If Sweden joined the WWII

[Victor1234]

Interesting. I have so far only found charcoal producers in Sweden in the 40’s but will continue looking.

Åmark, “Kristidspolitik och kristidshushållning i Sverige,” p.698

is his citation for the Swedish coal production.

It's worth considering that he says the output declined already after the war and that by 1949, Sweden was already consuming 20% of it's energy in the form of petroleum/oil, from near 0% in 1937, so it seems the Swedes were early adapters in switching from a coal to oil based energy economy, which might explain why coal didn't stick around for as long as for other Europeans, as well as them not producing much in the first place.

 

[Geriander]

Åmark, “Kristidspolitik och kristidshushållning i Sverige,” p.698

is his citation for the Swedish coal production.

It's worth considering that he says the output declined already after the war and that by 1949, Sweden was already consuming 20% of it's energy in the form of petroleum/oil, from near 0% in 1937, so it seems the Swedes were early adapters in switching from a coal to oil based energy economy, which might explain why coal didn't stick around for as long as for other Europeans, as well as them not producing much in the first place.

We also don’t have much potential for coal production. SGU (Swedish Geologixal Surveys) don’t list any deposits. @Gerle seems to have found the answer in Höganäs.

 

[Gerle]

@Gerle seems to have found the answer in Höganäs.

I should know, I was born down the road, E6.

 

[Geriander]

I should know, I was born down the road, E6.

As a part of subjugated Danish Lands (Skåne) it is correctly ignored by Swedish authorities.

 

[Gerle]

As a part of subjugated Danish Lands (Skåne) it is correctly ignored by Swedish authorities.

There's a reason there's competition for it, it is the best part.

 

[Vapiritapiri]

Why didn't Sweden execute operation Rädda Norge?

 

[Gerle]

Why didn't Sweden execute operation Rädda Norge?

What positive developments was it perceived to be able to bring about at the time? How does that perception compare to how everything ended up working out?

 

[Red_warning]

I also went back to see if Mitcham was pulling my leg. I'll ignore that claim that I changed my argument (I never said before that Sweden produced coal anywhere, only that he says they supplied it to late-war Germany until early 1945) and will just say I found that from early onwards, Sweden had an understanding with everyone, that they were exempt from both the German and British economic blockades. This enabled Swedish access to the world markets, allowing for amongst other things, petroleum and tobacco imports from the US and beef from Argentina. See Anglo-Swedish War Trade Agreement, signed Dec 28, 1939. A similar agreement was signed with Germany on Dec 26, 1939. Sweden eventually signed separate trading agreements with the USSR (Sept 7 1940 War Trade Agreement) and the US (Allied-Swedish Agreement/Tripartite Agreement, Sept 23 1943). The US for example (at British insistence), started shipping 25,000 tons of oil to Sweden every quarter, starting in Nov 1942.

The ball bearings supplied to the Allies that Red_warning mentioned for example, came up, not as a pro-Allied gesture, but as a cold-hard business deal, in exchange for resources from them (particularly fuel), and were also sold to the Germans. The Americans for example, generally considered the Swedes to be collaborating too much with the Germans, and a condition for their agreement to supply increased amounts of petroleum and rubber to Sweden from Sept 1943 onwards, they insisted that Sweden abrogate its agreements with Germany for the transit of German military materiel (exclusive of oil) and German soldiers across Sweden, further reduce iron ore exports, end Swedish naval escorting of German ships in the Baltic, and reduce ball-bearing exports to Germany.

Sure sounds like Sweden had other choices than just trading with Germany until the end of the war, huh? Generally it seems like the British turned a blind eye to their dealings with the Germans/recognized it as pragmatic, and the US were very angry. For example, the Sept 1943 agreement said that Sweden must reduce ball-bearings exports to Germany. The pro-Allied Swedes complied, and kept selling 30,000 tons of ball-bearing grade steel (technically not ball-bearings!) to Germany, largely offsetting the loss in finished ball-bearing exports. Sweden (specifically SKF) was supplying 70% of Germany's ball-bearing imports until April 1944 just as the Americans were trying to bomb out German production.

Sweden signed it's last trade agreement with Germany on January 10, 1944, and kept trading until the Allies piled on more pressure and threatened to embargo Sweden, after which Sweden signed a commitment on Dec 13, 1944 with the Allies, to end all trade with Germany ASAP.

As I said, the Americans were very pissed at the Swedes. Even the Wallenberg family (of Raoul Wallenberg fame) were seen as collaborating:



As for coal, Germany supplied close to 100% of Swedish coal imports until mid-1944, when German losses of territory meant they kept production for themselves, after which Sweden traded it to Germany until early 1945 when under the terms of the commitment mentioned above, they stopped all trade. Guess it was either made up by imports from the Allies or the stockpile of German coal imported already, in effect selling it back to them or maybe their own domestic production....

That's right, I am now claiming Sweden did produce coal as well, because according to Eric Golson in The economics of neutrality: Spain, Sweden and Switzerland in the Second World War, Sweden produced 362,000 tons of 'mineral coal' in 1937, 504,000 tons in 1943 and 229,000 tons in 1949. This production covered 1-3% of Sweden's energy consumption during the war.

This just doesn't make any sense... Sweden was reliant on the "lejdtrafik", 4 vessels per month. You are formulating things in an exceptionally odd way, because when Germany entirely controls a country's foreign trade you can hardly call it access to the global market, can you?

The Swedish Wikipedia article is informative and lengthy. Long story short, Swedish trade was heavily curtailed by both the Allies and Axis, and the Axis had the final word as they completely enveloped the country.

This is what I have to say about your source:

 

[Victor1234]

This just doesn't make any sense... Sweden was reliant on the "lejdtrafik", 4 vessels per month. You are formulating things in an exceptionally odd way, because when Germany entirely controls a country's foreign trade you can hardly call it access to the global market, can you?

The Swedish Wikipedia article is informative and lengthy. Long story short, Swedish trade was heavily curtailed by both the Allies and Axis, and the Axis had the final word as they completely enveloped the country.

This is what I have to say about your source:

My apologies, I have two books in my library with Defeat in the East in the title, the other one is Defeat in the East by Jurgen Thorwald, if it wasn't in the one, I must have read it in the other, but unfortunately I don't have access to either right now. Since you were clearly wrong about both Swedish coal and Swedish trade, I suggest you educate yourself on something other than Swedish wiki, because it's very obvious that Germany didn't control Sweden's trade entirely or even very much after 1943.

https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/178/1/Golson_The_Economics_of_Neutrality.pdf

https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/rpt_9806_ng_sweden.pdf

 

[Red_warning]

My apologies, I have two books in my library with Defeat in the East in the title, the other one is Defeat in the East by Jurgen Thorwald, if it wasn't in the one, I must have read it in the other, but unfortunately I don't have access to either right now. Since you were clearly wrong about both Swedish coal and Swedish trade, I suggest you educate yourself on something other than Swedish wiki, because it's very obvious that Germany didn't control Sweden's trade entirely or even very much after 1943.

https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/178/1/Golson_The_Economics_of_Neutrality.pdf

https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/rpt_9806_ng_sweden.pdf

Okay, so let me get this straight.

You do not consider a quota of a few ships per month to be "much control".
The fact that Swedish trade during the war shrank to a small portion of pre-war trade does not indicate control either.

From your very own papers:

1938 allied imports: 522.7 million SEK
1941 allied imports: 41.6 million SEK
1944 allied imports: 160.8 million SEK

Meanwhile, German dependence increased as Sweden was blocked off from global trade

1938 German imports: 469.5 million SEK
1941 German imports: 1,323.5million SEK
1944 German imports: 1,097.5 million SEK

Does this look like a nation in control of her trade? Even late in the war Germany clearly dictates the Swedish trade.

"Germany selectively lifted its blockade of the entrance to the Baltic Sea to allow such Swedish-Allied commerce as a reward for Swedish cooperation"

I don't base my knowledge on Wikipedia, I present it to you because it's accessible in a discussion such as this, and I prefer not to misquote books ad infinitum. And must I remind you that your statement was the Sweden exported coal to Germany.

 

[Victor1234]

Ok, but this'll be the last time I do this. Fixed some underlining.

This section reviews the Allies’ trade with Sweden, with details of legal and illicit trading with the Allies through the Skagerrak blockade. From the
statistics presented below, it is evident the Allies provided Sweden with excess nominal and real imports, including much needed petroleum products, food,
chemicals, cacao, tobacco, metals and textiles for Sweden. In exchange, the Swedish government allowed the Allies illicit access to Swedish ball bearings,
machine tools and other goods, selling these items at a consistent discount to the Allied supplies.

Apart from approved traffic to the Allies through the German marine blockade, two illicit trade methods were approved during the war by the Swedish government: blockade‐running using British ships and the use of Allied and Swedish aircraft to transport passengers, diplomatic materials and regular cargo from Sweden to
Scotland. The British (in particular) faced acute shortages of Swedish ball bearings and similar specialty products for their war economy.

The Allies were also concerned that Sweden did not sufficiently resist German demands for concessions that directly aided Germany in its conduct of the War in Europe. In July 1941 a fully-equipped German division crossed Sweden from Norway to Finland; through much of the War, Sweden permitted German troops and matériel to transit Sweden to and from Norway and Finland. According to U.S. estimates, 250,000 trips by German troops (presumably on leave traveling in "sealed cars") crossed Sweden
in each direction, and 250,000 tons of equipment transited Sweden. German forces in Finland after the Finnish decision to go to war against the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 used Swedish railways for the movement of troops and supplies to and from Germany. Sweden permitted German military supply ships to sail in Swedish territorial waters and even provided naval escorts for them. German courier aircraft transited Swedish air space.

Sweden attempted to offset its concessions to Nazi Germany by maintaining political relations and essential economic ties with the Allies. Without energy sources of its own, Sweden desperately needed the fuel and other supplies that could only come from the West. Germany selectively lifted its blockade of the entrance to the Baltic Sea to allow such Swedish-Allied commerce as a reward for Swedish cooperation. After a month of negotiations with Swedish officials and among Washington agencies, in November 1942 President Roosevelt, responding to a suggestion from Churchill, directed the immediate release of 30,000 tons of oil for Sweden and fixed a quarterly export level to Sweden of that quantity

The negotiations led to an Allied-Swedish agreement in London in September 1943 under which the United States and Britain allowed an increase in exports to Sweden, including critically needed oil and rubber, in exchange for which Sweden abrogated its agreements with Germany for the transit of German military matériel (exclusive of oil) and German soldiers across Sweden, further reduced iron ore exports, ended Swedish naval escorting of German ships in the Baltic, and reduced ball-bearing exports. Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox opposed the September 1943 agreement negotiated by the State Department and the Board of Economic Warfare (the predecessor of the Foreign Economic Administration) and argued that oil sent to Sweden would aid Germany, that Swedish exports and concessions to Germany continued, and that the United States had received no commensurate benefits from Sweden.

In a September 13, 1944, telegram to U.S. representatives in Stockholm, Secretary Hull made clear his feeling that the danger to Sweden of a German retaliatory attack had passed:
"We fail to appreciate the validity of the arguments used by the [Swedish] Foreign Minister in defense of Sweden’s so-called ’neutrality policy’. In our opinion Sweden’s policy has been based upon a determination to keep out of the war at all costs rather than one of strict neutrality. Hence, she has granted concessions to one belligerent group and then the other in accordance with fluctuations of the war. Now that the people of Sweden, as well as those of the United Nations, realize the defeat of Germany is a forgone conclusion, we cannot comprehend why the Swedish Government still hesitates to sever all trade with Germany."

 

[Jopa79]

A long time ago, I posted here a small thread about the Swedish Skåne-Line, or the Per Albin Line constructed before/during the WWII on the Swedish Southern shore. I'm still wondering the purpose of this defensive fortification? Was it constructed against an Allied or against a Nazi invasion? To me, it confirms the idea, the Swedes were preparing for the war which never came.

In Finland, the military appropriations were neglected at least for 15 years before the WWII. In a great hustle, the Finnish preparations were organized just before the war. The Finnish soldier was like a militiaman or a minuteman during the Winter War. At its best, with the most qualified military equipment, the Finnish soldier was in 1944. However, this period couldn't last long, the most important ally - and the only one - was losing the war. In addition, the Finnish materiel was very limited and couldn't take suffering of heavy losses.

I'm having the knowledge, also the Swedes were not prepared for the war. Am I right? Did they believe, the war would, or wouldn't come? The Swedish aid for the Finnish cause was greatly accepted during the war. The Finnish view of the era was, that the Swedes represented better military preparation and maybe combined Nordic Coalition could repel, maybe even negate the plans of the eastern neighbor.

Is there someone sharing this? Or having another opinion?

Edit: Perhaps the Skåne Line should be seen as a sign of neutrality, like the Mannerheim-Line. The willingness to retain sovereignty, but remain outside of the global conflict aroused events in the Nordic Countries - the defense readiness - it should make the enemy plans more innoxious.

 

[Red_warning]

A long time ago, I posted here a small thread about the Swedish Skåne-Line, or the Per Albin Line constructed before/during the WWII on the Swedish Southern shore. I'm still wondering the purpose of this defensive fortification? Was it constructed against an Allied or against a Nazi invasion? To me, it confirms the idea, the Swedes were preparing for the war which never came.

In Finland, the military appropriations were neglected at least for 15 years before the WWII. In a great hustle, the Finnish preparations were organized just before the war. The Finnish soldier was like a militiaman or a minuteman during the Winter War. At its best, with the most qualified military equipment, the Finnish soldier was in 1944. However, this period couldn't last long, the most important ally - and the only one - was losing the war. In addition, the Finnish materiel was very limited and couldn't take suffering of heavy losses.

I'm having the knowledge, also the Swedes were not prepared for the war. Am I right? Did they believe, the war would, or wouldn't come? The Swedish aid for the Finnish cause was greatly accepted during the war. The Finnish view of the era was, that the Swedes represented better military preparation and maybe combined Nordic Coalition could repel, maybe even negate the plans of the eastern neighbor.

Is there someone sharing this? Or having another opinion?

Sweden had more of everything than her neighbours but there were some glaring issues in the defence structure.

The air force was there, but tiny. Would have been overwhelmed pretty quickly if the Germans had put their backs to it. The fact that Sweden is the home of the 40mm Bofors might alleviate this issue a tiny bit at least.

Sweden got armour going very late, tank production didn't really start until 1939. When Norway got invaded Sweden was in possession of whopping 38 tanks. However, by the end of the war this number was over 800. Strv m/42 was the main tank used and I'd put it as slightly less competent than a Sherman for comparison, roughly Panzer III levels.

Sweden had a lack of fully automatic weapons and bought anything it could get its hands on, from Finnish Suomis to American Brownings. Lots and lots of nationally produced 6,5 mausers though.

One of the big pluses that is rarely ever considered is the navy. Sweden had a sizable and fairly competent navy for a nation of her size, relying primarily on the Sverige-class coastal defence ships who were modernised in the interwar period. Each of them carried 4x283 mm heavy Bofors guns and would have made the same style over overtaking as in Oslo pretty much impossible. Depending on how willing the Brits would have been to send aid an invasion over sea in 1940 would perhaps been an impossibility.
One can speculate that this is one of the reasons why Sweden was left out of the invasion plan. Consider the pounding the Royal Navy gave the Kriegsmarine in this phase of the war, imagine if they had been aided by reasonably competent local navy on top of it all.

Manpower was fairly good I'd say, usually way better than the current media gives the army credit for, even if their equipment obviously could have been better early in the war. 100 000 were already standing ready when the first German soldiers entered Denmark.

Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson made a famous speech, "Our readiness is good", and it is generally considered to be a bit of a propaganda piece today. However, I think there may be some misinterpretation going regarding his meaning. First of all he held his speech in 1939, and I don't think many at this time thought the war would actually spread all the way to Scandinavia. Instead I believe he had primarily the civil defence in mind, such as availability of food and fuel. During WWI Sweden was pretty much close to starvation constantly, while in WWII the country had actually become self sufficient.

Defensive lines were built primarily during the war. Some fortifications already existed in Scania and they were strengthened. Defensive lines were built around Stockholm (The Sausage line. Don't ask me why). Lots of defences were built along the Norwegian border, primarily in Värmland county, as it was expected that this would have been the primary battlefield in case the Germans decided to invade. The fortress of Boden was strengthened too.

Sweden's main strengths was it's industry, which meant that during the first few years that Sweden was left alone it could arm itself into a state that would have made invasion simply not worth the trouble.

 

[Jopa79]

Sweden had more of everything than her neighbours but there were some glaring issues in the defence structure.

The air force was there, but tiny. Would have been overwhelmed pretty quickly if the Germans had put their backs to it. The fact that Sweden is the home of the 40mm Bofors might alleviate this issue a tiny bit at least.

Sweden got armour going very late, tank production didn't really start until 1939. When Norway got invaded Sweden was in possession of whopping 38 tanks. However, by the end of the war this number was over 800. Strv m/42 was the main tank used and I'd put it as slightly less competent than a Sherman for comparison, roughly Panzer III levels.

Sweden had a lack of fully automatic weapons and bought anything it could get its hands on, from Finnish Suomis to American Brownings. Lots of lots of nationally produced 6,5 mausers though.

One of the big pluses that is rarely ever considered is the navy. Sweden had a sizable and fairly competent navy for a nation of her size, relying primarily on the Sverige-class coastal defence ships who were modernised in the interwar period. Each of them carried 4x283 mm heavy Bofors guns and would have made the same style over overtaking as in Oslo pretty much impossible. Depending on how willing the Brits would have been to send aid an invasion over sea in 1940 would perhaps been an impossibility.
One can speculate that this is one of the reasons why Sweden was left out of the invasion plan. Consider the pounding the Royal Navy gave the Kriegsmarine in this phase of the war, imagine if they had been aided by reasonably competent local navy on top of it all.

Manpower was fairly good I'd say, usually way better than the current media gives the army credit for, even if their equipment obviously could have been better early in the war. 100 000 were already standing ready when the first German soldiers entered Denmark.

Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson made a famous speech, "Our readiness is good", and it is generally considered to be a bit of a propaganda piece today. However, I think there may be some misinterpretation going regarding his meaning. First of all he held his speech in 1939, and I don't think many at this time thought the war would actually spread all the way to Scandinavia. Instead I believe he had primarily the civil defence in mind, such as availability of food and fuel. During WWI Sweden was pretty much close to starvation constantly, while in WWII the country had actually become self sufficient.

Defensive lines were built primarily during the war. Some fortifications already existed in Scania and they were strengthened. Defensive lines were built around Stockholm (The Sausage line. Don't ask me why). Lots of defences were built along the Norwegian border, primarily in Värmland county, as it was expected that this would have been the primary battlefield in case the Germans decided to invade. The fortress of Boden was strengthened too.

Sweden's main strengths was it's industry, which meant that during the first few years that Sweden was left alone it could arm itself into a state that would have made invasion simply not worth the trouble.

Thanks, Red, that's probably the best information which I have ever received about the Swedish preparedness for the war.

I still remain in my idea, in which I have believed in through all my life. The greatest crime, which the countries can do, is to lie and force the other ones to fight. Using illegal force to obey the foreign rule. And the other countries, they leave those in need alone, even while giving the "word" about guaranteeing giving the support. But in the end they betray you, just like sweeping the debris under the carpet, no-one will ever know, eh?

Thanks for being honest

 

[Jopa79]

Sverige-class

Could you tell more about the Sverige-class? So, Bofors-Factory made the guns for the ships? The Bofors AT-guns were in great need during the Winter War.

The Sverige-class? They were coastal-defense-ships? When they were built? How was the coastal defense organized, I mean, in which role the Sverige-class was supposed to be in?

The Finnish Navy, it was given with a very low allowance, the first thing which the Commander (Väinö Valve- the last living Jäger General) implemented was to put in order the Russian-built coastal defense artillery (from the WWI era and before ) on the Southern Finnish shores. Then the Navy built the coastal-defence-ships, Ilmarinen and the infamous Väinämöinen. After building the battleships, the submarine order was carried on. Finland was represented by 4-5 submarines during the WWII.

But that's mainly all about the Finnish Navy, at least, the main of the constructed vessels and being ready during the WWII.

The coastal-defense-ships were thought being a part of the Finnish coastal artillery during the WWII - being a mobilized part of the defense. However, losing the panssarilaiva Ilmarinen during the Operation Nordwind made the Finnish Navy very cautions and the rest of the war, the navy focused on preventing the possible Soviet operations in the Baltic Sea.

 

[Red_warning]

Could you tell more about the Sverige-class? So, Bofors-Factory made the guns for the ships? The Bofors AT-guns were in great need during the Winter War.

The Sverige-class? They were coastal-defense-ships? When they were built? How was the coastal defense organized, I mean, in which role the Sverige-class was supposed to be in?

The Finnish Navy, it was given with a very low allowance, the first thing which the Commander (Väinö Valve- the last living Jäger General) implemented was to put in order the Russian-built coastal defense artillery (from the WWI era and before ) on the Southern Finnish shores. Then the Navy built the coastal-defence-ships, Ilmarinen and the infamous Väinämöinen. After building the battleships, the submarine order was carried on. Finland was represented by 4-5 submarines during the WWII.

But that's mainly all about the Finnish Navy, at least, the main of the constructed vessels and being ready during the WWII.

The coastal-defense-ships were thought being a part of the Finnish coastal artillery during the WWII - being a mobilized part of the defense. However, losing the panssarilaiva Ilmarinen during the Operation Nordwind made the Finnish Navy very cautions and the rest of the war, the navy focused on preventing the possible Soviet operations in the Baltic Sea.

I know some pretty generic things about this class of ship. The first ship was built during WWI, crowdfunded by the Swedish people actually. Top of the line as far as coastal defence ships goes, though Sweden utilised them more as heavy cruisers I guess. Three were built and each one of them were used as the flag ship in a battlegroup consisting of destroyers and cruisers.

Heavily modernised in the years before WWII. Bunch of 40mm Bofors installed, oil boilers, artillery guidance stations, etc.

They were pretty small and slow (22 knots, similar ships travelled at about 30 knots at the time) but had nasty artillery for their size, and very heavy armour. Most WWII cruisers carried about 80mm armour, these ships carried 200mm. In a place such as the Swedish archipelagos they would be rather nasty to deal with because of this combination of armour and armament, and only a madman would send anything heavier than a cruiser into such a confined area.

It was actually discovered after the war that the German naval leadership considered these ships to be a big strategical headache, so as far as deterrent they really paid off.

 

[Red_warning]

@Jopa79 Another thing that I failed to mention about Swedish war readiness is that many in the Swedish military leadership had experience from the Finnish civil war, such as General Major Rappe.

 

[Jopa79]

@Jopa79 Another thing that I failed to mention about Swedish war readiness is that many in the Swedish military leadership had experience from the Finnish civil war, such as General Major Rappe.

Thank you. I never before knew him. Rappe seems to be an interesting person. The Swedish participation to the Finnish Civil War is quite an event, in my opinion, at least. And the matter is rarely mentioned or studied.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

What is the Finnish Civil War? Sounds like a new thread.

 

[Jopa79]

What is the Finnish Civil War? Sounds like a new thread.

While the turmoil of the Russian Empire occured due to the crisis of the WWI leading further to internal problems in Russia, for instance at least Finland and the Baltic States declared their independence. I’m not certain about the Polish situation.

However, a Finnish delegation was accepted by Lenin in Moscow in December 1917 and he accepted the Finnish delegation proposal about Finland declaring the independence. Since then, the Finnish Independence Day has celebrated annually on December 6th.

While the Grand Duchy of Finland now wasn’t any more a part of Russia, the Russian era of more than 100 years controlling Finland had came to an end. Finland was now an independent, a sovereign state. This quickly and rapid inflicted changes in the Finnish power relations. The Russian authors exiting Finland emerged a power vacuum in the Finnish political system.

The situation between the Finnish burghers and the Finnish working class/trade unionists had been inflamed already for several years. Only after about two months declaring the independence, the Finnish Civil War outbreaked for the control and leadership between White Finland and Finnish Socialst Workers’ Republic.

The war was short, about 4 months. But it was absolutely cruel, mercy was not shared by neither side. Brothers killed brothers, the Finnish Reds had also Women Red Guard soldiers in front. In February 1918, the general Red offensive failed. The turning point of the war was the arrival of the volunteers of the Jäger Movement, they were Finnish Whites, given Prussian military education and they have served in the German Eastern Front of the WWI. These Finnish Jägers became high-ranking Generals and officer during Finland joining the WWII.

The Finnish Civil War is also considered as being a part of the WWI, because of the German and Russian intervention for the war. After failing in their offensive, the Finnish Reds were on a scattered retreat, simultaneously the Reds were molest by the Finnish Whites attacking from the north and the Germans whom had landed on the sothern Finnish shores. About 100 000 of Red soldiers, their families were finally surrounded near a small city of Lahti, they were fleeing for to the Soviet Union, however, it’s estimated, about 15 000-20 000 Finnish Reds managed to escape to the Soviet Union.

After the Red surrender, the Whites sent tens of thousands Finnish Reds to the prison camps. There, the atmosphere was absolutely depressive. The Whites executed an ethnic cleansing, killing the prisoners to malnutrion, that was followed by terrible diseases, thousands of prisoners were shooted. In the aftermath, at the prison camps, there died and were lost much more human lifes than in the actual combat in the front.

These events and matters, still a very hard matter to bring up in the Finnish society. The opinions differ still, even in large scale.

Under the North Star is a book, filmed an dramatized,twice,to a movie. Trailer below, released in 2007 or 2008.