Talk:Sweden during World War II

Tidying citations.

I've tried to clean up most of the repeated citations. Having full citation templates in-line makes the notes section difficult to read, and the article difficult to edit. I'll do more later. Hohum (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

topics needing mentioning in the article

• February crisis of 1940
• the "Permitenttrafik"

Should include the refusal of transitions to Norway before its surrender

• the "Narvik-plan"

Should probably just be a note somewhere, but it should be mentioned

• March crisis (1942)
• Midsummer crisis

Should be somewhat rewritten. The existing reference is to a webpage with a minimal image of the first page of a pdf, but it doesn't mention the conclusion stated in the article.

• February crisis of 1942
• the "Lejdbåtstrafik"
• the Swedish attempts to broker peace in the continuation war
• the trade with the Wermacht in finland

I had not herd of that until today (2009-06-16) if it is true, it should definetly be mentioned.

• Kriegsfall Schweden

The German 1943 plan to occupy Sweden

Realpolitik agenda (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"I had not herd of that until today (2009-06-16) if it is true, it should definetly be mentioned." I believe it's true that Sweden sold some equipment to the Wehrmacht in Finland (trucks and tents) during the early forties and also that the Germans were permitted to hold one supply base (probably only food and fodder) close to Luleå. It's mentioned in a book I can't seem to find at the moment (collaborative effort with an American ex-military called something like kriget om Nordkalotten ~"the war for the polar cap"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.205.156 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New articles

I'm currently working on quite a few new articles on Sweden during WW2, covering the topics I mentioned above. I've also made a template to include on pages about Sweden during WW2. Please check it out, comment, and criticise.

• User:Realpolitik agenda\Operation Weserübung (Sweden) The only article I've finished so far. Since it contains links to unfinished articles, and the template, I still hesitate to upload it as an article, untill I've recieved some feedback.
• User:Realpolitik agenda\template The template (obviously..)

Realpolitik agenda (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Coward country

Currently in the article:

During the war, he also referred to Sweden as "that small, coward country"

Cited to:Zubicky, Sioma (1997). Med förintelsen i bagaget (in Swedish). Stockholm: Bonnier Carlsen. p. 122. ISBN 91-638-3436-7.

This appears to be a childrens book - WorldCat says it is "Book : Biography : Juvenile audience".

Although I can find this quote (blindly) repeated many times on the internet, I can't find an English book source, or reliable internet source to support this "famous" quotation from Winston Churchill.

Thoughts? Hohum (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a childrens book, it's easy to read but that's mostly because it's short. (110 + 20 or so pages with interviews) However, the isbn and page number differs from my edition of the book. I do agree though that it's strange that this quote is only found in this book. The only internet sources I find seems to copy the wikipedia page. // Tooga - BØRK! 22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it give a date for when it was supposed to have been said, where, to who, or who is reporting that he said it? Hohum (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nothing. It's just mentioned, no detail at all. // Tooga - BØRK! 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't think it should be included. The complete lack of corroborating sources make it rather dubious. I'll wait at least a few days for other opinions or sources. To me, it's not credible, if it had happened, that there wouldn't be additional sources for such a famous and well recorded figure saying such a notable thing. Hohum (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reputedly Churchill stated to Swedish diplomats that he realized the pressure Sweden was under. Swedish neutrality during WWII is somewhat prominent in Swedish interior politics on a guilt-by-association level. The book's value as a source may be rather weak. I've asked on an internet list for admirers of Churchill and noone there recognized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.205.156 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing it, if someone else finds reliable references they can reinstate it. If you find references to Churchill realising the pressure Sweden was under, it may benefit the article. Hohum (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It might have been a memoir by the Foreign minister, my flat is in a flux right now and it may take time to find it. This is the Churchill list BTW: churchillchat@googlegroups.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.205.156 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Found it, although my memory was imperfect. The memoir was from Erik Boheman who served as ranking civil servant under the Foreign minister. Title is "På Vakt", printed in Stockholm in 1964, no ISBN (probably because it's to early). On page 194, Boheman refers to a meeting with Churchill in October 1942 where Churchill after a presentation of Sweden's situation and the concessions it had felt itself obliged to give to the Germans said: "I think I understand your attitude and your policy, you must arm and arm and prepare yourself for the worst; don't give way from German demands more than your absolutely must, but on the other hand do not be foolhardy, we do not want another victim" and repeated "We do not want another victim". The source is perhaps not the strongest, Boheman may very well have been blowing his own horn and there are no witnesses to the meeting mentioned in the book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.202.212 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, it could possibly be included if it's specifically attributed to Erik Boheman. Hohum (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

• The post-war election was, AFAIK, not the first free election, but the first where all adults, including women, had the vote. I'm not certain where the argument that conservatives wanted strong leaders is coming from, though I'm not an expert on interior politics of Sweden between the wars. Possibly it refers to the political monarchists who were almost completely isolated in Swedish domestic politics, particularily so after the late 19th century. Anyways, the link leads to an inappropriate page (possibly because of renaming articles after the linking).

• The conservatives and "right wings" would seem to be divided in two groups - conservatives and nazis, the official policy from the conservative party already from the early 1930s was that Nazi Germany was a threat to peace. In addition there were a nazi-party (one of three, the other two evolving from communists and social democrats) that evolved from a conservative parrty youth organization (Svensk Nationell Ungdom) and evicted by them for its growing allegiance to Nazi Germany.

• There were sympathies for Germany but that was mostly remnants of a Swedish tradition of cultural and political influence from Germany dating at least from mid 19th century, if not the medieval age. The Swedish Nazi parties reputedly considered the swastika a political liability and replaced it with new symbols. The German attack on Denmark and Norway made the Germans so impopular in Sweden that even Swedish Nazis objected.

• I believe the numbers for the Swedish volunteers for the Winter War was about 9.500 (Finland i Krig, 1939-1945, pt 1, ISBN 951-50-0373-3 states 8.260 for the Svenska Frivilligkåren ~ Swedish corps of volunteers and 1.182 other Swedish volunteers), though in honesty it might be mentioned that some of these, especially among the latter group, were probably Finnish expats/immigrants in Sweden if one goes by their names.

• The text regarding Swedish volunteers for the Waffen SS might be expanded, to include the times when they joined up and the unit they fought in (a recon company in SS Wiking?). Instead of claiming that this was not Swedish policy, it might be preferrable to mention that joining foreign militaries was against the law in Sweden. I also know that some more Swedes fought for Finland in the continuation war, possibly an entire battalion was present in the Finnish armed forces.

• In the discussion of division into revolutionaries and reformists I think a better word would be groupings or wings, rather than flanges. This would seem to be Swenglish and an expression inproperly translated - rather than phalanxes - and somewhat inappropriate in English since phalanx has strong other connotations in English (namely to fascism).

I exchanged "flanges" with "opposing groups" as a better translation of the Swedish "falanger". Technically the descriptions of groupings as social democrats and communists are incorrect. Both groups were part of the movement of social democrats during the 19th cty; the revolutionary split and renaming into communists happened first after the establishment of the Soviet Union.

• Sweden was dependent on imports for most military needs, thus trying to purchase weaponry from the big powers (aircraft from the US and Italy, destroyer from Italy, field artillery from Germany, etc).

• Sweden also leased Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft guns to the British and the US.

I brought this up because I've seen it incorrectly claimed that Swedish export of Bofors guns to the Germans was a breach of neutrality. It's not only factually incorrect (AFAIK the Germans used the indigenous Rheinmetall aa-guns), it also stands history on its head since it was the allies who used Bofors guns.

• You might mention the buildup of the Swedish defenses during the war. I might be able to return with data at a later point.

• In humanitarian politics, it might be mentioned that Sweden helped its neighbours considerably after the war and also that relief shipments of food were sent to Greece during the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.205.156 (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change in wording

• In the opening, it says that Sweden violated its netrality, I think a better word might be compromized, as in damaging the status of neutrality by giving concessions to the warring sides.

• Regarding Germany's dependence on Swedish ore: it has been contested by historians whether the dependence was real or just a mistaken conclusion drawn by British intelligence, later becoming a brain child of one of Britain's MPs. A better wording might be something on the line that "Britain assumed that the German war machine was dependent ...".

[I haven't read books on the question, but I've seen it argued that the Germans had a pretty large reserve at war's start, that it could've used own resources (presumably of low quality) and in 1940 conquered French ore fields in Lorraine. The real importance to the Germans was the quality expressed as percentage of iron content as well as trace elements of phosphorus, either included or absent (can't remember)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.206.36 (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed corps to branch

In Swedish corps has two meanings:

1) army corps as in anglosaxon usage, and

2) corps only, a minor group of specialists which may be as small as company sized. An example would artillery, engineer or pontoneer corps. The English fire brigade translates into fire corps in Swedish (brandkåren). This is the relevant meaning here.

Sadly I fumbled the edit, hitting the enter button when editing the edit summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.138 (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedited

Richard asr (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating article. Really enjoyed reading and working on it. Richard asr (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkey saved more?

8digits say Turkey save more Jews than Sweden. It depends on the numbers. Stanford Shaw claims that Turkey saved 100,000, while another historian Rifat Bali claims Turkey saved 15,000 and another historian Tuvia Friling, an Israeli expert on the Balkans and the Middle East 20,000. For Sweden just the Danish Jews is some 7000-8000 persons. The white buses saved 15 345 persons (but not all Jewish). Raoul Wallenberg save several ten thousands. So it's only Stanford Shaw that have a number that might be higher. // Liftarn (talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If we do some adding 7 to 8K Danish Jews, most on the white buses were not Jews but say max another 4K, Raoul Wallenberg adds another 10K although that figure might be higher so the total is about 22K plus. That is lower then either Stanford Shaw or Arnold Reisman figures for Turkey. 8digits (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Some say Wallenberg alone saved 100 000. And the Shaw figure is for that Turkey "permitted almost 100,000 East European Jews to transit through Turkey", i.e. not any active help. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And please note that the section is about humanitarian efforts, not just that some people travelled via or to a specific country. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To Jews before and during WW2, the problem was to get out of occupied Europe as once out they almost never were sent back. 8digits (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's still not any active help. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is. 8digits (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. No stopping a person from fleeing is not the same thing as helping a person flee. Sorry. I'm going to cut the section until you have found some evidence of Turkey actually helping. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had read the reference I supplied you will see that Turkey provided documents, that is bu anyone definition active. 8digits (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Turkey obviously allowed the transit of a number of refugees. It's still not any active help. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is what you are saying then the article should say active. I will put it in 8digits (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's about helping. You can no fiddle around and add things not in the sources. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The rules are very simple, if it is not cited then it cannot be put in the wiki. These government offices need to be specified and cited. Since you reject Turkey claiming it is not active even though I think that is not true, you need to specify that Sweden's help was active in the article. Helping can be active as well as passive. 8digits (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I take issue with the following sentence: "A daily newspaper in Sweden, the Svenska Dagbladet said that Sweden did more to assist and save Jews than any other country" Firstly, Svenska Dagbladet is not a neutral source. Secondly, I would argue that the countries that did the most to assist and save the Jews were those countries who were actually fighting the Nazis. Thirdly, if we are only talking about neutral countries, this ignores Turkey. I have the feeling that Swedish revisionists are hard at work on this article. Such is Wikipedia. 81.170.234.118 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gävle?

It must surely be a mistake to mention "cities such as Luleå and Gävle" in the section about the allied plans to seize the iron ore. Gävle is way south, not so far from Stockholm. Perhaps Gällivare was meant? Geoff Bache (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

92.238.67.123 added a "Neutrality contested" tag to this article without explination. Unless someone is prepared to defend that tag, I see nothing overtly non-neutral about this article and think the tag is unessicary. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Without explanation, the tag is useless, removed. (Hohum ^@) 16:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Denmark in illustration as "German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states" ?

The caption of this article's illustration describes Denmark as one of 'German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states'. This is in stark contrast to the opening paragraph of Denmark in World War II:

"During much of World War II, Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany. The occupation began with Operation Weserübung on 9 April 1940, and lasted until German forces withdrew at the end of World War II following their surrender to the Allies on 5 May 1945."

This clearly contracting contradicting information cannot remain as it is. The sources quoted in Denmark in World War II are quite extensive. This cannot be said of the information regarding Denmark in this article, nor of its illustration. Since the illustration leads a very quite life, I am opening this discussion here, with the intention of bringing the discussion to the illustration once some conclusion has been reached here. Lklundin (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

First I just want to make clear that I'm a graphic worker here and mostly I have no knowledge of the subject of the graphic I'm working on. I have to relay on the requester and the sources that are provided or what I find myself to be able to complete the request.

But to me Denmark was never a 'German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states', it was occupied all the time and this is what I have read in everything I have read in this subject. Occupied, nothing else.

Just now I think I realized what you are saying. In that illustration Denmark is colored/marked as 'Nominally unoccupied' not 'German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states'. I don't really know what that is supposed to mean.

Here is a link to the request and you can contact @DIREKTOR: and discuss with him. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en:: Thanks for your answer and your valuable contribution to Wikipedia+Commons. Right, this discussion involves two (or more) different but related illustrations. The first (for which you are not the author) is used as the primary illustration of this article and includes Denmark in the category 'German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states'. This is problematic as described above. Now, that illustration seems to be a work derived from one that you created (file:World_War_II_in_Europe,_1942.svg), which as you point out lists Denmark at the height of the German expansion as 'nominally unoccupied'. Both illustrations are misrepresenting Denmark in WW2. As for your illustration, Denmark was most certainly 'occupied', see sources under Denmark in World War II. Whether or not is was in 1942 only 'nominally occupied' (i.e. occupied only by name but not in a real sense), is a non-trivial discussion. So Denmark cannot be listed on an illustration as being 'nominally occupied' before there is WP:RS to support that description in Denmark in World War II. So for now, I believe the correct action for your illustration is to recategorise Denmark to 'Areas under German occupation'. @DIREKTOR: as apparent requester please feel free to comment on this. Thanks, Lklundin (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

PS. Your work seems to be derived from File:Europe under Nazi domination.png, whose creator Morgan Hauser I have notified of this discussion. Lklundin (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker: Your illustration File:Sweden locator map 1942.svg is used as the main illustration in this article. In the above text I explain that it is contradicting reliably sourced information that your illustration categorizes Denmark in 1942 as belonging to 'German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states', rather than 'Areas under German occupation'. If you also only created this work on request from someone else, then please feel free to discuss this with the requester. Thanks - and thank you for contributing such useful work to Wikipedia+Commons. Lklundin (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, Lklundin. I have updated File:Sweden locator map 1942.svg to reflect that Denmark was occupied, rather than being a puppet state. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now edited the following illustrations;

World_War_II_in_Europe,_1942

World_War_II_in_Europe,_1942_(no_labels)

Europe,_1942

I hope I got it right otherwise just tell me and I will fix.

Another question, when I upload a new version at commons and I in the 'File changes' wants to add a link to commons or any other wikipedia, how should it be coded? I can't get it to be correct. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for resurrecting this, everyone. Unfortunately the ping got my old account so I wasn't notified - here's the gist of it: in 1942, Denmark was not, repeat: not, "occupied" by Germany. There was no military commander, no commissioner, no occupation authority, no German governmental body of any sort, military or civilian, exercising any government in Denmark. Instead, due to its military conquest by Germany, it functioned as a sort of de facto puppet state or (as its often called) a protectorate, much like Vichy France in its unoccupied territories. This is in contrast to Norway, which was under a civilian German government (commissariat). Later, Denmark would be "occupied" - on 29 August 1943. Not in 1942.

The map depicts the height of German success in WWII. At that point, they still did not feel the need for "cruder", more direct control over (southern) France and Denmark. That would change after the failure at Kursk and the Allied invasion of Sicily in late August of 1943. -- Director (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Director: Well, since this is WP:NOTAFORUM, you need to propose an action. Since your above statement amounts to nothing but WP:ORIGINAL research, a proposed action to keep the map as it currently is would need a source significant enough to rewrite Wikipedia (and with it an extensive body on literature) on Germany's occupation of Denmark in WW2. Lklundin (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Director: I see that you actually went and changed the map back to its contradicting form, with the non-descriptive edit summary 'a new version'. This is no good, you cannot disregard this entire discussion and reinstate your contradicting version without citing a proper source, and without communicating this change to the discussion. I am reverting your unsourced change on Commons. Please do not reinstate an unsourced version again. Thank you for your cooperation. Lklundin (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

There is no "contradiction". The place falls neatly into the category of "puppet state" (or protectorate). And here's the point: the WP:BURDEN is on you, not me, to show the existence of a German occupation in 1942. Can you, just for starters, give me the name of a military commander (Militärbefehlshaber) of Denmark in the period?

And permit me to express bemusement at your outrage over my edit - posted just under your demand that I make one :), complete with plainly unfounded reference to NOTFORUM.

Look, pardon me for being blunt, but you're obviously Danish, aren't being objective, and would perhaps like to paint your country as more "antagonistic" towards Germany than it actually was. Whereas if I recall - about the same number of Danes died in the 5th SS as did at the hands of the post-1943 occupation authorities. Not to denigrate the efforts of the Danish resistance, such as they were, but one could say its rather offensive to those who suffered under actual Nazi occupation in the period, to include a territory which simply did not (until August 1943 ofc).

Sigh.. We could go into vague territory and call virtually all of Europe "occupied" in some intangible sense, including places like Vichy France or Croatia or Slovakia etc, but it would be very misleading to the reader. An "occupation" is a very specific thing - its when a country places its own institutions into government over a foreign territory. And look, yes, there'll undoubtedly be some sources rounding things off and calling Denmark an "occupied" country in WWII, but the fact is - that's not sufficiently accurate for a map depicting the state of affairs in 1942. -- Director (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The map is totally misleading, and some fringe Swedish nationalist apollogetic-theorism is at place here. The map should be showing axis and allies + so-called "officially neutral" Sweden during ww2. It should not be a theoretical discussion of what occupacion is, where a fringe person is aguing that if you do not have a military comander then you are not occupied. The map is totally misleading placing Denmark in category with fascist Italy and mousolini. Denmark was not nazi. End of story. Germany invaded Denmark in the small battle of April 9th and Danish soliders were killed as opposed to the situation in Sweden and Italy. A new map should be introduced. Google "axis and allies during ww2 map" and pick any map, as they all have Denmark along with the allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.224.132 (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Humanitarian effort

The effort of transporting Jews was Danish, not Swedish and it was more complicated then presented here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a booklet for children.Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't see anything saying that the Swedish did the transporting in the section. It says that the Danes did it, and Sweden granted them asylum.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Book

Sweden, the Swastika and Stalin: The Swedish experience in the Second World War, John Gilmour, Edinburgh University Press Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Did the USSR later punish Sweden for allowing nazi troops through its territory during the Barbarossa invasion?

The article doesn't clearly specify if post-1945 USSR punished Sweden in any way for allowing nazi german troops through its territory during Hitler's "Operation Barbarossa" invasion of Soviet Russia. Stalin was a very vengenceful person, there is no way he would let Sweden escape consequences for such a betrayal of sworn neutrality. Finland was "finlandized" for much less.

At the very least, the soviets would have demanded indemnity of a few hundred million US dollars or even extradiction of the responsible swedish politicians, to be tried and executed as perpetrators of "crimes against peace". Yet the article doesn't write anything about those? 79.120.158.193 (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reference to back up that claim, apart from your gut feeling? --Soman (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No, as such demands would have been ignored or laughed at. Sweden during the entire war had been building up its capacity of war and after the war Sweden was in such a relatively strong position that the USSR could not enforce any demands. The only result of such pressure would have been that Sweden joined NATO. Drakoniam (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The Soviet bombings of Stockholm and Strängnäs on February 22-23 1944

It's a bit of an odd omission, I think, the event has articles on Swedish, French and Ukrainian wikipedia but neither a stand-alone article nor a single mention on this page. On the night between February 22 and 23 of 1944, four Soviet bombers entered Swedish airspace and dropped around thirty bombs across the Eastern coast and archipelago, four bombs landed in the Eriksdal area of central Stockholm, destroying a theatre and damaging rail and industrial buildings in the area, Södermanland Regiment (armoured) in Strängnäs was also hit, as were the islands of Blidö and Svartlöga. The Soviet union never acknowledged the bombings, but bomb fragments with cyrillic writing was found, and a Soviet spy was extradited to the Soviet Union three days later. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/1944/02/23/archives/stockholm-bombed-in-mystery-blow-other-swedish-cities-also-hit.html Fisk0 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fisk0 Now included. TylerBurden (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)