![]() | A fact from Sweden during World War II appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 February 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
Realpolitik agenda ( talk) 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I had not herd of that until today (2009-06-16) if it is true, it should definetly be mentioned." 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)
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.
Realpolitik agenda ( talk) 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently in the article:
During the war, he also referred to Sweden as "that small, coward country"
Cited to:Zubicky, Sioma (1997). Med förintelsen i bagaget (in Swedish). Stockholm: Bonnier Carlsen. p. 122. ISBN 91-638-3436-7.
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)
[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)
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)
Richard asr ( talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating article. Really enjoyed reading and working on it. Richard asr ( talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
And please note that the section is about humanitarian efforts, not just that some people travelled via or to a specific country. // Liftarn ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I take issue with the following sentence: "A daily newspaper in Sweden, the Svenska Dagbladet said that Sweden did more to assist and save Jews than any other country" Firstly, Svenska Dagbladet is not a neutral source. Secondly, I would argue that the countries that did the most to assist and save the Jews were those countries who were actually fighting the Nazis. Thirdly, if we are only talking about neutral countries, this ignores Turkey. I have the feeling that Swedish revisionists are hard at work on this article. Such is Wikipedia. 81.170.234.118 ( talk) 22:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
The caption of this article's illustration describes Denmark as one of 'German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states'. This is in stark contrast to the opening paragraph of Denmark in World War II:
"During much of World War II, Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany. The occupation began with Operation Weserübung on 9 April 1940, and lasted until German forces withdrew at the end of World War II following their surrender to the Allies on 5 May 1945."
This clearly contracting contradicting information cannot remain as it is. The sources quoted in
Denmark in World War II are quite extensive. This cannot be said of the information regarding Denmark in this article, nor of its illustration. Since the illustration leads a very quite life, I am opening this discussion here, with the intention of bringing the discussion to the illustration once some conclusion has been reached here.
Lklundin (
talk)
16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for resurrecting this, everyone. Unfortunately the ping got my old account so I wasn't notified - here's the gist of it: in 1942, Denmark was not, repeat: not, "occupied" by Germany. There was no military commander, no commissioner, no occupation authority, no German governmental body of any sort, military or civilian, exercising any government in Denmark. Instead, due to its military conquest by Germany, it functioned as a sort of de facto puppet state or (as its often called) a protectorate, much like Vichy France in its unoccupied territories. This is in contrast to Norway, which was under a civilian German government (commissariat). Later, Denmark would be "occupied" - on 29 August 1943. Not in 1942.
The map depicts the height of German success in WWII. At that point, they still did not feel the need for "cruder", more direct control over (southern) France and Denmark. That would change after the failure at Kursk and the Allied invasion of Sicily in late August of 1943. -- Director ( talk) 19:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The map is totally misleading, and some fringe Swedish nationalist apollogetic-theorism is at place here. The map should be showing axis and allies + so-called "officially neutral" Sweden during ww2. It should not be a theoretical discussion of what occupacion is, where a fringe person is aguing that if you do not have a military comander then you are not occupied. The map is totally misleading placing Denmark in category with fascist Italy and mousolini. Denmark was not nazi. End of story. Germany invaded Denmark in the small battle of April 9th and Danish soliders were killed as opposed to the situation in Sweden and Italy. A new map should be introduced. Google "axis and allies during ww2 map" and pick any map, as they all have Denmark along with the allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.224.132 ( talk) 09:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
![]() | A fact from Sweden during World War II appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 February 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
Realpolitik agenda ( talk) 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I had not herd of that until today (2009-06-16) if it is true, it should definetly be mentioned." 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)
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.
Realpolitik agenda ( talk) 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently in the article:
During the war, he also referred to Sweden as "that small, coward country"
Cited to:Zubicky, Sioma (1997). Med förintelsen i bagaget (in Swedish). Stockholm: Bonnier Carlsen. p. 122. ISBN 91-638-3436-7.
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)
[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)
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)
Richard asr ( talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating article. Really enjoyed reading and working on it. Richard asr ( talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
And please note that the section is about humanitarian efforts, not just that some people travelled via or to a specific country. // Liftarn ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I take issue with the following sentence: "A daily newspaper in Sweden, the Svenska Dagbladet said that Sweden did more to assist and save Jews than any other country" Firstly, Svenska Dagbladet is not a neutral source. Secondly, I would argue that the countries that did the most to assist and save the Jews were those countries who were actually fighting the Nazis. Thirdly, if we are only talking about neutral countries, this ignores Turkey. I have the feeling that Swedish revisionists are hard at work on this article. Such is Wikipedia. 81.170.234.118 ( talk) 22:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
The caption of this article's illustration describes Denmark as one of 'German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states'. This is in stark contrast to the opening paragraph of Denmark in World War II:
"During much of World War II, Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany. The occupation began with Operation Weserübung on 9 April 1940, and lasted until German forces withdrew at the end of World War II following their surrender to the Allies on 5 May 1945."
This clearly contracting contradicting information cannot remain as it is. The sources quoted in
Denmark in World War II are quite extensive. This cannot be said of the information regarding Denmark in this article, nor of its illustration. Since the illustration leads a very quite life, I am opening this discussion here, with the intention of bringing the discussion to the illustration once some conclusion has been reached here.
Lklundin (
talk)
16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for resurrecting this, everyone. Unfortunately the ping got my old account so I wasn't notified - here's the gist of it: in 1942, Denmark was not, repeat: not, "occupied" by Germany. There was no military commander, no commissioner, no occupation authority, no German governmental body of any sort, military or civilian, exercising any government in Denmark. Instead, due to its military conquest by Germany, it functioned as a sort of de facto puppet state or (as its often called) a protectorate, much like Vichy France in its unoccupied territories. This is in contrast to Norway, which was under a civilian German government (commissariat). Later, Denmark would be "occupied" - on 29 August 1943. Not in 1942.
The map depicts the height of German success in WWII. At that point, they still did not feel the need for "cruder", more direct control over (southern) France and Denmark. That would change after the failure at Kursk and the Allied invasion of Sicily in late August of 1943. -- Director ( talk) 19:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The map is totally misleading, and some fringe Swedish nationalist apollogetic-theorism is at place here. The map should be showing axis and allies + so-called "officially neutral" Sweden during ww2. It should not be a theoretical discussion of what occupacion is, where a fringe person is aguing that if you do not have a military comander then you are not occupied. The map is totally misleading placing Denmark in category with fascist Italy and mousolini. Denmark was not nazi. End of story. Germany invaded Denmark in the small battle of April 9th and Danish soliders were killed as opposed to the situation in Sweden and Italy. A new map should be introduced. Google "axis and allies during ww2 map" and pick any map, as they all have Denmark along with the allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.224.132 ( talk) 09:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)