Why didn't either side invade the neutral european countries?

Stylesjl

SOS Brigade Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,698
Location
Australia
During WWII? Why was Switzerland, Sweeden, Spain and the Vatican left alone?

I suppose the Vatican was simply so small that nobody bothered to take them over, but were the other countries avoided simply because they were too much trouble? Or that they would be able to successfully resist an invasion?
 
During WWII? Why was Switzerland, Sweeden, Spain and the Vatican left alone?

I suppose the Vatican was simply so small that nobody bothered to take them over, but were the other countries avoided simply because they were too much trouble? Or that they would be able to successfully resist an invasion?

Switzerland has long maintained its nutrality by being a tough nut to crack for little reward. Kept lines of communication, the red cross and independent banking functioning. Not to mention being a bunch of guys sitting in the mountains who are all armed to the teeth. Also Swiss nutrality went as fr as playing ball with whoever was de facto in charge around them.

Ive never really understood why Norway and Finland got it in the neck but not Sweeden. Sure it was nuteral and didnt have resorces or strategic access the Soviets or the Nazi's needed. I guess the Soviets were mauled by little Finland and didnt fancy more of the same, while the Nazi's were hving problems holding down Norway and didnt fancy more of the same. As far as I understand it both sides had got what they needed form Scandinavia and found it rather a rough gig.

Spain is interesting. I still dont understand why Franco didnt let the Axis through to attack Gibraltar from the land. To some extent Spain was sill a mess from the Spanish Civil War and so not as usful an ally as it would generally be. Spain did issue a list of what it required to overtly join the the Axis, but these were abserd. It is alledged that Churchill bribed Franco, but I have no idea if that is more than a conspiricy theory.
 
On the Vatican: the idea that any Italian government, even a fascist one, would allow the Pope to be arrested and the Vatican invaded is absurd. Hitler suggested it and Mussolini wasn't thrilled by the idea, he probably would have had rioting in the streets, at the very least. If not a civil war - there were a lot of Catholics in Italy alone, not to mention in Germany and Austria. (Even Hitler was supposedly Catholic) It would have generally been an all around bad move for virtually no gain. Why start a whole bunch of trouble over something that is of no military value? If the Pope had started speaking out against the Holocaust more publicly, then maybe....but even then, somehow I doubt it.

As said above, Switzerland really wasn't worth invading. They were very well armed, especially with sniper rifles, so Hitler would have lost a lot of men, especially officers, in attacking the Swiss. Besides, they were useful for storing "confiscated" money, and keeping lines of communication open. Again, why would they bother starting a whole bunch of trouble over something that had very little military value?

Spain wasn't invaded by the Allies because it didn't join the Axis. The Axis had enough on their hands without invading a friendly nation, so that's why Spain was left alone.

I don't know a whole lot about why Sweden was left alone, but I'd hazard a guess that it had something to do with the trouble Germany was having with the other Nordic nations, and Hitler's desire to move on to fighting Russia. But those more knowledgeable in this area could surely add to this.
 
But those more knowledgeable in this area could surely add to this.
That's not me but if I were to guess...

It was essential for Germany to take England out of the war, either by invasion or by forcing them into a peace treaty. By taking The Netherlands and France, Hitler could threaten the southern half of the U.K. Invading Norway gave him the ability to attack from the northeast. Sweden and Spain were of little use in that regard.

And Switzerland was a safe place for the Nazis to keep their money, they had more to lose than they had to gain. And since it was isolated it posed little threat.
 
First, neutral countries such as Belgium were invaded. Neutrality in itself was not enough to protect a country.

Sweden was not invaded, as they supplied Germany with iron through trade, so the Axis had no reason to take it.

Spain was recovering from the civil war, and not really in a good shape to intervain. And I think the Germans tried to have them on their side as they helped Franco during the war, but he kept buying time.
 
Sweden was not invaded, as they supplied Germany with iron through trade, so the Axis had no reason to take it.
Denmark was next door militarily weak and with a terrain very hard to defend. It's flat, not relatively but absolutely. The water between the islands could be a problem unless you dominated the sea, which Germany did, and there are no real distances so German airsuperiority was a given. Taking it would help feed Germany, as Denmark is called a "butter hole" by the Danes, and the Germans in WWII called it "the butter front", and a very popular posting it was for Wehrmacht people.

Norway needed to be taken to 1.) make sure the supply of Swedish iron ore was kept up during the winter months when the Swedish ports in the Baltic froze up, and 2.) because even the possibility that the UK and France would move in on it would leave Germany in a strategically worse position.

Sweden happens to have the size and population of Denmark and Norway combined, and by taking those two you would not have to fight Sweden as well.

Sweden, like Switzerland, recieved the treatment of neutral countries, with a long range of demands about all an sundry to try to influence it without having to resort to force. With Denmark and Norway taken Sweden was effectively bottled up within the German sphere or interest, and you could rely of Sweden being traditionally German friendly. The overrding Swedish foreign policy concern was the Soviet Union and Bolshevism anyway.

As long as Sweden was willing to trade iron ore for peace, there was no reason to invade, and as long as Denmark and Norway were safely in the German pocket the risk was nil that Sweden would somehow become the staging ground for military operations against Germany.

Sweden joining the Allies with German armies in Norway and Denmark would have been suicidal. Churchill admitted as much with his comment re. the Swedish pliability to German wishes and demands:
"The last thing we want in another casualty."
 
Also not only the Axis invaded neutral nations, the Allies did so in Iran and tried to do so in Norway. Hitler was only a few days faster.

Adler

There you go with the 'what ifs' again, Adler :mischief:

The bottom line is Germany only took over nations who resisted facsim and di not comply. The countries you mentioned were not exeptions, as there were other nations were not directly under Germanys control, initially Slovakia, but also Hungary who were quite happy to send an army too Russia.
When Slovakia rebelled against facism in 1944 the Germans took over the country directly.

Both Sweden and Switzerland were useful satelites who were as 'protected' as any not in conflict with the Axis powers. Sweden supplied Iron and weapons to Germany and switzerland provided banking services. As long as these nations were ucompliant there was no recourse to direct control. Russia was also a 'neutral' country, but under the terms of the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact Russia supplied Germany with essential war supplies (e.g. rubber) without which the war in the west would not have been possible. WW2 had different start and end points for the combatants.

Hitler took a trip to Spain and tried to convince Franco to come one board. Franco did not and Hitler famously stated that "he would rather have a tooth drawn than go through that again". I suspect Francos reasons were a) if he joined the war with the Axis the Popular Front would resurge b) the allies would invade toppling him. However, Spain sent a division to the Eastern Front and gave considerable asistance to the Axis. Only neutral on paper I supose.
 
I realize everything I say here has probably already been stated, but:


Switzerland was just not worth it. Too hard, and too little reward. Why invade a bunch of highly trained troops in the mountains for nothing?

Sweden wasn't gonna cause trouble for Germany, and Hitler needed the troops elsewhere.

As always, the Vatican had far too much influence to be messed with.
 
Sweden was not invaded, as they supplied Germany with iron through trade, so the Axis had no reason to take it.


In addition to reasons Steph and Verbose offered, the Swedes belonged to the Nordic race. Another is that the Germans were allowed to transport their troops through Sweden when ever they wanted it.

So Hitler had no ideological/political/strategical/economical reasons to invade Sweden.
 
TBoth Sweden and Switzerland were useful satelites who were as 'protected' as any not in conflict with the Axis powers. Sweden supplied Iron and weapons to Germany
Nope, not weapons.

And no ore after 1942 either.

Sweden was a friendly neutral country out of fear of attack up to the point where Germany no longer was a threat, which happened in 1942.

From then on Sweden was a neutral country friendly to the Allies.

Dunno where you get "sattelite" from.
 
Nope, not weapons.

And no ore after 1942 either.

Sweden was a friendly neutral country out of fear of attack up to the point where Germany no longer was a threat, which happened in 1942.

From then on Sweden was a neutral country friendly to the Allies.

Dunno where you get "sattelite" from.

Smile and wave until the threat has walked on by and only then start calling him names uh? ;)

Don't take this as mudslinging as the leaders of a country should always protect their people and the Swedish leaders did this but I've always wondered if we, the Dutch, just had let the Germans have their way and pass through our country. Would we be forever reminded as collaborateurs? At least my city wouldn't have been bombed back to the stone age.
 
Smile and wave until the threat has walked on by and only then start calling him names uh? ;)

Don't take this as mudslinging as the leaders of a country should always protect their people and the Swedish leaders did this but I've always wondered if we, the Dutch, just had let the Germans have their way and pass through our country. Would we be forever reminded as collaborateurs? At least my city wouldn't have been bombed back to the stone age.
No offense taken. Though I think the name-calling starts when you've yourself found a big enough stick.

The Swedish problem was rather that they were never faced with an outright demand for submission, just incessant requests for a little bit of this and a little bit of that and the problem of vexing the great neighbour to the south, north, east and west if they didn't comply.

I would have been easier for them is all had been laid on the line. As it were they could hardly declare in favour of Nazi Germany, since Sweden was deeply democratic, and there was never a clear threat in front of which they might have justified folding.

You can't really make a grand gesture of throwing national independance away for the principle of the thing over something like a German request to be allowed transit of their ships through Swedish national water under Swedish escort, to give an example of the kind of concessions made.

Or rather I suppose you could, but the Swedish leaders during the war considered the effects worse than keeping their heads down, making the concessions they though necessary, and hoping for better days.

The iron ore exported after all bought German coal to keep the Swedish armaments industries going. If you cut the ore asap, you risk a German attack to ensure the supply, and you rid yourself of the industry that in time might give Sweden the kind of teeth necessary to tell the Germans to take a hike with some confidence you wouldn't get instantly creamed.

It's like Ernst Günther, the Swedish Foreign Sec. (Soc. Dem.) had it; every day he was nauseated by the concession made towards Nazi Germany, but the possible prize for not doing it was so high he felt he had little choice. The biggest problem was never knowing what German demands were necessary to comply with, and when you could refuse. There was never a good answer to that, so they incessantly worried about either having gone to far and provoked Germany, or having caved too easily.
 
Churchill said the right thing than. You could say Germany had won a diplomatic victory over Sweden, having them totally outmanoeuvred and where they wanted them and most importantly - getting what they wanted from Sweden while keeping things civil.

Thanks, learned something new today.
 
Spain was recovering from the civil war, and not really in a good shape to intervain. And I think the Germans tried to have them on their side as they helped Franco during the war, but he kept buying time.


IIRC I think Spain DID at least send a division or two to Russia, I believe it was called the "blue" division. Correct me if I'm wrong
 
I think it was a tatical error on Hitlers part not to get Spain actively involved. If he'd have promised a North African empire to Franco then Spain would have actively sided with the Axis, but he didn't and look what happened in North Africa...

I think the Axis really could have done with those Spanish troops and ships fighting on their side in North Africa, it would have certainally made Operation: Torch alot harder for the allies and changed the whole scope as far as the invasion or Italy and so forth is concerened!

Howver it's a bit more complicated than that, what with Spain demanding quite alot and not enacting the anti-semantic laws that the Nazi's desired. Reaplistically, whilst Hitler (with hindsight) really could have done with Spain fighting on the Axis cause, it wasn't to be.

As for Sweeden, Germany needed their trade and Sweeden needed to stay out of the conflict, what with German troops needed in Norway, defend the Atlantic wall, fight in North Africa/Yugolslavia/Greece and of course on the Russian front the Germans were rather overstretched!

The Nazi's drew up invasion plans of Switzerland but they were (from tatical perspective) wisely not followed through. There are of course financial reasons why the Axis never invaded as well...
 
Back
Top Bottom