There are those that say Sweden should have shown more resistance to Germany however what would that have achieved? When Britain pulled out of Narvik (Norway), effective control of these waterways and this "theatre" was literally lost. Sweden was encircled on three sides by the Germans, and Russia (Sweden's arch enemy) further to the East, hence no trade, so draw your own conclusions. In the short term, they supplied 90% of Germany's Iron Ore that sustained their present production capabilities. Sweden's and Finland's trade was totally controlled by the Kriegsmarine. As a result, Germany "forced" them to agree to allow permission to transit. A total of 2,140,000 German soldiers and over 100,000 German military railway carriages, crossed Sweden until this traffic was officially suspended on August 20, 1943. Churchill "the visionary" (only a new member of the "War Cabinet" Nov 1939) wanted to mine Norwegian waters early in the war (Mid Nov 39) however Chamberlain & Halifax (surprise - surprise) refused. Mining of these waters did not then commence until early April 1940. Narvik's port, to those who are not aware, does not freeze over in Winter whereas Sweden's own port's on the Gulf of Bothnia do, which is why the railway line was built (1880's) to there from the Iron Ore mining area of Kiruna (Sweden) 120 kms north to the border and the further 40 kms west to Narvik. Did they succumb to the Germans under the guise of neutrality? Technically ........Most definitely. Logically.......Independent survival. Denmark capitulated in less than a day......survival. France well!!!!!!.......Did we bomb Paris. Spain supplied Germany ...Intelligence, Safe Harbour for U-Boats etc Portugal was rowing the same boat of neutrality. Thailand capitulated to the Japanese and declared War on the US however Cordell Hull did not accept the declaration from the Ambassador.....Why? Russia signed a non aggression pact with Germany so they could invade other countries. Five minutes down the road the US supplies them with "All we have is yours". The Swedes resisted politically as best they could as Germany would have invaded and did what they wanted anyway. Think of it this way. We didn't have to get the Germans out of Sweden.
In many ways the benefits of Sedish (and Swiss) neutrality outweighed any military benefits that the Germans would have gained from occupation. But militarily, both countries would have been very difficult to conquer and keep subdued. Just imagine how many more trrops would have been required to garrison the two countries. Yes, in both cases, the reality of the countries neutrality was far from the spirit of the concept, but the benefits to Germany is that they could acquire goods with less risk from enemy action than if they would. I don't think that Chamberlain and Halifax were completely at fault on refusing this demand. By mining the Norwegian waters so early in the war, Britain risked both alienating the Norwegians, and possibly pushing them towards some sort of accord with the Germans, and focussing German attention towards the country earlier. And Churchill didn't exactly shine when it came down to the crunch. I honestly believe that his meddling in the military palnning played a major part in the reasons whu Britain did so badly in the Norwegian Campaign. The simplistic answer to that America could see that the declaration wasn't by Thailands own volition but under Japanese pressure. One could compare it with the way that America viewed and acted towards Vichy France. Though technically at war with the country, America bent over backwards to try minimise atagonising Vichy, and instead tried there hardet to persuade it to come over to the Allies.
I reserve my judgement on the Swiss however the Swedes were in a no win situation. With Germans troops in Norway, Finland & Denmark, their people would have virtually been starved into submission. Good point however there were political discussions with Norway by the British as to the possibility of action against them by Germany. Chamberlain and more importantly Halifax at this early stage were still looking for a way out and were not prepared to be pro active in Scandinavia. Churchill admittedly would think things through to the end before worrying about the middle however his objective planning could be said to be sound. The later attempts to secure Norway were flawed by Germany knowing of their intentions. His Greek campaign was credible on paper however he did not have sufficient forces to do it at the time. Result: Greece = Loss, Crete = Loss, North Africa a debacle. I don't think it is as simplistic as that. Thailand had embarked on a land grab by taking advantage of the European situation. Japan was most definitely involved politically with Thailand Prime Minister Lang Pipul before December 8th 1941, as he saw the Japanese as the eventual winners of the conflict. The Thai people may not have wanted war however after Lang Pipul took dictatorial control of Thailand he wanted to be part of the spoils and his people did not have a choice.
Finland's position in the equation isn't so clear cut. Whilst Germany and Russia were still sticking to their accord, Finland was fighting for its survival against Russia. At that time Finland was no friend of Germanys. So if Germany had decided to invade Sweden, Finlands reaction is hard to predict. It would certainly have antagonised them. And though Germany wasn't at war with Russia at this time, they certainly wouldn't hav wanted either the responsibility of allowing for a Soviet win over Finland, nor have to taken on the additional burden of propping up, or occupying, Finland too. It all becomes a terrible dilemma of the the domino effect - which way will each piece fall? The positions of all the neutral countries in 19398, and pre-May 1940 were tricky. They could all see the threats coming from one or more directions, but they all hoped and prayed that international neutrality laws may protect. As we can see, they didn't for Norway etc. But whatever the politicians may have been discussing behind the scenes, the Norwegians then would have had to sell the idea to the people (and the right wing under people like Quisling wasn't exactly dormant) That was the problem - Churchill sometimes suffered from the same disease as Hitler - what looked good on paper doesn't equate to reality I agree Spidge but what I meant was that my reply was probably being simplistic
Additional Information With Sweden being neutral during the war they were afforded certain rights and privileges. Among these, it allow various personns a safe-aven during the war. They could, if permitted, leave Germany and reside in Sweden. Also it allowed Swedish persons to act as "Third Party" investigators into the cases of such persons who were being reressed by the Germans. I am thinking of the case of Raoul Wallenburg, who managed to intervene into the cases of thousands of Jews during the war, and was "disappeared" for his efforts. Then there was my Grandfather's case. In 1941 he, along with his whole family, left Stockholm. traveled across Russia and the Pacific Ocean to San Francisco, across the USA to New York. There he acted as the authorised factor/agent for a Swedish Shipping Line and as my father relates, practicaly ran the line durig the war. With a neutral Sweden these 30 or so ships were able to ply the seas, which freed allied ships to carry war cargos. Another factor, a neutral Sweden afforded OSS agents acting in Norway a safe haven in their times of need.
Yes, the OSS agents were a part of the OSS Sepals/Perianth operation. My website is right now just in my lingo (I ll have to change it SEPALS 1944-1945 The agents were men of Linge and local couriers and trained men from the Norwegian policetroops in Sweden
