What if Sweden had also been invaded on the 9th of April ´40
What if Sweden had also been invaded on the 9th of April ´40
What would the outcome have been in 1940 if Sweden had been invaded in 1940. Historically that didn't happen because the Navy said it would be impossible to conduct the operation if they had to do battle with the Swedish Navy and the army said it would have to take divisions from the invasion of France.
At that time Sweden had a sizeable navy that could have held it's own against anything the Kriegsmarine had with the Exception of the Scharnhorst class Battlecruisers. The Army although weak in the south had 200.000 troops in the north being demobilised.
So what coul have happened ?
At that time Sweden had a sizeable navy that could have held it's own against anything the Kriegsmarine had with the Exception of the Scharnhorst class Battlecruisers. The Army although weak in the south had 200.000 troops in the north being demobilised.
So what coul have happened ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
- Location: Canada
What would be the motivation?
Sweden was happy to supply weapons, ball bearings and steel to Hitler for cash and he was quite happy to recieve them.
Sandwiched neatly between German occupied Norway and Russia's Finnish rival, it provided a bit of a buffer zone. The country really couldn't recieve outside aid from Britain unless Norway was conquered first.
Making another enemy would complicate things in the already congested waters North of Germany. Even Norway was only invaded when it seemed that Britain was about to do so first, in order to send troops cross country to Finland during the winter war.
Sweden was happy to supply weapons, ball bearings and steel to Hitler for cash and he was quite happy to recieve them.
Sandwiched neatly between German occupied Norway and Russia's Finnish rival, it provided a bit of a buffer zone. The country really couldn't recieve outside aid from Britain unless Norway was conquered first.
Making another enemy would complicate things in the already congested waters North of Germany. Even Norway was only invaded when it seemed that Britain was about to do so first, in order to send troops cross country to Finland during the winter war.
For one Hitler is known to have regretted that he didn't take Sweden in 1940 they tried in ´42 & ´43 but in 42 the Ice was too thick in the Baltic and Sweden had mobilised in ´43 they planned to do it when they had won at Kursk.
Also Hitler didn't always care about what the Army Navy or Luftwaffe said I am also fairly sure that Sweden was given to Germany in the Mollotow-Ribbentrop pact.
Also Hitler didn't always care about what the Army Navy or Luftwaffe said I am also fairly sure that Sweden was given to Germany in the Mollotow-Ribbentrop pact.
Invading Sweden in April 1940 would have taken away the first rational for invading: securing bases in Norway for the Kriegsmarine. With assistance from the Swedes, the Norwegians could easily have kicked the weak (in numbers) first wave of the German invasion out. As it was, things were very much in the balance in N. Norway, with the Allied contribution there being much more limited than any Swedish effort to help the Norwegians would potentially have been.
Instead, the Germans would have been faced with what could well turn out to be a very drawn-out affair due to the size of Sweden and the fact that the Germans would need to establish a sea link for communications. Supplying the large army needed there would have been quite challenging.
Besides, as Maltesefalcon pointed to, why bother? Sweden supplied Germany with the high quality iron ore that the Germans needed (though it was not absolutely critical for the German war effort, as the Admiralty thought) as well as actually allowing the transit of German forces bound for Norway. Sweden at war could not give Germany anything that peacetime Sweden did not.
Instead, the Germans would have been faced with what could well turn out to be a very drawn-out affair due to the size of Sweden and the fact that the Germans would need to establish a sea link for communications. Supplying the large army needed there would have been quite challenging.
Besides, as Maltesefalcon pointed to, why bother? Sweden supplied Germany with the high quality iron ore that the Germans needed (though it was not absolutely critical for the German war effort, as the Admiralty thought) as well as actually allowing the transit of German forces bound for Norway. Sweden at war could not give Germany anything that peacetime Sweden did not.
-
- Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
- Location: Australia
Re: What if Sweden had also been invaded on the 9th of April ´40
One motivation for invading Sweden in April 1940 would be to secure a supply route for German forces at Narvik. In the OTL, German forces at Narvik were cut off by the Royal Navy and were on the verge of retreating into Sweden when the Allies abruptly withdrew from Norway. Had the Allies decided to stay in Narvik, there is little the Germans could have done to force them out.
But if Germany had invaded Sweden in the initial invasion and managed to capture Luleå, Germany would have had a supply route to Narvik through the Baltic to Luleå and then by rail to Narvik. It was pure luck that the British decided to withdraw (Churchill said he was against withdrawing), so it seems like the optimal German strategy would have been to invade Sweden too, depending on the size of the Swedish army, navy and air force.
But if Germany had invaded Sweden in the initial invasion and managed to capture Luleå, Germany would have had a supply route to Narvik through the Baltic to Luleå and then by rail to Narvik. It was pure luck that the British decided to withdraw (Churchill said he was against withdrawing), so it seems like the optimal German strategy would have been to invade Sweden too, depending on the size of the Swedish army, navy and air force.
- Terry Duncan
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6272
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
- Location: Kent
Re: What if Sweden had also been invaded on the 9th of April ´40
This does not fit the definition of what is required in a What If scenario, and as it had been dead for sixteen years there is little point in resurrecting it now, therefore it is locked.
For any would be thread necromancers out there, if the topic never complied with the guidelines it will be locked when it reappears. Those who insist on performing such acts will be subject to disciplinary measures.
Terry
For any would be thread necromancers out there, if the topic never complied with the guidelines it will be locked when it reappears. Those who insist on performing such acts will be subject to disciplinary measures.
Terry
Re: What if Sweden had also been invaded on the 9th of April ´40
But what if Finland would have crumbled in 1939/1940 under the Soviet invasion and soviets marched all the way to Sweden too ?