Sweden could have stopped the war ?

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Darkwand
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 21 Jul 2004 23:26
Location: Stockholm, The Kingdom of Sweden

Sweden could have stopped the war ?

Postby Darkwand » 11 Nov 2004 16:12

Ive read in some history books that there was a belief that if sweden had said that it would support finland in a conflict with the USSR before the outbreak of war the stalin woulndn't have invaded ?
Is there any merit to this ? would this really have made a man like Stalin think twice? Personally I find it a little strange but considering that on paper the Swedish armed forces where the largest and best equipped in Scandinavia it would atleast have caused the plans to be revised.

User avatar
Grad
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 10:37
Location: Russia

Postby Grad » 11 Nov 2004 19:17

"Said" is very vague term. Has there been pan-Scandinavian mutual defence pact perhaps Stalin would think twice.

Mikko H.
Financial supporter
Posts: 1596
Joined: 07 May 2003 10:19
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Postby Mikko H. » 12 Nov 2004 14:46

As long as we don't have a paper from Russian archives stating what the Soviets at the time thought on the subject, we can only speculate.

Juho Paasikivi, the Finnish ambassador to Sweden in the late 1930s, certainly thought that a Fenno-Swedish alliance would have prevented the Soviet invasion (one of Paasikivi's aims during his stay in Stockholm was to work for such an alliance). And as is well known, Red Army soldiers were admonished not to violate Swedish neutrality during the Winter War, and that certainly indicates the Soviets didn't want to get involved with Sweden.

User avatar
Grad
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 10:37
Location: Russia

Postby Grad » 13 Nov 2004 03:56

I've read a book of Tanner, I think it's quite honest...

Some would say that it's it's too diplomatic but I think it's really honest. Well Sweden... they were too afriad of Hitler and Stalin...

You know every country that aspire to exist must think of themselves only... If for instance Chinese would some day attack Russia everybody understands that only Russians would face them ..

I hope Russians would be so valiant as Finns... Anyway, I don`t know what Finns think about Russians, but Finns have great reputation here....

Steady
Member
Posts: 436
Joined: 07 Aug 2004 20:45
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Postby Steady » 13 Nov 2004 13:25

Reason why Soviet troops were told not to enter Sweden was because Sweden did not belong to the Soviet sphere of influence as agreed with Germans. But what if the russians had successfully entered Sweden anyway? Would the Germans have risked a full out war with SU when they were still facing the western Allies in their other border?

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Re: Sweden could have stopped the war ?

Postby varjag » 14 Nov 2004 11:47

Darkwand wrote:Ive read in some history books that there was a belief that if sweden had said that it would support finland in a conflict with the USSR before the outbreak of war the stalin woulndn't have invaded ?
Is there any merit to this ? would this really have made a man like Stalin think twice? Personally I find it a little strange but considering that on paper the Swedish armed forces where the largest and best equipped in Scandinavia it would atleast have caused the plans to be revised.


Darkwand - I think your term 'the largest and best equipped' about the Swedish armed forces in 1939 could with advantage be re-phrased to; 'the least small and under-equipped' of the Scandinavian countries - those of Norway and Denmark were a joke and what Sweden could field in late 1939 were little better. Sweden gave Finland, before and during the Winter War all the diplomatic support that it could. It is even possible to argue a case that the Swedes or more precisely their Defence Staff during several years before the WW, had led their Finnish colleagues up a garden path where Finland was led to understand that in case of a Soviet attack - Swedish intervention/participation, could be expected. Such a belief seems to have stiffened the spine of the Finnish negotiators in Moscow in 1939. But whatever underhand indications there had been from the Swedish military to that effect - it seems that the Swedish government had little or no knowledge of them and when it became clear in Stockholm that the Soviets meant business - they backpedalled like monocyclists. There was never a chance that Sweden would jeopardize it's neutrality for Finland. It seems equally likely that Stalin, who had 'good ears in Sweden' - knew the Swedish position and acted accordingly.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Postby Tiwaz » 14 Nov 2004 13:39

Steady wrote:Reason why Soviet troops were told not to enter Sweden was because Sweden did not belong to the Soviet sphere of influence as agreed with Germans. But what if the russians had successfully entered Sweden anyway? Would the Germans have risked a full out war with SU when they were still facing the western Allies in their other border?


Definitely!

Hitler was going to attack Russia anyway, there was no doubt about it. (both Stalin and Hitler were very aware of conflict coming in the future)

If Soviets had went to Sweden Germany would have had excellent position to offer aid (similarily as to Finland after Winter War) and to gain ally. Also, since Swedes and rebellious Finns would have been a great problem and strain to Soviets it would have opened up better window of opportunity for attack. Every division occupying Finland and fighting Sweden was one division less to meet on Barbarossa.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Postby varjag » 15 Nov 2004 11:43

I understand there is a Finnish researcher who recently published a book -
'Finland in the Eye of the Storm...' (don't know the original title) which point to the existence of a Soviet 'Operation Poro' - plan. This, originating in 1932 and rehashed in 1935-36 - was for a Soviet offensive through northern Finland and Sweden with the aim of ockupying northern Norway. Even if planning of that nature - is what all staffs do all the time - it shows that the Soviet army had prepared for - and was ready to execute if needed, such a contingency.

User avatar
fredleander
Financial supporter
Posts: 2146
Joined: 03 Dec 2004 20:49
Location: Stockholm

Re: Sweden could have stopped the war ?

Postby fredleander » 05 Dec 2004 18:36

varjag wrote:But whatever underhand indications there had been from the Swedish military to that effect - it seems that the Swedish government had little or no knowledge of them and when it became clear in Stockholm that the Soviets meant business - they backpedalled like monocyclists. There was never a chance that Sweden would jeopardize it's neutrality for Finland.


This is well described by the fact that the Swedish commander in Norrland - I do not remember his name - was put under "supervision". This on order from the political authorities. It came about as a result of his initiative to dispatch Swedish officers across the border into Finland to recce an eventual forward line of Swedish defense. The politicians wanted nothing of it! Not for their own defense - and certainly not for the Finns!

John T
Member
Posts: 1082
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Sweden could have stopped the war ?

Postby John T » 02 Jan 2005 00:26

Darkwand wrote:Ive read in some history books that there was a belief that if sweden had said that it would support finland in a conflict with the USSR before the outbreak of war the stalin woulndn't have invaded ?
Is there any merit to this ? would this really have made a man like Stalin think twice? Personally I find it a little strange but considering that on paper the Swedish armed forces where the largest and best equipped in Scandinavia it would atleast have caused the plans to be revised.


On Sweden and the Winter war.

As a Swede I can't help feeling a bit off put by Finns perception that Sweden let Finland down during the Winter war,
This seems common to all, Mannerheim, Jacobsson, Turtola, Nivikivi- I do have a hard time to find a Finnish writer who does defend the Swedish actions during the winter war.
For instance Nivakivi understands that GB only sent 12 of the 60 Hurricane fighters Gripenberg asked for, while Sweden who sent one third of her total inventory of fighters where expected to done better. Sweden was the main benefactor of an independent Finland and Sweden and Finland had advanced plans for cooperation but none where politically ratified. The Judgement on what Sweden had started to discuss but not did was harder than the Judgement of was Sweden did. Agreed, lost expectations are worse than no expectations.


The German threat to Sweden is part that isn't very intuitive and the first time I read the standard work on Swedish-Finnish relations 1937-40 Walbäcks," Finlandsfrågan i Svensk politik" it took me some time to understands the line of thought within the Swedsh cabinet.
When I read Trotter's book I found that he also made some oversimplifications or misconceptions regarding Sweden’s role during the winter war so I have made this somewhat lengthy note.

Sweden between the Superpowers.
Max Jacobson simplified Scandinavian security politics at the eve of WW2 as
"Finland feared the Soviets, Denmark feared the Germans, the Sweden didn't know whom to fear most and the Norwegian’s didn't fear anyone."

Please note that the world and the leaders of small states had a different set of perceptions than we have today, League of Nations had failed and any dreams about small countries could join force and deter a major aggressive power where considered just dreams.
The mutual commitment that made NATO where simply not there, as proved by the fate of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Sweden had a bad experience from world war one when siding with Germany in the trade war on Neutrality-theoretical reasoning. "A neutral could not take part in the blockade of one side" - This caused Sweden to get hurt by the British blockade without gaining any substantial benefits from Germany, except for some profiteers who managed to sell Swedish goods to Germany at outrageous profits. In the thirties Swedish foreign office where determined not to make the same mistake again and wanted to balance the combatants demands on Sweden.

Sweden and Great Britain
Great Britain’s strategy was to win the war by economic blockade but at the same time had to accept that "adjacent neutrals" continued to trade with Germany but only in quantities that where considered normal trade. To define normal trade was one of the major problems. The official trade statistics for 1938 where used in the Swedish - British negotiations. For the Neutrals this was mostly seen as a commercial agreement in witch you would try to maximise your own benefit. The political side where toned down by the neutrals either because of indifference with the Allied cause or fear of German retaliation.

For instance, fuel deliveries to Finland was exempted from British blockade as where replacement of Swedish fuels sent to Finland, this caused some hoarding from joint Swedish-Finnish interests. These was completely within both countries national interests and have not been noted as something extraordinary, since no one knew how long the winter war would last it was just prudent to order as large quantities as possible. On the other hand Swedish authorities did command Finnish oil shipments in Sweden after the winter war

The British Ministry of Economic Warfare believed that Germany could be strangled within seven months if Swedish deliveries of Iron ore where stopped. That was the main reason why Allied forces tried to get a foothold in Scandinavia.


Sweden and Germany:
Sweden had since 1934(?) a trade agreement with Germany and the most significant part where the Iron ore export quota.

Germans where very clear that they would consider a significant decrease of Swedish Ore export as a unfriendly act and that Allied troops on Swedish soil where explicitly seen as a cause of war. Volunteers moving as civilians were accepted but no combat ready military units. And if Sweden entered the winter war in support of Finland, Germany could no longer support Sweden due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.


So the Swedish choices where:

- Keep low, give most possible material and financial help to Finland while trying to expand her own armed forces. Buying arms both from Germany and USA, the last ones delivered with British consent through the blockade line. And the more arms bought from abroad, the more was delivered to Finland.


- Declare war on USSR, and send as large a force to Finland as possible while keeping a guard against Germany. Swedish munitions production could not supply both the Finnish and the full Swedish army at the same time, only parts of the Swedish army could be engaged in combat while supporting the Finns. The net result would probably be that Finland could hold out a somewhat longer (bleed somewhat longer..) with the reinforcement of Swedish manpower but no major change to the overall situation.
And at the same time try to wriggle enough support from the Allies to make a difference without having to reduce the Iron ore export enough to invoke a German occupation. Swedish Foreign office had no hopes that the allies would allow Sweden to do that.


- Ally herself with Great Britain and thus explicitly declaring war on Germany, and at the same time send ”any” surplus forces to aid Finland.
Today, with hindsight, that would be the moraly correct action but with the Poles and Czech's experience of allied support not very advisable.



The only option that could have saved both Finland and Sweden where if the two countries made an alliance after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact where signed and Germany and USSR did struck a new deal keeping Sweden and Finland within the German sphere of influence.
And in such case I’d say Germany would have saved Finland not Sweden.


Cheers
/John T.

Mikko H.
Financial supporter
Posts: 1596
Joined: 07 May 2003 10:19
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Postby Mikko H. » 02 Jan 2005 13:18

John T,

I, for one, fully understand why Sweden did not intervene in the Winter War, and to my best knowledge, the majority of modern Finnish historians acknowledge that Finnish hopes for a Swedish intervention were overblown and Sweden acted sensibly to her best interests. Sweden sent all the help she could, and more, and the role of the 8000+ Swedish volunteers in the defense of Finnish Lapland in late Winter War was crucial. It's tragic that Finns were led, or rather led themselves, to hope for more and were disappointed. (This is compounded by the old Finnish feeling that Finland is Sweden's best and last hope against Russia, but that's a different matter entirely.)

Do you have any information regarding the attitudes of the Swedish officer corps regarding the Winter War? From Finnish sources I've understood that the Swedish military leadership were all for intervention, and at one point during the last stage of the Winter War a Swedish general presented to her government a memorandum amounting to a demand for Sweden to join the war.

One factor in the Swedish attitude was also that many in the ruling Social Democrats apparently were somewhat suspicious of the nature of Finnish democracy, they still saw Finland in the light of the brutal Civil War of 1918 (where a number of high Swedish officers of 1940 had fought as volunteers) and felt that Finnish working class was still oppressed in one way or another. Finland's anti-socialist disturbances of the early 1930's and the language strife that was hottest at the same time certainly didn't help our cause.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, there was active mutual planning between Finnish and Swedish general staffs in the 1920s and 30s that called for active Swedish intervention in a Fenno-Russian war (IIRC the plans ultimately called for six Swedish divisions to be sent to Finland). But these plans were made for a situation where the League of Nations had declared military sanctions against the invader, and thus obliged its members to help the victim of the aggression. At the time the Scandinavian countries hoped much of the League of Nations, but as we all know, these hopes were soon dashed. The cooperation continued fitfully even after that, culminating in the abortive plans of joint fortification of the Ahvenanmaa (Åland) Islands in the late 1930s.

John T
Member
Posts: 1082
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re:

Postby John T » 27 Feb 2011 23:14

Better late than never,
I bumped into an old word document I had prepared six years ago but still missed some facts,
but I think it would be a waste to just throw it away.
so here's my post:


First of all I do admit that my own frail nationalistic ego might overreact.

Mikko H. wrote:John T,

I, for one, fully understand why Sweden did not intervene in the Winter War, and to my best knowledge, the majority of modern Finnish historians acknowledge that Finnish hopes for a Swedish intervention were overblown and Sweden acted sensibly to her best interests. Sweden sent all the help she could, and more, and the role of the 8000+ Swedish volunteers in the defense of Finnish Lapland in late Winter War was crucial. It's tragic that Finns were led, or rather led themselves, to hope for more and were disappointed. (This is compounded by the old Finnish feeling that Finland is Sweden's best and last hope against Russia, but that's a different matter entirely.)


Two members of the Swedish Cabinet did send in their resignations when winter war broke out, both Social Democrats. Secretary of Defence could cancel his resignation when the Swedish minefields in Ahvenanmaa -barrier where laid early December, while Secretary of state, Sandler had to go.
So people where disappointed on both sides of the border.

Finland as Sweden's best and last hope against Russia is a Very important part in this since it’s the basis from where you enter the discussion. That Finns have bled to keep the Russians out of Swedish soil is an old fact that Swedes easily forgets. Or in 1939, you can see it as two equal states, neutral and each responsible for their own territory, this is easily held as the Swedish view. Still, Sweden had few serious threats as long her neighbours remained sovereign and neutral states and this was a fact in the Swedish strategical discussion between the world wars.

Finland where, with some right, totally preoccupied with Russia and did sometimes act in a manner that was counterproductive to her own cause. It looks like sometimes Finns expected others to share their agenda without any explanation or “salesmanship”. Not an uncommon trait of dedicated persons but not always the best way to sell a good cause 
Some examples:

The Swedish officer responsible for negotiations to start planning for a joint defence of Ahvenanmaa, CA Erensvärd, tells in his memoirs the story how he had to visit the "Old man"(Mannerheim) as his Finnish counterpart, an unnamed officer, had no ability to find a common solution. At the following meeting a few weeks later, planning was started with some give and take and after that the most bothersome issue where the islanders stubborn resistance to any change.

I have read the transcript of a meeting between Grandell(?) and his Swedish equivalent, xxxx. on the way to a Nordic meeting in Oslo 1938. Sweden and Finland had a preliminary meeting intended to prepare and at least from Finnish side, first influence Sweden to find a strategy to influence Norway and Denmark.(It is terribly amusing that Finland where more aware of Norway’s importance for her security than Sweden where).
The Finns asked what deliveries Sweden could guarantee, and the Swede responded with asking what Finland could guarantee Sweden. This was obviously not on Grandell’s agenda and he answered with some heat that he had no authority to discuss such matters.
The Swedes persisted that any discussion had to be based on mutual interest
- Now Grandell understood the Swedes were serious and eventually they calmed down in a civilized manner.

Sweden was actually depended on Finland for aircraft bombs up to 1938; OY Tolvfan AB was Bofors subcontractor for all production. I am not sure of the commercial terms. During the period 37-43 Finland did supply bombs, SMG’s, small arms ammo and mortars to Sweden so the flow wasn’t purely one sided.


Mikko H. wrote:Do you have any information regarding the attitudes of the Swedish officer corps regarding the Winter War? From Finnish sources I've understood that the Swedish military leadership were all for intervention, and at one point during the last stage of the Winter War a Swedish general presented to her government a memorandum amounting to a demand for Sweden to join the war.


Swedish cabinet where briefed on a number of occasions on different alternatives.
One of the Military men’s problem where that they had lobbied for a stronger armed forces and belittle what capacity available and now had to explain why a preventive war in Finland was better than wait and see. This distrust between the armed forces and the political leadership is well documented and in some cases younger officers’ diary’s even doubts their superiors will to defend the country against Germany.

I'll divide them in interest groups,
- The Activists who preferred war with the Soviets in Finland rather than the same war on Swedish soil later.
Some of these did actually talk about coupe de eat and where seen as a threat to Swedish independence.
The leading men served with the Swedish volunteers during the independence war of 1918.

- The Loyal who wanted to do as much as possible but accepted the official “no intervention at the present situation”

- The cautious, focusing on the deficiencies and lack of training of their own units.

Mikko H. wrote:

One factor in the Swedish attitude was also that many in the ruling Social Democrats apparently were somewhat suspicious of the nature of Finnish democracy, they still saw Finland in the light of the brutal Civil War of 1918 (where a number of high Swedish officers of 1940 had fought as volunteers) and felt that Finnish working class was still oppressed in one way or another. Finland's anti-socialist disturbances of the early 1930's and the language strife that was hottest at the same time certainly didn't help our cause.


The simple fact is that small states do not declare war on superpowers light heartedly.

To keep Scandinavia out of the big war, between the Allies and Germany, the risk of making the winter war to come within that context where important for Swedish government. Contrary to the French who preferred to fight the communists at a safe distance from her own border rather than fighting Germany.

I believe those arguments you list where more used in domestic politics against the cabinet than basis of cabinet strategy. The language issue was used by the isolationists to discredit those who cherished the ideas of Nordic unity and Finland’s sincere wish to be more aligned towards Scandinavia.
A fear that Finnish willpower would cost Swedish manpower was there, and putting the fate of Sweden’s youth in the hand s of right wing Finnish politicians was shunned upon.

Swedish foreign policy during 1939 was pretty cloudy, a mismatch between high intentions and petty domestic politics that was never clear and consistent before April 1940. Fractions of the Social Democrats and the conservatives were most pro-Finnish in Swedish politics. The showdown came when the winter war broke out between Secretary of State, Sandler and Sec of Finance, Wigforss. Sandler argued to send Swedish forces to Ahvenanmaa according to the plans made up but not ratified. Note that Wigforss four months later became the least defeatist member of cabinet, after the German attack on Norway. He was not just a narrow minded isolationist, more disillusioned on the Allies will and capacity to help smaller states against the “Nazi-Bolshevik” dictators.

I believe that a lot of Swedes shunned from polarization, the risk of pro-Finland would come into an anti-communist crusade and thus become dependant on Nazi Germany was more of a factor than lack of faith in Finnish democracy.
“you've only yourself to blame”- might to some respect hold true for Swedish politics versus Norway durig the war, but hardly against Finland. “How the h--ll will we get you out of this situation you got us into?” fits better with my one liner perception of Swedish and Social Democrats attitude in general towards Finland.

The most vocal isolationists in the coalition government where the leader of the Liberals, Gustaf Andersson I Rasjö. A man who earlier had declined the position of chairman in the Liberals with the explanation that he preferred to stay at his homestead rather than going to the parliament in Stockholm. HE became one of the important policymakers within the cabinet in 1940, by forcefully demanding that nothing shall be done in the scene of foreign policy!



Mikko H. wrote:As has been mentioned before in this thread, there was active mutual planning between Finnish and Swedish general staffs in the 1920s and 30s that called for active Swedish intervention in a Fenno-Russian war (IIRC the plans ultimately called for six Swedish divisions to be sent to Finland). But these plans were made for a situation where the League of Nations had declared military sanctions against the invader, and thus obliged its members to help the victim of the aggression. At the time the Scandinavian countries hoped much of the League of Nations, but as we all know, these hopes were soon dashed. The cooperation continued fitfully even after that, culminating in the abortive plans of joint fortification of the Ahvenanmaa (Åland) Islands in the late 1930s.


This fits well into my perception and I have not much to add, except that this guideline for planning was crushed in two steps,

First the diminished power of the League of Nations
and Secondly Molotov-Ribentrop Pact who made the Swedish political plans to balance Hitler vs. Stalin less obvious.
( Visa länken )


The fitful cooperation was to some extent thought as an alternative to League of Nations, if not 16 states could work together then four Scandinavian states might work better. At least that was the Idea of Sandler while others preferred to


The interesting thing is that Soviet promptly reminded Germany April 1940 that an attack on Sweden was not in the interest of USSR.

So just because Sweden and Finland belived Nazi Germany where allied with USSR


Thats my old post.
Since then I did found an interesting article comparing Swedish views on German attitude towards the winter war and Finnish views on Swedish fear towards Germany during the winter war. And it is clear that Germany intentionaly did send different messages to Stockholm and Helsinki.
Available in Swedish on this link: http://nile.lub.lu.se/ojs/index.php/scandia/article/view/865/650


cheers
/John

Seppo Jyrkinen
Member
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Dec 2010 17:51
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta

Re: Re:

Postby Seppo Jyrkinen » 01 Mar 2011 19:47

Darkwand wrote:...if sweden had said that it would support finland in a conflict with the USSR before the outbreak of war the stalin woulndn't have invaded ?
... on paper the Swedish armed forces where the largest and best equipped in Scandinavia...

Russia was a strong military power and Finland was nothing in the eyes of Stalin. And so was also Sweden. I think, in the end of 1939, those two small countries together had been a Double-nothing.

Sweden had a high quality machine-building industry and capacity to build up a strong army. Excellent "cannon industry". But Swedish Air Forces had older aircraft than FAF had (50 Gloster Gladiator vs 40 Fokker D21 and 40 Ju86 vs 18 Bristol Blenheim). Sweden was not a such military power which had been respected by Hitler and Stalin .

John T wrote:Finland as Sweden's best and last hope against Russia is a Very important part in this since it’s the basis from where you enter the discussion. That Finns have bled to keep the Russians out of Swedish soil is an old fact that Swedes easily forgets. Or in 1939, you can see it as two equal states, neutral and each responsible for their own territory, this is easily held as the Swedish view. Still, Sweden had few serious threats as long her neighbours remained sovereign and neutral states and this was a fact in the Swedish strategical discussion between the world wars.

Swedish government had a goal to keep Sweden out of war. If Stalin had occupied Finland, Red Army troops had settled down just 150 km from Gällivare. Swedish iron ore was vital for Germany and Russia had got a possibility to strangle German war industry by occupying a small piece of Sweden.

What had been Hitler's reaction? I think Studie Nord had been fulfilled as originally designed and also Sweden had been occupied 1940.

When helping Finland, Sweden was helping as much herself.


I have been wondering if Göring really put an umbrella over Sweden (against Hitler) in the beginning of 1940. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=175078

Is this true, not true - or a question mark?
A word irony is baked into the word history.

AndersG
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Jan 2007 19:08
Location: Finland

Re: Sweden could have stopped the war ?

Postby AndersG » 03 Mar 2011 18:56

'Finland in the Eye of the Storm...' (don't know the original title)


Erkki Hautamäki: ”Finland i stormens öga”

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 10877
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Sweden could have stopped the war ?

Postby Juha Tompuri » 03 Mar 2011 21:30



Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users