How did the Axis not capture Sweeden?

[old_abe]

According to this map

http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/gga_cart/78927.jpg

The axis powers controled Finland and Norway. Why were they unsuccessful in capturing Sweeden? or did they never attempt?

[Breth]

Perhaps Santa Claus is really in Sweden, hence the abundance of reindeer. Thats why there arent any in the north pole. So maybe Santa put up and invisibility sheild.

[Nick]

Sweden was neutral.

[Breth]

Sweden was neutral.

So were alot of other countries that Nazi Germany invaded/occupied.

[Dr Realism]

There was really no reason for them to take over Sweden. The Germans invaded Norway and Denmark to prevent the British from taking it and because it was a useful place for sending out ships to attack British shipping. Germany didn't take over Finland, the Fins joined in on the invasion of Russia, in order to get their stolen territory back. Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria weren't invaded either. They had pro-German governments. The Low Countries were taken because they were in the way of Germany's attack against France and because they provided useful airbases from which to attack Britain. Invading Sweden would have no point and it would just further extend the German army.

[Cunedda]

Another reason that the Germans invaded Norway was because of the huge iron ore deposets in the country, as well as tring to develop the "Heavy Water" program, which would have developed into a German nuclear bomb.

[Pericles]

Sweden was officially neutral, however they did continue to supply iron ore to Germany during the war. One of the reasons for the German invasion of Norway was to stop the British from interdicting this trade (the iron ore was shipped down the Norwegian coastline). There is quite a lot of information about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II), although some of it is controversial.

[JHicks]

Germany didnt invade Sweden for the same reason they didnt invade turkey. They had no reason to

[Fjallar sigbriht]

Sweden was just too awesome.

That's the answer I've had for quite some time :)

[Edgewaters]

The axis powers controled Finland and Norway. Why were they unsuccessful in capturing Sweeden? or did they never attempt?

Mostly - apart from things like annexing the Danzig Corridor, Austria, and a few other places they considered part of "Greater Germany" - they were invading to do regime changes (or sometimes, to keep the enemy from using the area, eg Norway etc). Sweden, Finland, Spain etc, while not part of the Axis, didn't need a regime change, from the Axis perspective.

[Comnena]

Also, having a neutral country like Sweden willing to trade with them, Germans could actually buy things from the allies in a round-about way. Maybe that was also a consideration.

[Toltec]

As DR Realism said, Sweden had a pro-German government it supplied GErmany throughout the war. It also blocked the British and French armies from aiding Finland against Russian invasion and refused to help Norway liberate itself even in the later stages of the war.

[Sveti94]

Basically, Sweden was stuck between two super powers: Nazi-Germany in Denmark and Norway, and the USSR in former-Russia not to mention the baltic states.

It chose to be neutral (or rather, a non-belligerent in the war between Nazi-Germany and its enemies). The Nazi government saw no real reason to enter Sweden. They bought iron ore from northern Sweden and were allowed to use Sweden's railroads to transport things from Norway.

[Baconman]

Swedish priminister per albin hannison were good friends and sweden gave germany its needed iron and steel also swedes helped hitler in barbarossa

[Perix]

Sweden was the strategical supplier with iron. If they would conquered Sweden, would risked an allies bombardments and/or sabotage, over the iron industry of Sweden. The ventual loses for Germany were more important than ventual gains, taking Sweden. Besides, as I know, the swedish would opposed force, and this would costed germany many divissions.

[sylla1]

The main interest of the III Reich on Sweden was indeed iron; that was in fact the sole excuse for the invasion of Norway and Denmark.

The OKW actually considered at some time an extension of the Operation Weserübung to attack Sweden.

The OKW eventual conclusion was against such invasion (rightly so IMHO) mostly because of the above stated reasons.

Anyway, the Swedish ought to make some concessions to prevent any further involvement within WWII, notoriously granting the German troops transfer through sovereign territory between April 1940 and August 1943, theoretically restricted to wounded soldiers and soldiers on leave.

[Brend]

Sweden was neutral.

Sweden sell resources to both parts , Soviets and Nazis . So both parts wasn't interested to occupy Sweden , when they gain what they want by Swedes without war .

For the nazis the Swedes was a pure White nation .

For the Soviets the Swedes was a nice social-democratic country .

Point : Why the hell to occupy Sweden ?
:cool:

[Edward]

Firstly: Bloody too cold for Australian troops to be send there to fight German. So, this was probably main reason for Hitler not to invade. He prefers to face Australian in North Africa only. IMHO
Secondary: Apart from this, so long as the iron flows into German smelters, there were no needs for invasion. Sweden was strategically unimportant except iron.

[Rudbeckius]

Sweden was not really pro-German. Even though Swedes, since pre-Nazi time was strongly influenced by Germany (eg. German was the first foreign language you learned at school), one must describe the governments policy as dancing on a line. The decisions was not pretty, for instance, German troops were allowed to travel from Norway to Germany through Sweden. And a lot of Allied spies were caught. Until Stalingrad. After that, a lot of German spies were caught.

A lot of people were nazis, but also, a lot of people were anti-nazis.

Many Norwegians feels strong resentment against Swedish policy in helping Hjemmefronten(Anti german resistance) men trying to flee into Sweden. But a lot of local Swedish people helped the Norwegians anyway.

[Cicero]

It was an advantage to have some "neutral" powers for indirect trade with parties at war, diplomacy and espionage. If the Germans had won... I bet Sweden, Spain and Switzerland wound't have remained neutral too long.

[kaii]

It should be noted that the germans did draw up detailed plans for an invasion of Sweden from occupied Norway, should the need arise (i.e. should Sweden decide to support the allies).
The plans were called "Operation One-Two" (Operation Eins-Zwei) and included the use of armoured units in a direct thrust towards Stockholm as well as amphipious landings in the south.

[Perix]

It was an advantage to have some "neutral" powers for indirect trade with parties at war, diplomacy and espionage. If the Germans had won... I bet Sweden, Spain and Switzerland wound't have remained neutral too long.
Agree! Germany ned foreign currency, and neutrals were the sources. But they'd not attacked all neutrals till USA would failed.

[xander.XVII]

Why did Germany have to invade a neutral country which gave it everything Germany needed at good prices without wasting neither a soldier?

[Fluer_de_lis]

BTW, Sweeden should be Sweden.

[Precognition]

By the time Germany was ready to occupy Sweden the Nazis chose to push into Southern Russia so concentrating a large part of his army North would have just been stupid.

By the mid-point of WWII, Hitler could only concentrate on the big picture and how each battle would affect Germany's stance on the long run.

[Heidi XX]

Production of Steel? and other resources supplied to Germany, which Germany lack,which Sweden had?
Sweden was helping out Germany with resources and production,if
Germany Taking over Sweden when Sweden was neutral,would have p*** off Sweden so badly that the Swedish would have stop all resources and production supplied to the Germans.

[sylla1]

Arguably, the Swedish steel per se was a compelling argument for the conquest of Sweden, not against it.

WW2 was as a whole a perpetual nightmare for the neutral nations, threatened as they were by essentially any involved power.

Herr Hitler in particular tended to invade even seemingly friendly neutrals, often for seemingly trivial justifications, e.g. Denmark, Holland or Luxembourg, which were literally just close to his way.

If Sweden was not invaded by the Axis or the Allies (notoriously the USSR), that was ostensibly because for several factors already mentioned all along this thread and others, the potential inconvenience of invading this country (in all likelihood including the Swedish army) largely surpassed the expected gains as opposed to its continuous cooperation from a nation as truly neutral as it was possible, given the circumstances.

[Sveti94]

If Germany made any move against Sweden, Britain would bomb the mines, thereby removing the biggest reason for taking it in the first place. Sure, infrastructure can be rebuilt, but it takes time. And in war, you might not want to risk losing an influx of Iron for a period of time, as it would lower the amount of things you can produce.

However, if Sweden keeps it neutrality (which it would've lost had it been conquered by Germany), Britain doesn't have a good justification for bombing them. Pre-emptive aggression against a neutral country...

[sylla1]

If Germany made any move against Sweden, Britain would bomb the mines, thereby removing the biggest reason for taking it in the first place. Sure, infrastructure can be rebuilt, but it takes time. And in war, you might not want to risk losing an influx of Iron for a period of time, as it would lower the amount of things you can produce.

However, if Sweden keeps it neutrality (which it would've lost had it been conquered by Germany), Britain doesn't have a good justification for bombing them. Pre-emptive aggression against a neutral country...
IMHO that is an interesting but unlikely scenario, for several reasons.

Such kind of bombing would have been presumably essentially impossible until the late 1944.

Besides, several mining facilities remained rather active in spite of severe bombing, let say in the Ruhr.

Additionally, the German HQ could not discard an enemy attack of neutral facilities; it had happened more than once.

Finally, prudence was hardly the best point of Herr Hitler.

[Hrodvitnir9]

Manpower was also a factor. Throughout the war Germany had a lot of troops just sitting in Norway and Denmark doing nothing when they were needed in other areas. So while possible to invade Sweden is wasent worth it when they were getting the materials they needed peacefully.

Finland was not occupied by Germany is was allied with Germany. They were still hostile with Russia because of the Winter War. There were Finnish troops fighting with the Germans on the eastern front, notably at the siege of Leningrad.