Molotov Cocktail Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Switzerland and Sweden most clever nation during WW II? Your Opinion? Either did not take part in this worldwide conflict, neither were Allied or Axis, not good guys nor bad guys. They were neutral countries They managed quite well during the war, both Switzerland and Sweden made trade with both Allied (Good guys) and Axis (Bad Guys)maybe little bit oversimlification, but you get the picture. Sweden sold Iron ore to the Axis (Germans). Swiss had Nazi money on their banks. Sweden sold also grain and maybe also Switzerland. After the war those countries were relatively affluent and still belong to richest countries of the world. Switzerland and Sweden, immoral, greedy and opportunistic bastards made trade and prohited, while other countries suffered did not fight againts evil (Nazis) or clever, pragmatic countries, more clever than warring nations? Switzerland and Sweden did not waste their national resources and man power to the war. Maybe those countries were lucky bastards, because they could afford luxury of neutrality? Maybe unlike Finland? Many small countries were neutral but they were overrun by Germany during it's Blitzkrieg phase or like Finland choosed the German side PS. Yes we finns are quite jealous for this reason to Swedes. What is you opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 well actually two things about sweden during wwII... first off they didnt exactly have a choice about selling their iron ore... if they didnt, germany would just invade and take it anyway... and 2ndly the swedish king at that time was pro-nazi... but the government wasnt... a bit difficult to choose sides then isnt it oh and there was a german plan in action to invade sweden from norway drawn up in 43 but it never came to realisation because of D-day in 44... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott B Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 The big winner was clearly the U.S.A. As a result of its wartime grand strategy, it enjoyed an unparalleled postwar position with a relatively tiny fraction of the war's overall casualties and material losses. The U.S. got the most for what it expended; no one else came close. As far as "clever neutrals" go, I'd add the Spanish to your list. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogust Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 I often hear Americans (mostly tourists visiting Sweden) condemning Sweden for not fighting the Nazis and I have always wondered why. The only countries that actually declared war on Germany was the UK (well, perhaps the commonwealth is a better term) and France. Well, I don't count Brazil and other minor belligerents that were 'piling on' at the end without contributing any sizeable forces to the European theatre. Why should Sweden declare war on Germany without reason when even the United States refused to do it? I think we took the sensible approach of keeping a low profile while manning our borders, that way nobody would get offended and a surprise attack will have some trouble in succeeding. The same thing goes for Switzerland I think, they were also surrounded by German occupied territory or German allies and decided to stay low. Joining a war where you are certain to lose isn't very clever and joining in when all is decided is even more dishonest IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogust Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 When I came to think about it I thin kthat the best solution for Sweden would be to form a Scandinavian alliance with Norway, Finlad and Denmark before the war. That way neither faction of the conflict had anything to gain by picking on a Scandinavian country as they would be fighting all four at once and Norway, Finland and Denmark would have an easier time staying out of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Holland was supposed to be neutral too, like in WW I But on 10-05-1940, the Germans invaded Holland without any warning... Monty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Graeme Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 As I understand it the Swiss government was, or at least started off, being pro-German, but the Swiss army was far more cautious. In fact the defence policy, involving sacrificing most Swiss cities in order to conduct a hardcore defence in the mountains, was established independently of the intentions of the government. I recall the leading General behind this scheme (Name?) had other officers take an oath to follow this policy, the oath being conducted in some mountain meadow of immense patriotic importance to the Swiss (for some historical reason which I can't remember). There exsists documentary film footage of Swiss authorities forcing Jewish refugees, including a weeping mother and her baby, back across the border into the grasp of grinning German sentries. These refugees had the hard luck not to have any money with which to buy their way into refuge. My point being that, if the Germans had won the war, the Swiss would not have found it too difficult to prove to the Germans that they had supported the Axis cause all along. So why didn't the Germans invade? First, because they got most of what they wanted anyway, including free and continuous railway access to Italy. Second, because the Swiss would have fought like hell (to this day Switzerland is the most heavily fortified country in Europe), the Germans would have taken a lot of casualties, and the railway tunnels were wired and would have been blown, thus blocking the Swiss railway routes to Italy for months, if not years. (There are other routes through Austria of course, but the total capacity of rail traffic would have been much reduced.) Switzerland was one of those countries which Hitler intended to deal with AFTER the war. It is interesting to note that a democratically elected government leaned toward the Germans, but the military acted decisively to keep the country as independent as possible. It should be noted, however, that the majority of the Swiss supported the military policy, and opposed their government's approach. A common impression today is that Switzerland remained neutral simply because they had the common sense not to get involved. In other words, a bunch of nice, pacifist people who declared their neutrality and avoided the war. In fact they armed to the teeth, and lived the nightmare of constantly balancing on the razor's edge, never knowing from one day to the next if the winds of war would topple them into the abyss. It took a lot of hard effort and fancy footwork to avoid being sucked in. And then there is Ireland. The Prime Minister (was it De Valera? Spelling? Correct name?)was so anxious to maintain absolute neutrality that newsreels from both sides were forbidden, and when Hitler committed suicide, called in the German ambassador to express condolences. Being neutral isn't as easy or as morally pure as most people nowadays assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makes The Jelly Judder Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 The average UK citizen is freer now than before WW2. We live in a "Land of Hero's" (Sic). Switzerland and Sweden have the equivalent of Britain’s standard of living, but did thy earn it? How many countries did they win freedom for? If one Nation didn't stand in the face of tyranny would they still be free now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts