", so when one refers to "Norwegian Lapland", one should use Finnmark for clarification, and so to not get it confused with the Finnish subdivision.
@@quasario It was the Finns who pushed the German troops out of Finland in Lapland War as part of the Moscow Armstice conditions.
Thanks for covering the race to Scandinavia, it’s one of those topics that aren’t covered much even by documentaries. It’s almost criminal how little there is about it, compared with how important it was
Very interesting! I think I’d like to see more like this :D
If Sweden came to full power, it might be a bit scary. It has engineering and technology that is rather good.
Well during the 2nd world war Sweden wasn't in the best of shape, mainly using older ww1 style rifles during most of the conflict, the military was small at the start, Sweden lacked modern armour and the Swedish airforce was had 250 modern planes at its hight during the war. The navy was in quite a good shape for the time so blocking the danish straights would've been crippling. but in the 50's and 60's Sweden rapidly expanded its armed forces to enforce its neutrality.
It just doesn't have the population tho
@@scottanos9981 neither did Finland, and it proved to be devastating for the Soviet Union
@@chrislouis7913 I think we can all agree though that Finland is an exception to the rule. They are an exceptional country!
@@chrislouis7913 Finland and the Winter War was not 'devastating' for the Soviet Union. The Soviets won, though they suffered many casualties at first.
Sweden did gave the British a early warning about the deployment of the Battleship Bismarck.
Yes, Sweden also intercepted and decoded German communications so they knew about operation Barbarossa before it happened.
The Soviet ambassador in Stockholm was informed about this, but for some reason the news never reached Stalin, or he chose not to believe it.
It left German port and also sailed through Danish straits that are so narrow, that the battleship would be clearly visible to the naked eye to anyone living near the coastlines. Nothing can leave the Baltic Sea without being spotted and tracked by Swedes or Danes including Russian submarines. :)
0:48 Map error. Rybachy Peninsula never fallen to axis/finish forces
TBH neutrality is only as good as the geopolitical importance you have or strength you have to back it up, example Switzerland vs Iceland, who was basically turned into an allied aircraft carrier. Esp for the axis since they ended up losing, it made little sense to me to respect any neutrality if it got in the way of objectives, if you lose, you're gonna get reamed anyway, and if you win, you write the history books, so really no downside to it, even for the allies as well. Seems to me to be more a relic of days gone by when wars were less world wide in scope & more honorable. If WW3 ever happens, I would doubt few countries could stay neutral.
Walking a fine line of Neutrality is always best for small countries to protect themselves.
Always? The Netherlands maintained a strict policy of neutrality before WW2, seeking to stay neutral as they had done in WW1. Too bad for them, the Germans weren't buying this time around.
@@peabase Also, Denmark and Norway had declared neutrality, much good it did them.
This is like being a veteran and having someone tell you how they ALMOST joined up but didn’t at the last second
Watch the video. Sweden didn't pile up on Germany to be able to say they were on the winning side. Rather it was to deny the Soviet union the opportunity to "liberate" Denmark and Norway something that Sweden regarded as a threat to it's own national security.
That cartoon of Hitler and Stalin makes them look like Thomson and Thompson aka Dupont et Dupond.
It's time for AlternateHistoryHub to make a video about the Swedish Empire returning at the end of World War II. 😜
Truly the moment of Swedish history. Thank you, EmperorTigerstar, for this masterpiece.
This implies that they were going it alone, without formally joining the Allied Powers, is that correct? That would certainly make the invasion of Norway much more difficult as Allied air and sea power would make for a huge force multiplier. Conversely, it might make the Danish invasion more difficult. After all, Sweden could, if going it alone, state that they were merely occupying the islands to prevent Soviet invasion and negotiate to return German personnel to Germany in exchange for Sweden occupying Bornholm and Zealand and not allowing an Allied presence on the islands, which would have been a major concern to the Germans. The returning troops would no doubt be a boost to the Wehrmacht, as by this time German occupation of Denmark and Norway was merely soaking up manpower and resources desperately needed in the defence of the Reich. However, if Sweden formally joined the Allies, then Germany would have no choice but to oppose the invasion of Denmark with all its, increasingly meagre, powers.
The operation to liberate Denmark was being set towards the end of the war to assist the Allies in liberating it before the Soviets could reach it, the video even explicitly states that the Swedes were hoping that the Western Allies would be able to move into mainland Denmark, which more implies working with the Western Allies rather than going it alone. And the video also states that the plane to liberate Norway was based on plans developed in the case of Germany declaring war on Sweden, which would also drive them into the Allies, as there is no reasoning of 'proactive operation to prevent Soviet encroachment and not allowing an Allied presence' when the Germans act first. Plus the video mentions the hope about the German supply lines being weaker, which implies Western Allied involvment in constricting German supply to Norway (as it would be Western Allied air and sea power that would hamper their supply lines over the North Sea), and, given that this final liberation plan was developed alongisde the one to liberate Denmark, which was reliant on working with the Western Allies in order to make sure all of Denmark was liberated seems to indicate that their intention was to work with the Western Allies in Norway as well. So, there really is no implication indicated by this video that Sweden intended to go it alone, rather it is pretty much shown that they intended to align with the Western Allies.
There is a bond that is not so much mentioned in these fora, Nazi-Germany pivoted Norway as the cradle of the Arian culture. It was considered the source of the Germanic theology with the Nordic gods and the Sagas. The strategic and military reasons to keep Norway well defended was more political and ideological, at least in the latter part of WWII.
Gotta love the Rush reference.
Sweden made enough plans but had no intention of helping Norway with an invasion.
Norway was afraid that the Germans in Norway would use the scorched earth tactic and execute anti-Nazis and prisoners in the last days of the war as they had burned down Finnmark when they withdrew. Norway then asked Sweden to protest the Germans as well as to mobilize to put power behind the protest, first on 1 February 1945 and later they repeated the request, the last time as late as April. Every time Sweden refused the Norwegian pleas for help.
It should also be said that Churchill, on April 24th, 1945, said the following in a telegram, which admittedly was never sent:
"I don't understand what the Swedes have to do in Norway... if they don't come to a sister nation, for which they have done absolutely nothing, for an apology. Why should the Swedish forces help clean up Norway when the Germans are gone. It would have been better if the Allies cleaned up Sweden".
Sweden refused
We all know Germany surrendered because it was scared of Sweden!
The plans for these operations were kept secret until 1995. I remember reading about in the military periodicals at the time. If I remember correctly, the reason for the secrecy was that Sweden could not legally attack other countries, so planning it might be considered illegal (unconstitutional). But I'm not sure about the last part.
Swedens "constitution" (called Base Laws in Sweden) only has 4 parts. The order of succession, The form of government, Freedom of print (basically freedom of speech but for written form), and Freedom of expression (Freedom of speech). None of these handle military matters.
@@rasmus6705 I would say grundlagarna would be more appropriately translated to "foundation/foundational laws", as in statens grund/grundpelare kinda. Just a little thing, not complaining though, also yes, there are no military matters in grundlagarna, they are handled in rikets lag, where most of the Swedish laws exist.
I don't really wanna be that guy, but surely if "Rädda Danmark" then also "Rädda Norge" as opposed to the Swedish-English hybrid of "Rädda Norway"?
A small correction: German forces on Bornholm, led by Gerhart Von Kamptz, refused to surrender to the Soviets. One of the main reasons for this were, that the Island was a logistical hub for transporting/evacuating German soldiers and civilians from the eastern provinces.
if someone is interested in Sweden's connections before and during WW2 with Germany is strongly recommend "This is a Swedish Tiger" by Aron Flam and spesificly the 2nd and 3rd part about the ruling party and Swedish culture leding up to the war and Swedens Neutrality during WW2!
That book is rather shoddy and tendentious history writing. Flam attacks the then government from the right with about the same arguments as Maria-Pia Boëthius did from the left 30 years earlier.
Fun fact: Since the Soviets had "liberated" half of Finnmark they were occupying Norway's land. After the war ended they didn't immediately leave, and the Norwegian government had to bend over backwards and give a whole bunch of concessions to Svalbard for the Soviets to finally leave Finnmark, which is why there's such a Russian presence on Svalbard today.
Since the Soviet Union collapsed, Norway is under no obligation to continue allowing Russia to have a presence in Svalbard. Heck, I'd even argue when NATO was created they didn't have an obligation, since the Soviets would've been in no position to invade a NATO member.
@@tylerbozinovski427 wrong, look up the terms of the Svalbard treaty
@@CoWinkKeyDinkInc Yeah you're right, Russia did re-affirm the treaty shortly after the USSR's collapse, but the very fact that they did means they acknowledge they aren't the same state, so they've had to assert themselves as the legal successor. Even still, Norway could just reject them, and Russia is in far less of a position to enforce its claim than it was previously. I suppose my main point was that there generally aren't any consequences if a treaty isn't enforced by a particular party, which is also why Russia itself (among others) has gotten away with breaking so many treaties.
Incorrect. Russia is allowed to have some activity as do many other countries because of the Svalbard treaty from 1925. The Soviets invited the Norwegian foreign minister Trygve Lie in the exile government to Moscow during the war and asked for shared jurisdiction. This was declined.
It was Sweden that pushed for all countries that signed the Svalbard Treaty to have the same right to do business on Svalbard, not the Soviet Union. Sweden had a coal mine on Svalbard, Svea grua, and did not want to lose control over it.
If by Lapland he meant area in Finland, russians didn't chase nazis away. Finnish soldiers did that.
Same reason for Turkish neutrality. It actually made a mutual assistance pact with France and Britain, due to the threat of Fascist Italy, but also signed a friendship treaty with Nazi Germany, due to Soviet Aggression. It only declared war to the Axis because of the fear of being sidelined by the international community after the war, thus again an imminent Soviet Invasion.
It turns out Sweden too was strictly neutral and tried its hardest to prevent soldiers from knocking their door.
Fun Fact: The Norway-Sweden wintersport rivalry became what it is today becuse of Swedens lack of involvement.
Now our only goal in competitions is to crush Sweden in every wintersport there is(witch we do) and rubbing it in there face
There are more winter sports than cross country skiing
@@Pottan23 Do a quick search for 'All-Time Total Medal Tally Winter Olympics'.
And when you see the list, keep in mind our country has a pop of 5 mil
@@Pottan23 Icehockey is not a wintersport, it is practiced all year. But you do have som famous wintersporters in Sweden, Jan Boklöv is my favorite.
@@sallhame Bandy is a winter sport and I have never even seen Norway play that.
@@thor.halsli You know we can see that cross country skiing account for more than half of your total medals right?
2:45 "liberator" LOL
Would've been a based Swedish blitz.
WW2 with its many proposals is a gold mine for witers of alternate history
On the topic of abandoned military plans that would've been interesting you should look into Operation: Schlussstein (Keystone) in the First World War, a German planned operation to collaborate with the Soviets to kick the Allies out of Murmansk
Soviets arent liberators lmao
They liberated most of the concentration camps, the communist popular front was the only real force against fascism’s rise in Europe and in many countries that had fascist leaders (hungry, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.) the communist party aligned with the peasant small holders, were actually very prestigious and organized after the war. Also considering how well the Red Army did in defeating Nazi Germany and their ally’s; the red army defeated 80% of the Wehrmacht on the eastern front. So, yes many did see them as liberators and knew that the Soviet Union had paid the ultimate sacrifice of 22 million dead in saving Europe. Also, the Warsaw pact of Eastern Europe was created quite a bit after NATO, as a response to Western Europe aggression. Many in Europe and the United States, still saw “Uncle Joe” and the Soviets as the saviors of Europe from tyranny.
@@jcrass2361 Yeah? Ask the guys from hungary, slovaka, croatia, Romania, or even poland how big these liberators were and what they did to the local population. I talked with many old people who lived back then, non critisized the germans when they occupied their town, but all hated the soviets. For the jews, maybe they are liberators.
@@jcrass2361 The Warsaw pact was a sham for what was the Soviet Empire who forced communism on half of Europe. Also the Red Army did really poor against the Germans, they inflicted more casualties to the enemy. Soviet Union had cocentration camps as well which you have forgotten
Good but you missed the whole part with the support for Finland. 8000 “volunteers” as well as huge shipment of supplies, including 1/3 - 1/5 of its fighter jets.
Finland defeated by UK+Soviets?
No, that's wrong.
Outright wrong!
"Truly' neutral ment following the relevant Geneva Convention.
You also forget how Sweden, according to the established rules on neutrality, traded e.g. ball bearings to everyone who was prepared to pay. That included the UK and the US.
It is so weird to call the Soviets' liberators considering what they did to Eastern Europe.
Communist Probaganda
"the soviet union had been the prime liberator of eastern europe" *cough cough*
if you would like an idea of how USSR liberation rolls
take a look at what Russia is doing now in Ukraine: *standard operating procedure*
Eastern Euorope wasn't liberated. It traded horrific dictatorship for more efficient horrific dictatorship.
traded horrific dictatorship for lesser horrific dictatorship tbh
@@prakrit7647 Perpetual virtual slavery being better than getting tossed into an extermination camp is debatable and only would be, simply because it was _possible_ someone might liberate you or, you know, your overlord can't manage an economy and collapses.
no one wants d the communists outside of Yugoslavia. Most Eastern European partisan groups were usually a mixture of the left and right like in Western Europe. However what happened is that communist governments were prepared by the Soviets who then falsified votes such as in Romania, where the communist coalition only won about 45% of the vote in reality. The most egregious were Poland and Hungary as not only did Poland have a government in exile that the Home Army was loyal to, they were successful and expected the Red Army to help them retake their country and actively helped the Red Army against the Nazis despite the Soviets actively hampering the Home Army during their “truce” which was really one sided. The Red Army did not honor their deal with the Home Army and instead let the Nazis slaughter the Home Army and demanded that it disband and it put the puppet communist government in control. The NKVD would continue killing suspected Home Army soldiers well into the 50s. The 1947 election was then rigged in order to establish a one-party communist puppet state. Hungary had an election in 1945 while the red army still occupied the country. The Communists only won 17% of the vote meanwhile the right-wing Independent Smallholders, Agrarian Workers and Civic Party won 57% of the vote. The Red Army’s response was to coup the Hungarian government and the Second Hungarian Republic was killed before it even began.
Seeing how the Bolsheviks gained power by couping the social democratic elected government of the Russian republic because the Bolsheviks lost the elections its easy to see that the Soviets would never accept a non-communist government that was elected via an election.
@@tremedar well in the case of Lithuania, the guerilla war got even worse and the Soviets started putting civilians into Siberian death camps after losing battles
@@compatriot852 Lithuanians? do you mean little Hitlers wannabe?
Where is Switzerland in neutrality sand?
Wasnt the Operation called "Rädda Norge" rather than "Rädda Norway"? Seems weird to mix the languages.
Rädda is not pronounced like that.
And? He's not Swedish and why does it matter?
@@kristofferhellstrom It's lazy to believe Ä is pronounced exactly like A. I kind of expect better research.
@@freja9398 Aaaah ok så RUclipsrs making videos about Sweden should learn about ÅÄÖ and how to pronounce them before publishing their videos? :P
calling russia a liberator is a bit unfortunate as all they did was taking german place.
Soviet fans aren't ready for that discussion.😂
@@seanbrummfield448 If soviets took german place eastern europe would be replaced with russians....
That map of Baltic ice is backwards it has northern regions as mild and southern as severe
No mention of the Anglo-French force that was going to help the Finns by marching across central Norway and Sweden in 1940. This was Plan R4, but the Germans possibly wary of Allied proposals and the need to keep Sweden out of Allied hands invade Norway first.
This plan was rejected firmly by both the Norwegian government and the Swedish. It was an easily detected covert plan to occupy the iron ore mines of Swedish Lapland. The mines got some reinforcements in defense and also got mined in case of an invasion. When the germans destroyed the iron ore harbour of Narvik, early in 1940 (April-May) the export dropped to below 11 per cent annually.
USSR has never been a liberator.
Sweden helped the Germans so idk why they would 😊
We also helped the allias as the guverment favord them after they invaded our neighbor Denmark and Norway.
More swedes joined the allias fighting for them then german volenters.
We also gave alot of inteligence to alliad command for exampel that Bismsmark had left port for the Atlantic.
The german help was neccecery to stay out of the war untill we where preperd to counter any invasion.
Hva med at dere lot tyskerne bruke SJ jernvegar til å angripe Norge.
I know the vids about Sweden but the Swiss sent a volunteer corps to Operation Barbarossa to aid the Germans in WW2, which is cool.
The Swiss only sent medical staff.
These plans would be difficult to follow through since Sweden had already invested a lot in the defense of Finland. Sweden was the only country in northern Europe to not declare itself as neutral but as a "non-belligerent" because of its will to help Finland in the winter war. They sent a whole years worth of Finlands economic budget, rifles to arm 1/3 of the Finish army, 40 million rounds in the first month, planes & pilots to make an airforce in the north of Finland (which didnt have one at the time). Supply trucks & drivers, 12000 volunteers who got sent to train in Finland to join their army. They even took in kids & put them in foster families, plus some women & old people. I can quote Mannerheim, the field marshall at the time: "Hadn't the help from Sweden existed, Finland would now have been republic Kuusinen" (Kuusinen was the leader for the Finish communistparty in the Soviet Union). This whole talk about Sweden being neutral for 200 years is bullshit. I've done a study on this & the rules of war clearly shows that Sweden broke neutrality by helping Finland the way it did. Sweden weren't what Norwegians and Danes try to make them out to be. In fact what they try to blame Sweden of, they are actually guilty of themselves.