Talk:Sweden during World War II

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tidying citations. 

message: * 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)
replies: text: "" 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)
thread_title: topics needing mentioning in the article

message: 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)
thread_title: New articles

message: Currently in the article:
Cited to:
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nope, nothing. It's just mentioned, no detail at all. // Tooga - BØRK! 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: * 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,  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)
thread_title:  Suggested improvements 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Suggested change in wording 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed corps to branch 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  It's still not any active help. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. 8digits (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Turkey saved more? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gävle? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Without explanation, the tag is useless, removed. (Hohum @) 16:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Humanitarian effort 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Book 

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

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

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: @Fisk0 Now included. TylerBurden (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soviet bombings of Stockholm and Strängnäs on February 22-23 1944