If Sweden joined the WWII

[Jopa79]

Left picture - Swedish volunteers arriving Northern Finland during the Winter War. You may notice some civilian boys watching the Swedes getting ready. The car might be an ambulance vehicle. Right picture - a Swedish soldier nursing a Finnish baby, a war refugee in Sweden during the Lapland War 1944-1945. Both pictures: SA-kuva, AI colorized by Jopa's computer.

Officially Sweden remained neutral throughout the WWII. However, there are several events - minor and major - indicating this statement as void and null. Perhaps, it's a better way to say, Sweden did her best to balance between the Axis' and the Allies' claims, demands and while doing so, she broke her neutrality status. In the early phase of the WWII, Sweden even changed from neutral to non-belligerent considering the Winter War while aiding in multiple ways Finland, like sending 8 000- 10 000 Swedish volunteers to fight in the war.

As the Winter War ended, the Swedish participation also quickly was forgotten, while the global point of interest shifted elsewhere. Still, it didn't take much time, the Swedish neutrality was put in a real test in 1941. 'Midsommarkrisen' - 'Midsummer crisis' was a Swedish event at the beginning of the Operation Barbarossa. Germany demanded transit rights for German forces through Sweden from Norway to Finland during the Operation Barbarossa and the Continuation War. Sweden accepted for one German infantry division. While Germany was still pushing pressure, Sweden rejected any further concession and the German wishes to have Sweden joining the Axis. Sweden - however - carried on sending voluntary forces to Finland during the Continuation War and encouraged the Finns to wage war to weaken the Soviet Union for the Nordic benefit.

This short list is probably actually longer, but I gather some things, which, in my opinion are signs Sweden not being a neutral country during the WWII

• Sweden changing her status from neutral to non-belligerent during the Winter War
• Sweden sending volunteers for the Finnish Winter- and the Continuation Wars
• Midsummer crisis
• Trading with the Allies and the Axis powers
• For European recover, Sweden takes the Marshall Plan, while Finland doesn't

My question here is, what do you think, is it realistic to think, Sweden was at least considering joining the WWII? Would she had joined the Allies, or the Axis? Perhaps joining only with Finland and trying to retain the separate-war-thesis? Sweden was getting ready for the war, hastily, like Finland. One example of this is the still-standing Skåne-Line against an Allied or an Axis invasion in the Southern Sweden.

 

[Kovax]

I suspect that, like several other countries, Sweden was hoping to remain out of the war, trying to placate both sides, and expecting to get dragged in anyway. The smaller countries fell into several distinct "camps", those who had a clear interest in one side or the other, those who felt that they had a reasonably chance of remaining neutral, and those who were terrified of the all too likely prospect of being dragged in.

In Sweden's case, they had to balance the choice between siding with Germany in order to assist Finland against the Soviets, or siding with the Allies and being on the opposing side to Finland, meaning that they would be helping to put the Soviets on their own border. No good option, other than staying out of it for as long as possible.

 

[Jopa79]

Thank you, @Kovax.

If Sweden joins the war, which side she chooses? Presumably the choice of side is a result due to either, the Allies, or the Axis pressuring. Is there going to be an invasion? Does Sweden accept voluntarily foreign troops in her country, or is Sweden to be occupied?

The Soviet Union cannot occupy Sweden, unless the Russians may use Leningrad and Kronstadt ports for a naval invasion. Or, they first have to win Norway, or Finland and then, the land transit is available.

There's also the possibility, in 1939, the Swedish effort for the Finnish Winter War erupts a larger event and Sweden joins Finland against the Soviet Union.

 

[loup99]

If Sweden joins the war, which side she chooses? Presumably the choice of side is a result due to either, the Allies, or the Axis pressuring. Is there going to be an invasion? Does Sweden accept voluntarily foreign troops in her country, or is Sweden to be occupied?

The Soviet Union cannot occupy Sweden, unless the Russians may use Leningrad and Kronstadt ports for a naval invasion. Or, they first have to win Norway, or Finland and then, the land transit is available.

There's also the possibility, in 1939, the Swedish effort for the Finnish Winter War erupts a larger event and Sweden joins Finland against the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union during WW2 isn't interested in Sweden and doesn't threaten it in any way. While Sweden neighboured Finland and had ties to it you are giving disproportionate and excessive weight to the USSR, to the point of obsesssion, when it was completely in the periphery for Sweden, without any direct border or particular conflict other than the very indirect one of Finland. Much more relevant to Sweden are Germany, Norway and Denmark. For your analysis to be pertinent you should therefore consider less the Soviet Union and more the actual neighbours, that would probably make the whole reasoning more plausible.

 

[Director]

If Sweden joins the war, which side she chooses?

I think the Allies would be quite happy to have Sweden remain neutral, although a neutral-tilting-the-Allies'-way would be a nice present. So unless Sweden joins the Axis, the Allies will not trouble Sweden (partly because the Western Allies simply can't get at it and the Soviets have their hands full). So if Sweden joins the war I think it is because they are invaded by Germany or because they join the Allies in 1945 to get something out of the peace.

Germany is heavily dependent on Swedish iron ore and other resources, and of course securing control of the Baltic is helpful, but conquering Sweden doesn't get you much that you aren't already getting from Swedish neutrality. Sweden, like Switzerland, offers little threat to Germany because the Allies cannot use Sweden as a base without taking down Germany first, and without massive Allied support, Sweden is not going to take Germany on.

The interesting point, for me, is when a German invasion of Sweden could happen. Logically the Germans would use the invasions of Denmark and Norway as springboards into Sweden... but after those invasions the Germans don't have much of a fleet left, it's a fair distance for aircraft, and there aren't many easy overland routes from Norway or Denmark into Sweden. The Swedish army could put up a stiff fight, the more so since the fall of Norway and Denmark had to have put them on alert, and with Norway still contested the Allies would be very tempted to go into Scandinavia with whatever they could muster.

But, assuming Germany doesn't jump on Sweden between the invasions of Norway and Denmark and the invasion of France... then when? I think Germany is too stretched with France, the Balkans, Africa and Barbarossa to put together enough force to invade Sweden also. To me it seems the window for invasion is short, comes early in the war, and doesn't open up again.

If Germany invaded Sweden they would ultimately win - Sweden cannot be given aid or assistance from the Allies. But invading Sweden almost has to mean postponing the invasion of France, or the Balkans, or Russia.

If Germany does conquer Sweden, then post-war they very likely become a member of the Soviet bloc.

 

[Jopa79]

The interesting point, for me, is when a German invasion of Sweden could happen.

Very much true.

 

[loup99]

If Germany does conquer Sweden, then post-war they very likely become a member of the Soviet bloc.

That scenario would require Sweden to be liberated by the Red Army, meaning the whole of Finland is also under Soviet control. Given that Sweden wasn't a part of the Soviet borders it wasn't a part of the area that was considered to be its sphere of influence. On the other hand, Sweden could otherwise end up more tied to the US, to the point of joining NATO. Or follow an alternate path if liberated by internal resistance, presumably similar to the historical one.

 

[Jopa79]

But, assuming Germany doesn't jump on Sweden between the invasions of Norway and Denmark and the invasion of France... then when? I think Germany is too stretched with France, the Balkans, Africa and Barbarossa to put together enough force to invade Sweden also.

I think, in the first place, the Nazis didn't even consider joining the wars in Africa. In the Balkans, maybe, but Italy, led by Mussolini, made the German intervention a must in there.

 

[Gurkhal]

I can't writte much from the phone. But there some to say on this subject.

I will mention that the German officer Adolf von Schell was given the task to create a plan for an invasion of Sweden in early 1943. The plan probably wasn't to serious and was as we know never put into effect.

One more thing I can mention was that by 1943 the Swedish plan for defense against a German invasion included an immediete counter offensive with som 100k men against Trondheim in order to secure a port through which Allied support could be recieved.

Edited Link in Swedish

Det tyska hotet mot Sverige

I februari 1943 började Adolf von Schell att utarbeta en tysk anfallsplan mot Sverige. Sex divisioner räknade han med behövdes. Men hur nära var det att planen sattes i verket?

militarhistoria.se

 

[Director]

That scenario would require Sweden to be liberated by the Red Army, meaning the whole of Finland is also under Soviet control.

Well... maybe. But if the Red Army is rolling west through Germany and Finland negotiates a vassal peace then Sweden would feel strong pressure to take the same sort of deal if they could get it.

One key point is that, in common with other conquered countries, Sweden would not be permitted to keep much of its prewar military strength and at least some of that would have been used up on the Eastern Front.

Another is that the Western Allies cannot get to Sweden except via Norway, Denmark or by conquering German Baltic ports, and none of those routes is available in 1945, so Sweden is pretty much undefended and alone.

So it seems to be that if Sweden had been taken by Germany and Finland cut a deal with the Soviets (which probably would include right-of-passage) then I think Sweden would try for a deal too. After all, if they were conquered by Germany they no longer have the military strength to defend themselves. So post-war Sweden would enter the Soviet bloc.

 

[Red_warning]

There are a few scensrios where Sweden joins WW2.

Winter war, on the side of Finland. The people, the military and the right wing parties wanted it, only the Swedish left and the government were against it really. In retrospect war in defense of Finland would probably have been a good choice as it likely could have ended with with a much better deal for Finland, but it's easy to say this already knowing how things went. Nobody at the time could have guessed that the Finns would be able to resist Stalin so well, except perhaps the Finns themselves.

Second scenario would involve Sweden as a target during operation Weserübung. Didnt happen at the time because it simply wasnt nessecary. The northern flank was already secured and Sweden was boxed in after the occupation of Denmark and Norway.

Third scenario involves the Reich regretting not occupying Sweden in the first place. Sweden collaborated pretty openly with the allies and there were conserns that a northern front could be opened. However this came to mind late in the war (1943) and such an offensive was simply not realistic at the time. Sweden had armed itself considerably the first years of the war and things started to look pretty bad on the eastern front. The kriegsmarine even stated that it might not even be able to fully secure supply lines in the Baltic sea in case of a German invasion. The troops assigned for this would-be war were badly needed elsewhere.

Another scenario would be if German troops had refused to stand down in neighbouring countries, in which case Sweden would launch operations to liberate them.

Edit: here is a map of von Schell's plans for those interested

The Soviet Union during WW2 isn't interested in Sweden and doesn't threaten it in any way. While Sweden neighboured Finland and had ties to it you are giving disproportionate and excessive weight to the USSR, to the point of obsesssion, when it was completely in the periphery for Sweden, without any direct border or particular conflict other than the very indirect one of Finland. Much more relevant to Sweden are Germany, Norway and Denmark. For your analysis to be pertinent you should therefore consider less the Soviet Union and more the actual neighbours, that would probably make the whole reasoning more plausible.

I disagree entierly. If you read litterature that deals with the political and military prominent people of this era it becomes clear that the USSR is the foremost worry of the leaders of the time right up until operation Weserübung and again when Germany starts being pushed back on the eastern front. Finnish peace agreements with Stalin were seen as being more than likely just temporary and there was a geniun fear that Sweden could be next after Finland in a Soviet conquest of Europe.

Words like "periphery" should seem very strange for anyone with even a mild interest in Swedish WW2 history when it comes to Sweden's Soviet relations.

 

[fr-rein]

I am surprised that we don't discuss the actual possibility for Sweden joining the war - the Spring of 1940 and if in alternative reality the Allies actually sent expedition to the Finland but, of course, too late. However, in Spring of 1940 they could consider intervening in Sweden and Norway first, before Germany would start an operation to occupy Denmark and Norway instantly - and deny the iron ore and, subsequently, try to stop German war machine before it could roll over Europe.

How would such a war turn out if Allies sent the expedition and decided to block the ore? And, in 1940, what would be the Soviet stance?

 

[Victor1234]

Third scenario involves the Reich regretting not occupying Sweden in the first place. Sweden collaborated pretty openly with the allies and there were conserns that a northern front could be opened. However this came to mind late in the war (1943) and such an offensive was simply not realistic at the time. Sweden had armed itself considerably the first years of the war and things started to look pretty bad on the eastern front. The kriegsmarine even stated that it might not even be able to fully secure supply lines in the Baltic sea in case of a German invasion. The troops assigned for this would-be war were badly needed elsewhere.

Are you sure that's not a typo?

I thought it was pretty accepted that the Swedes were essentially pro-German in every way that counted (whether they had any real choice or not is a different question). There is too much focus on the Winter War in this thread, I think.

1. During the invasion of Norway, the northern-most German invasion force was cut off by the allied counter-attack and forced out of Narvik, pinned against the Swedish border with no hope of resupply or reinforcement. The Swedes let them get resupplied and reinforced, which saved them from being totally destroyed.

In his book Blodsporet ("The Blood Track"), Espen Eidum detailed how, at the request of Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany sent three trains with 30 to 40 sealed carriages through Sweden to the battle of Narvik. These trains ostensibly transported medical personnel and food for the wounded German soldiers in Narvik. However, in reality there were 17 soldiers for every medical officer or orderly. Sweden knew that the trains were being used to transport troops because a Swedish representative in Berlin reported that he had watched them board. The trains also transported heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, ammunition, and communications and supply equipment

2. They helped the 400,000 German occupation troops to stay in Norway for the entire war, to use Sweden's rail network to significantly ease their logistics and indirectly contributed to the continued occupation, which would have been relatively difficult to supply by sea (or open to attack by the Allies) and quasi-impossible by air in the volume required from Denmark otherwise. That's not even mentioning the German troops they allowed to transit through their country to go fight in the east.

3. They kept trading essential resources to Germany (iron ore has been mentioned, but especially coal shouldn't be ignored) until around February 1945. The part of the German rail network that was relatively safe from the Western bombing campaign (ie, the Eastern Front) stopped working only when they stopped their deliveries. Aside from the obvious military impacts, there were also humanitarian impacts to the trains continuing to run in the east....

Sure, they let in refugees who managed to reach the country, but so did Francoist Spain, and the "we helped Allies with intelligence (from 1943 on)!" is about as convincing as the Czech resistance putting a rose on the grave of the unknown soldier in Prague.

 

[Red_warning]

I am surprised that we don't discuss the actual possibility for Sweden joining the war - the Spring of 1940 and if in alternative reality the Allies actually sent expedition to the Finland but, of course, too late. However, in Spring of 1940 they could consider intervening in Sweden and Norway first, before Germany would start an operation to occupy Denmark and Norway instantly - and deny the iron ore and, subsequently, try to stop German war machine before it could roll over Europe.

How would such a war turn out if Allies sent the expedition and decided to block the ore? And, in 1940, what would be the Soviet stance?

Would require some supreme naivety on Sweden and Norway's part. I also have a hard time imagining allied troops forcing their way through some of Sweden's most uninviting terrain and making it all the way to Kiruna.
I guess one could wonder how the Germans would react, if they would force Sweden to accept their "help".

 

[loup99]

I disagree entierly. If you read litterature that deals with the political and military prominent people of this era it becomes clear that the USSR is the foremost worry of the leaders of the time right up until operation Weserübung and again when Germany starts being pushed back on the eastern front. Finnish peace agreements with Stalin were seen as being more than likely just temporary and there was a geniun fear that Sweden could be next after Finland in a Soviet conquest of Europe.

Words like "periphery" should seem very strange for anyone with even a mild interest in Swedish WW2 history when it comes to Sweden's Soviet relations.

You focus on 1939-1940, but the thread opening post and Jopa's development was about 1940 and beyond. In your own post you admit that there was "worry" until operation Weserübung, which begins in April 1940. Furthermore, I'm not talking solely from the Swedish perspective, but also the Soviet one. After all, Sweden was never going to attack the Soviet Union on its own, and we know the Soviet Union wasn't interested in Sweden, and even less so in an European conquest. Even in a scenario where it would have targeted Sweden it was far too busy elsewhere, it had neither the logistics nor the ressources or manpower to go any further than it did, and on top of that it had no strategic interest. The Soviet Union on its own, without the help of the other Allies with US lend and lease, wouldn't have pushed back Nazi Germany in the way it historically did.

With this in mind, with no border and no direct conflict, the USSR is indeed in the periphery for Sweden's involvement in WW2, and Sweden is peripheral to the USSR's own effort. On the other hand, German troops literally crossed Swedish soil and Denmark and Norway were invaded and occupied. Of course, that is hindsight after Weserübung, but let us not forget that WW2 lasted across a 1939-1945 period. All in all, your objection makes sense for the early war, not for the 1940-1941 developments. If the thread was about Swedish worries about the USSR during WW2 as opposed to alt-history where it joins, the response would be different... There is simply no plausible path to the Soviet Union seeking to confront Sweden, while there is direct contact with Germany.

 

[Red_warning]

Are you sure that's not a typo?

I thought it was pretty accepted that the Swedes were essentially pro-German in every way that counted (whether they had any real choice or not is a different question). There is too much focus on the Winter War in this thread, I think.

1. During the invasion of Norway, the northern-most German invasion force was cut off by the allied counter-attack and forced out of Narvik, pinned against the Swedish border with no hope of resupply or reinforcement. The Swedes let them get resupplied and reinforced, which saved them from being totally destroyed.



2. They helped the 400,000 German occupation troops to stay in Norway for the entire war, to use Sweden's rail network to significantly ease their logistics and indirectly contributed to the continued occupation, which would have been relatively difficult to supply by sea (or open to attack by the Allies) and quasi-impossible by air in the volume required from Denmark otherwise. That's not even mentioning the German troops they allowed to transit through their country to go fight in the east.

3. They kept trading essential resources to Germany (iron ore has been mentioned, but especially coal shouldn't be ignored) until around February 1945. The part of the German rail network that was relatively safe from the Western bombing campaign (ie, the Eastern Front) stopped working only when they stopped their deliveries. Aside from the obvious military impacts, there were also humanitarian impacts to the trains continuing to run in the east....

Sure, they let in refugees who managed to reach the country, but so did Francoist Spain, and the "we helped Allies with intelligence (from 1943 on)!" is about as convincing as the Czech resistance putting a rose on the grave of the unknown soldier in Prague.

Most certainly not. Everything Sweden gave Germany it bitterly gave under pressure of threats of military invasion.

1. This involed 270 men afaik and was supposed to only include medical personel, their supplies and transfer of wounded. We now know that the Germans probably broke this deal but regardless it did not have much of an impact on the battle of Narvik as the allies decided to abandon this front.

2. If Sweden had denied these transports it is likely it would just have been rolled over early in the war. If not then it's likely these transports wouldnt have happen at all as these were (mostly) exchanges of troops on leave.

3. The choice was to trade with Germany or starve

 

[Victor1234]

Most certainly not. Everything Sweden gave Germany it bitterly gave under pressure of threats of military invasion.

1. This involed 270 men afaik and was supposed to only include medical personel, their supplies and transfer of wounded. We now know that the Germans probably broke this deal but regardless it did not have much of an impact on the battle of Narvik as the allies decided to abandon this front.

2. If Sweden had denied these transports it is likely it would just have been rolled over early in the war. If not then it's likely these transports wouldnt have happen at all as these were exchanges of troops on leave.

3. The choice was to trade with Germany or starve

I did mention earlier that they didn't have much of a choice, but how can you possibly call a country pro-Allied that literally intervened during an actual battle against the Allies, to help the Germans?

1. Regardless of what happened after (neither the Swedes nor even the Allies knew at the time that Norway would be abandoned), the fact is, they directly helped the Germans invading Norway to avoid a defeat. That may or may not be neutrality, but it's definitely not being pro-Allied or collaborating openly with the Allies.

2. True, early in the war, but you said Sweden was too tough by 1943 to crack. So why continue to let the Germans stay in Norway until 1945? The German navy was finished by then, the army was spent after 1943, and the German allies were abandoning it as fast as they could.

3. Timing though, is the key. Did they really have to wait so long to cut off trade? Doesn't it seem somewhere on par with the Argentinian declaration of war in March 1945?

I'd be interested to hear in what way Sweden collaborated openly with the Allies though.

 

[Red_warning]

I did mention earlier that they didn't have much of a choice, but how can you possibly call a country pro-Allied that literally intervened during an actual battle against the Allies, to help the Germans?

1. Regardless of what happened after (neither the Swedes nor even the Allies knew at the time that Norway would be abandoned), the fact is, they directly helped the Germans invading Norway to avoid a defeat. That may or may not be neutrality, but it's definitely not being pro-Allied or collaborating openly with the Allies.

2. True, early in the war, but you said Sweden was too tough by 1943 to crack. So why continue to let the Germans stay in Norway until 1945? The German navy was finished by then, the army was spent after 1943, and the German allies were abandoning it as fast as they could.

3. Timing though, is the key. Did they really have to wait so long to cut off trade? Doesn't it seem somewhere on par with the Argentinian declaration of war in March 1945?

I'd be interested to hear in what way Sweden collaborated openly with the Allies though.

I meant to say Sweden was not worth it in 1943, not that Germany couldnt have conquered it if they really wanted. Sweden already giving the Germans what they want matters a lot in this respect.
I don't want to give people the wrong idea so I'll be blunt, the government was scared shitless of the idea of being invaded from the beggining until the very end of the war.
Part of the reason as to why Sweden waited so long with cutting trade ties with Germany was fear of a terror bombing retaliation even after a conventional attack over land was out of the question.

If you want some examples of collaboration with allies here are some:

• Providing the British with much needed ball bearings by secret air transports
• Letting Norwegian ships slip out of the country to join the allied fleets
• Telling the Brits that Bismarck is heading out to sea
• Forewarn the Danes and Norwegians about the incoming invasion
• Ignore Norwegian resistance fighters operating from Sweden
• Military train tens of thousands of Norwegians and Danes. These troops would later be the ones to liberate their home countries, without Swedish assistance

 

[Director]

If Sweden had fully supported Finland in the Winter War she might still have 'threaded the needle' and not become a full ally and vassal of Germany, but I think the Soviets would have remembered and made her pay afterwards.

A more likely entry point would be if Sweden's intelligence apparatus found out about the coming invasions of Norway and Denmark and the government decided to intervene. Whether or not they tip off the Allies, the Norwegians and the Danes is a difficult question with no good answer, as does how they try to hide their mobilization and whether or not they succeed.

Would a full Swedish mobilization have deterred Germany or just gotten them added to the list? Would a tip have been believed - and if so would it have made any difference to the outcomes? Would a Swedish intervention in Norway with peacetime troops, the navy and airforce have been enough until the rest could be mobilized?

I think a mobilized, angry Sweden (in 1940) is too powerful a threat for Germany o ignore, but also a threat that is very, very difficult to get at. If Norway remains in Allied hands (with Swedish troops and help) then the whole course of the war changes, and probably not to Germany's advantage. A protracted fight for Norway is also not desirable for Germany since the invasions of France and the Low Countries are immanent.

 

[Red_warning]

If Sweden had fully supported Finland in the Winter War she might still have 'threaded the needle' and not become a full ally and vassal of Germany, but I think the Soviets would have remembered and made her pay afterwards.

A more likely entry point would be if Sweden's intelligence apparatus found out about the coming invasions of Norway and Denmark and the government decided to intervene. Whether or not they tip off the Allies, the Norwegians and the Danes is a difficult question with no good answer, as does how they try to hide their mobilization and whether or not they succeed.

Would a full Swedish mobilization have deterred Germany or just gotten them added to the list? Would a tip have been believed - and if so would it have made any difference to the outcomes? Would a Swedish intervention in Norway with peacetime troops, the navy and airforce have been enough until the rest could be mobilized?

I think a mobilized, angry Sweden (in 1940) is too powerful a threat for Germany o ignore, but also a threat that is very, very difficult to get at. If Norway remains in Allied hands (with Swedish troops and help) then the whole course of the war changes, and probably not to Germany's advantage. A protracted fight for Norway is also not desirable for Germany since the invasions of France and the Low Countries are immanent.

Sweden knew of Germany's invasion plans of Denmark and Norway a week or so in advance, and they did tip off the Norwegian and Danish governments. Why they in turn did not act on this I do not know however. Maybe they just hoped the information was wrong, since they couldn't do much to stop the invasion anyways?