How did Sweden remain neutral throughout the war? Someone told it to me once before, but I have since forgetten.
Did North Carolina fight in the civil war? Someone told it to me before but I TOO, have also since forgotten
Um, they proclaimed neutrality, and stuck to that policy then as now…
Why wouldn’t they be able too?
I know I should derogatory, derisive words such as “fuck off”, “asshole”, "ass wipe’’, etc but I’m not going to until I understand the logic behind the words.
I’m under the impression that the question was a little beneath your belt but I think that if you reconsider it, that question might not seem that elementary to begin with-at least not to someone who has an less-than- average familiarity with the subject of international relations during WW2.
The other impression I get is that your troll-alert signals are going wacko and need a rest. Rest assured I’m not here to troll.
P.S. my ancestor, from my father’s side, fought bravely in the 55th NC Infantry Company F.
First of all, I honour all our soldiers and respect you must be proud to have had family serve in the Civil War. I always admired the civil war.
Secondly, I am a bit hurt on Christmas that you should find the time to use offensive language and show signs of aggressive hostilities. What ever your beef is, pls refrain from using bad language on this website. If I may, please review and read (assuming your literate), the code of conduct in regards to use of inappropriate language.
Personally I think my post was as intellectual as your beginning post. I look forward to your possible other posts such as: Why did Hitler have a weird looking moustache?, or perhaps, Why didn’t Sweden attack Germany in WW2, or maybe even, Why do Swedish girls look so Nice?.
Anyways, I am truly sorry if you are angry at yourself and wish you no ill will.
P.S. Are you sure your not from the South?
Jeez Herman, calm down…
Maybe he is just interested in knowing why. I’m interested to know why Hitler didn’t invade Sweden, when he invaded Holland, and Holland has far less important resources than Sweden.
Well, since you didn’t tell me off, I wish you a Very Good Christmas then Mr.Churchill. Sorry for the aggravation I caused you this year. I hope you have a good One:)
Germany also invaded Norway and Denmark.So yeah why not Sweden?
Actually Kregs did pose a fair question even though the reactions leading from it were a little odd to say the least.
Both Denmark and Norway had declared themselves neutral too, unfortunately whoever controls these countries control the Kattegat and therefore the Baltic, so they had to fall under the jackboot.
Having both coastlines also gave the occupying power very many locations from which to launch attacks on the UK, and in the case of Norway’s fjords, plenty of places in which to hide ships.
Taking Sweden would have resulted in even more troops required to occupy a disgruntled but with little to gain.
Good relations with Finland meant that Sweden was comparable to Switzerland, a neutral country in a sea of ‘allies.’
In short there are many sound strategic reasons for invading Denmark and Norway and very few for taking Sweden.
It is because they were neutral.
Herman,
Should be 'you're', being the contraction for 'you are' rather than the second person possessive pronoun 'your'. It's embarrassing to demonstrate a lack of literacy when implying Kregs isn't literate, isn't it?
You invited a strong response by your first post which, whatever it was getting at, was a smartarse and irrelevant response to a reasonable question.
Nobody else does, not least because nobody can understand what you were on about. There is no sign of any intellect being applied to your first post.
- WTF were you on when you wrote your first post? Kregs’ question was perfectly reasonable and it’s a good topic for serious discussion, unlike your first incomprehensible post.
Kregs,
Don’t be too upset by Herman. He’s essentially alright but every now and again his brain circuitry goes on the fritz and makes him go all strange, to the mystification and wonderment of us all, as above.
Cuts wrapped it up pretty nice already.
Germany did not need and did not want to occupy Sweden because Sweden was providing more or less everything Germany needed from it.
I’m a little surprised Hitler’s ambition didn’t cause him to invade there too, seeing as he already conquered most of Europe.
There was a German plan. named “Polar Fox” if my memory is not failing me. Like the plans for invading Switzerland the necessity and circumstances never achived the necessary level.
Norway was attacked by Germany in part because the intellegence services provided information that the Allies were about to do so. Norway itself had little of value to either side. Its ports would be of use to Germany for deploying cargo shps, submarines, and surface warships, to evade the British blockade. The long coast and many anchorages made it much nore difficult for the British to watch for blockade runners.
Second: Norway was one of the two routes for moving the good quailty Swedish iron ore to Germany. In the winter the rail connection to the ice bound Swedish Baltic ports was less effcient & taking the ore to the Norweigian port of Narvik was often prefered. With a Allied corps sitting in Narvik the Germans would have a less reliable delivery of iron ore fom Sweden.
The third point should be obvious. If the Allies firmly control Norway it is much easier to persuade Sweden to cooperate with the Allied blockade of Germany. A Allied army and air force would be at hand to support the Swedes and the Swedes would have better acess to the worlds markets.
In this context a preemptive German attack on Norway makes sense. Denmark was also attacked as it was in the way, and the Danes controled part of the minefield across the Skagerrack strait between Denmark and Sweden.
As Egorka correctly observes the Germans got what they needed from Sweden and a expensive military operation was not needed. The British did routinely ask Sweden to oppose the Germans. The Swedish response was “have you considered our position, and how much help can you provide?” This was understand able as most other nations that had taken the British side had lost their liberty, wealth, and many lives to German conquest. The British were not much help. In Norway the German retained a army of over 100,000 men which could be easily turned against Sweden In 1944 it became obvious the German armys were broken and no longer had the ability to attack. Sweden then begain cutting off the iron ore and other materials to Germany.
While Swedens politics had a strong conservative element they were not much sympathetic to nazi philosopys. The Swedes did aid the Danes in rescuing a large portion of the Jewish population of Denmark, and accepted other Danes who fled Gestapo arrest. They also cooperated with British intellegence efforts, passing information along aiding British spies and interfering with German spies. Eventually the Swedish government did suppreses nazi sympathisers amoung its population and ‘nuetralize’ its citizens that were acting as agents of Germany.
Had Britian or the Allies attained a strong military position in Norway I’d think Sweden would have helped extend the blokade of German to the Baltic Sea and ended trade with Germany. Active warfare would be another matter I could not guess.
What about a fourth point for invading Norway, being Norway’s established production of heavy water which was important for German atomic research and development?
Yes. Who else would help launder their captured gold reserves and sell them anti-aircraft guns and ammunition (to minimize the effects of Allied bombing)?
Although to be fair, I they sold the 40mm guns and the designs to both sides…
in april 1940 sweden had 400,000 men in the army
if we have go in and help norway things may been diffrent
I don’t understand the comment?.Is it just me? hello…??
First of all, I honour all our soldiers and respect you must be proud to have had family serve in the Civil War. I always admired the civil war.
Secondly, I am a bit hurt on Christmas that you should find the time to use offensive language and show signs of aggressive hostilities. What ever your beef is, pls refrain from using bad language on this website. If I may, please review and read (assuming your literate), the code of conduct in regards to use of inappropriate language.
Personally I think my post was as intellectual as your beginning post. I look forward to your possible other posts such as: Why did Hitler have a weird looking moustache?, or perhaps, Why didn’t Sweden attack Germany in WW2, or maybe even, Why do Swedish girls look so Nice?.
This is very off topic, but the question seems to be answered now anyway, so: Why did Hitler have that weird mustache? I´d really like to know. Perhaps it made him easily recognisable among other party members in the early years…? Perhaps a lame suggestion, but that´s all I can think of. The point is that no one has ever worn such a stupid looking mustache ever since (except perhaps, in a brief moment in front of a mirror, razor in hand, before removing it, having confirmed that it does look horrible in the extreme). (and sorry for bothered you decent people with this post 
)
No , No That is Not True. You said nobody ever worn such a stupid mustache. …just look below: there is a new fad starting…in another few years you will see more of this…
