Why didn't Hitler invade Sweden?
- Thread starter Godwynn
- Start date
Denmark and Norway were strategically far more important to hold. Denmark borders Germany and controls access to the Baltic. Controlling Norway was (and still is) important to establish a presence in the northern Atlantic. Sweden was not so immediately important and Germany did have other things to see to back then.
Taras Bulba
gone
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,442
Sweden was neutral, and stayed neutral during the war.
Not to mention Sweden consented that Nazi Germany could use their railways to transport troops, ammunition, artillery, etc...
Not to mention Sweden consented that Nazi Germany could use their railways to transport troops, ammunition, artillery, etc...
~Corsair#01~
Deity
Sweden's iron ore was critical to the German war effort. Norway was attacked primarily to secure this supply. With the supply secure, why invade Sweden? It would endanger Germany's supply in the short term, add many more partisans to those already operating in Norway, damage Hitler's domestic and international standing and offend the strategically important Finns.
Also, finding the time for such an invasion would be difficult, since right after Norway he invaded France. He needed most of his troops out of Scandanavia by then.
Also, finding the time for such an invasion would be difficult, since right after Norway he invaded France. He needed most of his troops out of Scandanavia by then.
Verbose
Deity
Denmark was close, and an easy target, allowing control of the mouth of the Baltic.
Norway would 1) make a good staging area for British military activity against Germany, should they choose to, providing a reason for the German preemptive attack and 2) the winter time trade of Swedish iron ore passed through the Norwegian port of Narvik. Sweden was willing to sell Germany iron ore for coal (which Sweden totally lacks, but was essential for keeping Swedish armaments industries running), but to ensure a steady supply all year around, Germany would have to control Norway.
Sweden was 1) not immediately strategically important, 2) with Norway and Denmark controlled by Germany it would be completely hemmed in anyway, insulated from any allied influence, and 3) under the circumstances Sweden was 100% dependant on trade with Germany to keep its own industries running. For Sweden the key to eventually being able to tell the Germans to go suck an egg was a large scale rearmament program, but to accomplish that Sweden had to buy the resources it lacked from Germany.
As to exactly what concessions Sweden felt compelled to make towards Germany, at what time and why, that's a bit of a long story.
Edit:
This is of course true for the early part of the war, when Germany might have been able to put together the necessary resources to successfully invade Sweden. From about early 1943 Germany no longer had the option, partly through Swedish efforts to arm itself, but mostly just due to the war turning against Germany. In any case, from 1943 onwards, Sweden was a lot less tractable to German demands. It became very, very friendly with the Allies though, short of actually joining the war.
Norway would 1) make a good staging area for British military activity against Germany, should they choose to, providing a reason for the German preemptive attack and 2) the winter time trade of Swedish iron ore passed through the Norwegian port of Narvik. Sweden was willing to sell Germany iron ore for coal (which Sweden totally lacks, but was essential for keeping Swedish armaments industries running), but to ensure a steady supply all year around, Germany would have to control Norway.
Sweden was 1) not immediately strategically important, 2) with Norway and Denmark controlled by Germany it would be completely hemmed in anyway, insulated from any allied influence, and 3) under the circumstances Sweden was 100% dependant on trade with Germany to keep its own industries running. For Sweden the key to eventually being able to tell the Germans to go suck an egg was a large scale rearmament program, but to accomplish that Sweden had to buy the resources it lacked from Germany.
As to exactly what concessions Sweden felt compelled to make towards Germany, at what time and why, that's a bit of a long story.
Edit:
This is of course true for the early part of the war, when Germany might have been able to put together the necessary resources to successfully invade Sweden. From about early 1943 Germany no longer had the option, partly through Swedish efforts to arm itself, but mostly just due to the war turning against Germany. In any case, from 1943 onwards, Sweden was a lot less tractable to German demands. It became very, very friendly with the Allies though, short of actually joining the war.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
I have returned. I am way better than MacArthur.
As others have stated, Denmark and Norway were of strategic importance, while Sweden wasn't. The Swedes also made many concessions to the Nazis, were more capable of putting up a fight than either Denmark or Nroway (not that it would have stopped Germany occupying them, but it would have slowed them down) and would have little choice but to become a satellite in the event of a German victory anyway. Not to mention it would have annoyed Finland, and frightened Russia.
As others have stated, Denmark and Norway were of strategic importance, while Sweden wasn't. The Swedes also made many concessions to the Nazis, were more capable of putting up a fight than either Denmark or Nroway (not that it would have stopped Germany occupying them, but it would have slowed them down) and would have little choice but to become a satellite in the event of a German victory anyway. Not to mention it would have annoyed Finland, and frightened Russia.
The real question is, why didn't we take Sweden as a place to base bombers out of.Verbose
Deity
About the Swedish concessions:
Sweden was not left out of invasion, unlike Norway or Denmark, because it was making concessions to Germany already in 1940, should anyone get that impression. Those came when Norway and Denmark were squarely in the German bag, and Sweden was out of options.
As for Swedish neutrality favouring Germany, that was true as long as Sweden had little choice in the matter. As soon as it did, its neutrality started favouring the Allies. With the notable exception of the Soviet Union. There's nothing noble about any of it, but it tends to make sense.
If you want to understand Swedish WWII, and post-war, political concerns, it was likely to favour Germany, as long as Germany looked like the best bet to contain the Soviets. As soon as Germany no longer looked like up to the job, Sweden instantly reinvented itself as US/UK oriented, always with a view to what the Soviets were up to.
Sweden was not left out of invasion, unlike Norway or Denmark, because it was making concessions to Germany already in 1940, should anyone get that impression. Those came when Norway and Denmark were squarely in the German bag, and Sweden was out of options.
As for Swedish neutrality favouring Germany, that was true as long as Sweden had little choice in the matter. As soon as it did, its neutrality started favouring the Allies. With the notable exception of the Soviet Union. There's nothing noble about any of it, but it tends to make sense.
If you want to understand Swedish WWII, and post-war, political concerns, it was likely to favour Germany, as long as Germany looked like the best bet to contain the Soviets. As soon as Germany no longer looked like up to the job, Sweden instantly reinvented itself as US/UK oriented, always with a view to what the Soviets were up to.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
They didn't need to, Sweden was pretty much already on their side. Britain sort of forced Germany's hand by putting troops in Norway, so Germany was forced to quickly acknowledge this and invade there FIRST, where they might have done Sweden instead, which would have arguably been easier to invade. Had they gone after Sweden first, the British could have landed many more troops in Norway and used it as a springboard with which to fight a more protracted war in Sweden and the mountains between it and Norway. Once the Germans controlled Norway, and by that point they already controlled Denmark, too, they controlled all shipping entering or exiting the Baltic Sea. The only way Sweden could have remained untouched by Nazi Germany would be to completely kiss its ass, which it did by cooperating with this, and only trying to sell its products to Germany, including valuable iron ore (it helped that the Nazis already controlled some of the Norwegian ports to which some of the Northern Swedish ore was exported from, namely, Narvik).
Verbose
Deity
No it wasn't.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
In the same way that the US was on Britain's side before December 1941, they cooperated willingly with Germany. I never said they were Nazis.
Verbose
Deity
Yes, well, clearly the UK intimidated the US to support them then.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
That's why we threw their tea in the bloody harbor.
alcal
surfin'
Germans didn't need to invade Sweden. They already controlled Baltic region.
CruelDwarf
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 71
Sweden (also Spain and Switzerland) was one of the channels to German foreign trade during the war. So neutral Sweden was far more valuable to the Reich then conquered Sweden.
Bast
Protector of Cats
Sweden.. what a disgrace.
Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
alcal
surfin'
Good point. Germans needed Iron from Sweden, and They didn't want to deal with another resistence.
Verbose
Deity
As you may or may not know, the Swedish Foreign Secretary during WWII, Ernst Günther, was physically sick everytime Sweden made one of these concession towards Nazi Germany he and his government felt compelled to make, the operative word here being "compelled". Judging from his war diaries, at the time he felt tarnished to the core of his soul by what he also clearly felt to be the lesser of two evils.
You are of course entitled to whatever opinion you mayhold on the matter of Swedish conciliatory politics towards Nazi Germany in WWII.
But, since I assume you're not simply trolling here, it would be interesting if you might expand a bit on your reasons for regarding it as simply a "disgrace"? It's an attitude which implies the existence of a better, more honourable alternative.
Which, juggling the nothing but horsehockey alternatives, would be?
I've on and off spent some time looking at the Swedish WWII predicament. I'm obviously kind of partisan, and while I see nothing particularly commendable about, I'm also wondering why you would consider it worthy of particular approbation? (Seeing how you regard Sweden, I'd hate to be Romanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Slovak, Croat, from the Baltic states or a Finn in this matter.)
I'm in fact kind of siding with Churchill on the matter of Swedish conciliation towards Germany in 1940, something the British Prime Minister looking at the fate of Denmark and Norway summed up with:
"The last thing we want is another casualty."
carmen510
Deity
Because they knew Paradox Interactive would be founded there, and then their German descendants couldn't play Hearts of Iron 2 so the Nazis could actually dominate the world.
Similar threads
