Sweden in Axis

[aspqrz02]

Um.

I'm astounded that the differences aren't self evident.

Seriously, how much do you know about ...

* The Vietnam War in specific terms

and

* Basic Military Strategic and Operational requirements

and

* Military Logistics?

Anyone with a basic knowledge of #1 should understand, and knowing about #2 and #3 would certainly help.

So, assuming you know absolutely nothing at all about any of them as the only option ...

For a start, the Vietcong didn't have 600,000 men in the field.

Ever.

Not even if you count all the part timers who were never active all at once and were never isolated in the jungle all at once, starving.

There is a difference between Tropical Rainforest/Jungle as found in Vietnam and Temperate/Boreal Forest found in Sweden in terms of cover, concealment and shelter requirements ... so vast that it beggars belief that anyone could assume there are none. Surviving in Vietnam during the "winter", for example, is going to be far, far easier than surviving in Sweden in the winter.

(And, before you comment that the Russian partisans managed it ... well, not 600,000 of them all in the one area and, of course, they had a darn hard time of it ... starvation not being uncommon ...)

The Vietcong were supplied by being in amongst the locals ... in the Mekong, they were peasants by day and VC by night (or whenever) ... however, this was possible because they were fighting the US ... not the SS ... attempting to do that against the Germans, well, read up what the Germans did to Belgian Francs-Tireurs in WW1, or the various Partisans in Europe, the Balkans and the USSR in WW2.

Anyway, you're suggesting, seriously, that all 600,000 are in the forests.

Which boggles the mind and beggars belief.

That would constitute pretty much the entire healthy adult male population of military age for all of Sweden.

Which, in turn, represents pretty much the entire agricultural and industrial workforce.

Not to put to fine a point on it, who'd going to be running the farms? Or the factories?

No-one, in reality.

You do know that the Germans, in 1939, when preparing for the invasion of Poland, did their sums and found that mobilising their army to do so would pull so many men from their agricultural workforce that that years crop would be so inadequate that the only way of preventing famine in Germany that year was to steal the food from the defeated Poles and let them starve instead?

Sweden would actually be worse off.

And all the Germans have to do is confiscate all the food that the depleted farms produce and the 600,000 Swedes already starving in the forests, which are fairly easy to cordon off in Sweden as compared to the Jungles in Vietnam, will be joined by starving civilians in the countryside.

And, no, you're not going to be running a "Ho Chi Minh Trail" through Finland and said Swedish forests like the VC did ... for a start, in the time frame when such a German invasion is likely, the USSR is Germany's ally ... and doesn't much care what happens in Sweden in any case. Later on? Well, the Finns might object, since they're at war with the USSR and would probably not want to let them run a supply line through Finland to Sweden.

No food.

No shelter.

No military supplies.

= no hope.

Which I cannot believe anyone who plays Matrix games cannot grasp.

YMMV

Phil

[battlevonwar]

Simply put, there were millions and millions of men in uniform throughout Europe that surrendered or fought on... What makes 600,000 Swedes with a gun any different than the millions before or after them? Germans would have to garrison the cities, police the forests and suffer casualties like any other of the rough terrains of Europe. Swede Banks would be nice to plunder, worth it? Sure...

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Um.

I'm astounded that the differences aren't self evident.

Seriously, how much do you know about ...

* The Vietnam War in specific terms

and

* Basic Military Strategic and Operational requirements

and

* Military Logistics?

Anyone with a basic knowledge of #1 should understand, and knowing about #2 and #3 would certainly help.

So, assuming you know absolutely nothing at all about any of them as the only option ...

For a start, the Vietcong didn't have 600,000 men in the field.

Ever.

Not even if you count all the part timers who were never active all at once and were never isolated in the jungle all at once, starving.

There is a difference between Tropical Rainforest/Jungle as found in Vietnam and Temperate/Boreal Forest found in Sweden in terms of cover, concealment and shelter requirements ... so vast that it beggars belief that anyone could assume there are none. Surviving in Vietnam during the "winter", for example, is going to be far, far easier than surviving in Sweden in the winter.

(And, before you comment that the Russian partisans managed it ... well, not 600,000 of them all in the one area and, of course, they had a darn hard time of it ... starvation not being uncommon ...)

The Vietcong were supplied by being in amongst the locals ... in the Mekong, they were peasants by day and VC by night (or whenever) ... however, this was possible because they were fighting the US ... not the SS ... attempting to do that against the Germans, well, read up what the Germans did to Belgian Francs-Tireurs in WW1, or the various Partisans in Europe, the Balkans and the USSR in WW2.

Anyway, you're suggesting, seriously, that all 600,000 are in the forests.

Which boggles the mind and beggars belief.

That would constitute pretty much the entire healthy adult male population of military age for all of Sweden.

Which, in turn, represents pretty much the entire agricultural and industrial workforce.

Not to put to fine a point on it, who'd going to be running the farms? Or the factories?

No-one, in reality.

You do know that the Germans, in 1939, when preparing for the invasion of Poland, did their sums and found that mobilising their army to do so would pull so many men from their agricultural workforce that that years crop would be so inadequate that the only way of preventing famine in Germany that year was to steal the food from the defeated Poles and let them starve instead?

Sweden would actually be worse off.

And all the Germans have to do is confiscate all the food that the depleted farms produce and the 600,000 Swedes already starving in the forests, which are fairly easy to cordon off in Sweden as compared to the Jungles in Vietnam, will be joined by starving civilians in the countryside.

And, no, you're not going to be running a "Ho Chi Minh Trail" through Finland and said Swedish forests like the VC did ... for a start, in the time frame when such a German invasion is likely, the USSR is Germany's ally ... and doesn't much care what happens in Sweden in any case. Later on? Well, the Finns might object, since they're at war with the USSR and would probably not want to let them run a supply line through Finland to Sweden.

No food.

No shelter.

No military supplies.

= no hope.

Which I cannot believe anyone who plays Matrix games cannot grasp.

YMMV

Phil

Duh..gee phil, sorry I'm ignorant. Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge with a mere peon. Maybe I need to visit soc.history. what if to see more uppity know it alls.

[aspqrz02]

Dunno about soc.history and know-it-alls. Don't hang out there.

And it isn't vast knowledge that is/was needed ... just the level of knowledge I would have thought reasonable for someone with 400 odd posts here. [&:]

YMMV

Phil

[aspqrz02]

Yabbut ... riddle me this ...

Name one European country in WW2 ... in any war for that matter ... where, after being defeated, the entire male population of military age hid in the forests and fought on in a guerilla campaign.

Answer: None. Ever. Anywhere.

No ifs, no buts, no ands, no maybes.

Phil

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Dunno about soc.history and know-it-alls. Don't hang out there.

"Why assume, as so many posters to soc.history.what-if do when posting WW2 scenarios"
That's odd, you refer to it in several posts? Must be my mistake.

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Dunno about soc.history and know-it-alls. Don't hang out there.

"Why assume, as so many posters to soc.history.what-if do when posting WW2 scenarios"
That's odd, you refer to it in several posts? Must be my mistake.

soc.history =/ soc.history.what if (where =/ is "not equal to")

Yes.

It is your mistake [;)]

Phil

[StellarRat]

Your making the assumption that the country would just surrender if the southern areas were taken by Panzers and the soldiers would all go away. If you look at a map you'll see that the remaining Northern 90% is covered with forests, hills, lakes and rivers and there are a lot of towns and villages in the forestland. The country is very unfriendly to armored warfare. Every road goes through forest somewhere and of course the weather is brutal in the winter. Not to mention it's 1000 x 300 miles in size. If we assume the Swedish army is willing to retreat North, the country has willpower to defend the North, and some supplies are available or come in from the Allies as assistance, I believe the Germans would have had a hell of time taking the remainder of the country even in a conventional campaign. It's perfect country for infantry even with just light weapons (rifles and MGs.) It would really come down to how much willpower the nation had and what kind of help they could get.

[JLPOWELL]

Sweden and Switzerland were (and still are) essentially successful examples of what I would porcupine neutrality policy. These countries both had and still have serious military capability. I am not arguing that either could have stood against Germany during WWII but the cost to conquer would have been prohibitive in both instances and would have diverted critical resources and expended resources which would never have 'made up' economically. They both enjoy relatively defensible geography and coupled with non trivial military strength acted as a successful deterent. By comparison Luxembourg Denmark and Norway essentially no millitary and neither Belgium or The Netherlands had comparable military or defensible geography. In addition they are not 'in the way' of another objective as was the unfortunate situation for BeNeLux.

Both Sweden and Switzerland would be 'hard nuts' to crack with little benefit. Both traded with the Axis so the economics of an attack made no sense. Both (particularly Sweden) had Nazi sympathetic minority political parties, but both also have a VERY strong neutrality tradition and show much evidence of the willingness to fight for it.

It is interesting to note that WWII essentially 'schooled' weak neutrals and there really are no more. The 'Strong Neutrals' (Switzerland and Sweden) exist the rest essentially all Pre-WWII neutrals from Iceland to Denmark to Estonia have joined a protective alliance (NATO).

To answer the question IMO Sweden had virtually no chance of joining the Axis but the remote possibility of a wildly popular Fascist party gaining party gaining power cannot be completely discounted.

A more interesting issue is Norway. With even just a bit more military they would have been very difficult to take out. A half dozen divisions assigned to port defense in an alert posture and the Germans could not have even made the attempt. Its ironic (pardon the pun) that the resource the Germans were after when they invaded Norway was Swedish iron which the Swedes were happy to sell but need to transport thru Narvik. As it was Narvik was a near run thing for the Germans and could easily have become a fiasco.

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: StellarRat
Your making the assumption that the country would just surrender if the southern areas were taken by Panzers and the soldiers would all go away. If you look at a map you'll see that the remaining Northern 90% is covered with forests, hills, lakes and rivers and there are a lot of towns and villages in the forestland. The country is very unfriendly to armored warfare. Every road goes through forest somewhere and of course the weather is brutal in the winter. Not to mention it's 1000 x 300 miles in size. If we assume the Swedish army is willing to retreat North, the country has willpower to defend the North, and some supplies are available or come in from the Allies as assistance, I believe the Germans would have had a hell of time taking the remainder of the country even in a conventional campaign. It's perfect country for infantry even with just light weapons (rifles and MGs.) It would really come down to how much willpower the nation had and what kind of help they could get.

Umm.

Look, seriously.

There are only three things that matter in military affairs.

Logistics.

Logistics.

and, wait for it ...

Logistics.

Those 600,000 men need to eat something ... and not pine needles, either. There is no food in the area you suggest they would retreat to.

A normal human needs around 10 pounds (say 5 kilos, more or less) of food *per day* to maintain health ... if they're doing heavy work, such as military type things, they need more ... but let's assume 5 kilos per day.

600,000 x 5 = 3,000,000 kilos per day.

That's 3000 tons of food.

Per day.

Now, typically, soldiers carry maybe 2-3 days rations, if you really overload them, maybe a week's worth ... maybe more if they don't carry any weapons, clothes, ammo or anything else.

So, after a week in this wonderful fantasy guerilla retreat ... they have run out of food.

And they need 600 x 5 ton trucks per day carrying nothing but food to bring it to them.

See, the thing about the fantasy guerilla retreat is ... there's not enough food there. If there are any farms or ranches, they are nowhere near big enough to support 600,000 men.

Ergo, after a week, the army surrenders because it has no food and starvation is inevitable.

And that doesn't even consider medical and military supplies.

I suppose you'll claim that they can be supplied from the farms and ranches in the populated part of Sweden ...

Oh!

Wait a minute!

That would be the part that the Germans have captured and occupied?

Yep.

That would be it.

So ... No.

No food from occupied Sweden. I think most people here would understand why it would be impossible, and feel no need to explain why.

As I pointed out in another post, at the time (1940/41) when a German invasion is most likely, the USSR is allied to the Germans, and was most punctilious about following their agreements ... so, no, no "Stalin Trail" is gonna be set up to ship food and military supplies ...

And, even if Stalin was minded to (and he didn't much like the Swedes, and the feeling was mutual, so I believe, so it's unlikely even if there hadn't been a treaty) ... well, there's the minor problem that he's not very popular in Finland ... through which the supplies would have to largely travel.

So, no food from Stalin.

Norway and Denmark are occupied.

Finland, I suppose, might like to give it a go ... but has half the population of Sweden, and, because of the climate, her agriculture is not nearly as productive ... so, not a lot of food surplus ... certainly not enough to supply 600,000 men (600 x 5 ton trucks per day - and the Germans might, just possibly, notice this and stop them) ...

So, except in the Fantasy Guerilla Retreat where, presumably, manna falls from heaven daily to feed the troops, they are starving within a week ... and surrender soon after.

And that's only food.

Not Medical supplies, Weapons and ammunition, clothing, building and construction materials, fuel, vehicles, communications gear and all the myriad other things the 600,000 men would need.

You might, if you were really, really, really, committed and lucky, manage to have a couple of thousand guys hide out there and not starve to death ... but they're going to be as close to militarily ineffective as possible and still be there ...

But 600,000 ... or even 60,000 ... no way in anything resembling reality ...

(NB: What happens to units in ToF that are cut off from all sources of supply when they are eventually attacked? Oh. Really? They're destroyed pretty much automatically and with minimal or no losses for the attacker? My. That would mean that even in the game it isn't gonna happen.)

Phil

[doomtrader]

Polish Home Army memberships are estimated to 400000.

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Polish Home Army memberships are estimated to 400000.

Yes, but were all those 400,000 hiding in the one forested area for the whole of the war, eating pine needles?

Or were most of them - the overwhelming majority, in fact - "hiding" in plain sight, going about their business as per normal most of the time?

The latter, of course.

And, not to put too fine a point on it ... look what happened when they tried to take the Germans on, even in 1944 ... we can argue till the cows come home about whether it was because Stalin delayed his offensive deliberately or not, but it really doesn't make any difference ... the 600,000 Swedes were even further from help, and Stalin liked them about as much.

In any case, hiding 600,000 men in one forested area for the whole war isn't even vaguely similar!

As I noted, an Out of Supply unit in ToF sitting in a forest in the middle of nowhere for several turns (weeks), what happens when it is attacked?

Destroyed completely, right?

I rest my case ... in this instance, ToF models reality fairly well.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: StellarRat
If we assume ... some supplies are available or come in from the Allies as assistance ...

OK.

Where do these mythical supplies come from?

Not just which country, but by what specific type of transport and what specific route?

Norway. Less than half Sweden's population, and occupied by the Germans, who control all the transport routes into Sweden over which the required 3000 tons per day of food would have to be transporter ... and control the transport, as well. So, no, no food from Norway.

Denmark. A bit more than half Sweden's population, and quite productive agriculturally, in peacetime. Sadly, during WW2, the Germans stripped the country bare of any surplus and the Danes had to survive on severely limited food rations. So, no food available to send to Sweden. Occupied by Germany. Sure, the Danes managed to smuggle almost all of their Jews across the Skagerak to Sweden in one night ... once ... with the passive (and possibly active) connivance of the German authorities in Denmark (read up about it) ... in fishing trawlers and small craft. To get food to northern Sweden? By sea? The German navy pretty much dominated the Baltic from 1939-43, so forget 3000 tons per day. Or even 30 tons per day, I'd hazard a guess ... even 3 tons ...

Finland. Discussed elsewhere. Small population. Barely enough food for themselves. Don't want to piss off the Germans. Won't help the Russians. No help there, either.

Sweden. Hmm. The Germans stripped all their conquests of food and all their conquests had to institute severe rationing as a result. Then there's the problem that virtually the entire Swedish workforce is the 600,000 men eating pine needles in the northern forests.

So. No surplus of food to move.

How would they move it, anyway? The Germans occupy Sweden, the farming bits, and control all the transport routes and all the transports ... I think they might notice 600 trucks heading into the forests each day, don't you?

So, no food from Sweden.

The Baltic States. All three together, about the same population as Sweden. Has the same problems as Denmark. Stripped of food by the Germans. No way of shipping any significant amount across the Baltic. Not even at night.

USSR. The Gulf of Leningrad was largely closed to the Russians from the beginning of Barbarossa ... except for Subs ... and the Russians don't have enough to supply the 3000 tons per day, even allowing for the risks of doing so. Before Barbarossa? Nope. Stalin adhered to his treaty with Hitler closely ... and he can't send supplies by sea (see above), and sending them by land involves sending them through Finland ... which hates his guts. And, in any case, read up on the troubles the Germans had supplying Platinum Fox, which didn't constitute 600,000 men ... so, no, no significant supplies through there.

UK. Yeah, has the food to spare, sorta, maybe. But has no way of getting it there ... all the Swedish Ports are in the Baltic, which is a German lake ... forget sending supplies by sea. Sending them by sea to Norway? Oh. That's right. The Germans occupy Norway and control all the significant transport routes along which the required amount of supplies could be sent. So, no sea supply from the UK.

How about air supply?

Well, look at how well that worked for Stalingrad.

Not.

And consider that, in 1940/41 the UK has diddly squat worth of transports ... and they'd have to fly such long distances that, for a start, I doubt whether they had the range even if all they carried was fuel, but, if they did manage a payload of food, they'd manage a few hundred pounds at best.

A DC3, which was the best available at the time, could carry about 3000 kilos ... with a operational range of 2400 klicks ... it seems to be about 1600 klicks to a central part of northern Sweden, so it probably can't do a round trip ... but, maybe, if the Swedes hold something further south, it could, barely ... so, that would require 1000 DC-3's a night and a minimum 4 hour flight each way ... with unloading time, maybe 10 hours total ...

But to keep 1000 DC-3s operational every night would require something like 3-5000 DC-3s (they require regular maintenance, probably after each flight at that range ... certainly, Bomber Command couldn't manage 1000 Bomber raids more than a couple of nights a week) ... and not only did the UK not have 3-5000 DC-3s in 1940/41, I doubt they had 1000.

And, of course, the Germans *did* have Night fighters ... and the DC-3s would have to pass over huge swathes of German occupied territory sans escort ... I shudder to thing what the attrition rate would be. I'd be surprised if it was less than 5-10% per night. So, 1000 DC-3s becomes zero DC-3s shortly. And, of course, they didn't have the DC-3s in the first place.

Russian DC-3's? Not in 1940-41.

So, no supplies by air.

Maybe the US could send Care parcels through the post?

So, please, explain where the food was coming from, and by what route.

I won't be holding my breath, as their is no source and no viable route.

Except Manna dropped from heaven.

Phil

[StellarRat]

One would assume the Swedes were smart enough to stockpile supplies since a war was already swirling around them. Also, they wouldn't need to hold forever only long enough to make Germans realize they aren't worth the trouble so they wouldn't attack in the first place.. I could argue the same point with you though. How do the Germans with a crappy navy supply their own troops (a much larger force then was needed in Norway)? There is no land connection other than Norway and those supplies would still come across water. A minor point, the Swedes eat quite a bit of fish. I'm assuming that would still be available.

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

One would assume the Swedes were smart enough to stockpile supplies since a war was already swirling around them. Also, they wouldn't need to hold forever only long enough to make Germans realize they aren't worth the trouble so they wouldn't attack in the first place.. I could argue the same point with you though. How do the Germans with a crappy navy supply their own troops (a much larger force then was needed in Norway)? There is no land connection other than Norway and those supplies would still come across water. A minor point, the Swedes eat quite a bit of fish. I'm assuming that would still be available.

OK. How much do they stockpile?

In forests. In the middle of nowhere. Based on the assumption that they will be invaded by Germany and defeated and retreat to said forests.

3000 tons per day.

Say six month's supply, 180 days or so.

540,000 tons.

And then you need the POL (fuel supplies). The Ammunition and Weapons stockpiles. The Hospitals and Medical stockpiles.

See, I know a bit about this. The UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food held 200,000 tons of high energy foods in 63 stockpiles through significant portions of the Cold War, but disposed of all of it by the mid 90's because of the cost, and because there was no longer an obvious need. For a population of 50 million ... or whatever proportion might survive WW3 ... probably not even a month's supply.

The US probably had similar stockpiles (the USAID "Disaster Logistic Officer" has to have "Top Secret" clearance) and, as recently as 2004, they had 500,000 tons of Skim Milk Powder stockpiled. For a population six times the size of the UK.

So, theoretically, yes, it's possible ... except for one obvious thing (well, it's obvious to anyone with any understanding of logistics) ... you need to have solid, well built, dry, well ventilated structures sited alongside major logistic corridors so that you can a) store the food and b) get it in there in the first place and distribute it in the second.

Ergo, no, you can't put it in the middle of trackless forest. There has to be a major rail line and major road lines connecting these facilities to the rest of the country ... which make the forest, well, Not Trackless and make perfect targets for directed air and armoured strikes ... or, putting it another way, for you to be able to get the supplies in and then distribute them, you have to create the very access whose lack of you want to be the raison d'etre for retiring there ... you cannot have both, except, of course, in Fantasy Guerilla Redoubtland.

Classic wanting to have ones cake and prevent the Germans from eating it thinking [:)]

Then there's the minor problem that all these facilities and the logistic network you have to create to get them there in the first place and make them useful in the second are, well, blindingly obvious. You simply cannot hide developments on this scale in a democratic society, such as Sweden was ... and, indeed, the Germans were unable to hide similar developments during the war even with the much less free society they had.

In effect, you have created giant Bullseye Targets around each such facility, and tied the defenders down so they have to defend them ... removing any possible benefit they actually might have gotten from hiding (the Russian Partisans managed this because the swamps and forests they hid in remained trackless and because they could, and did, move around because they really didn't absolutely have to stay in one particular spot because they had stupidly put all of their eggs in the one high visibility orange strobe lighted basket ... unlike the brilliant plan you propose for the Swedes.

In effect you have created a forest bound Maginot Line (oh, and its based on the really unjustifiable assumption that the whole rest of the country - all the bits actually worth having - are abandoned to the invaders and the civil population left at their mercy ... unless you want to move all 6 million odd Swedes into the Forests as well? My, that would be 30,000 tons of food per day, or 5.4 million tons for six months)...

... and the existence of the Maginot Line really deterred the Germans, didn't it?

Oh?

It didn't deter them?

Well.

As for how the Germans supplied their own troops?

Note that I have pointed out all along that there are no excess food supplies for the starving Swedes eating pine needles in the boreal forests because the Germans basically confiscated all excess food supplies in occupied countries for their own use? And put the civilian populations on severe rationing?

Do you think that the occupying Germans might just possibly have been eating those confiscated supplies?

Even if they weren't, there wasn't anyone preventing them from shipping stuff across the Baltic because, as I pointed out and as you pointedly ignore, they basically controlled it between 1939 and 1943.

They were even close enough to supplement it with airlifted supplies. They found that you can't supply a whole army by airlift alone at Stalingrad, but they also found that it can supplement even limited sealift in North Africa.

If push comes to shove, they can man all those deserted Swedish Factories with slave labourers and some selected technicians and turn out military supplies on the spot, because they control the factories, and the Swedes are in the Not Trackless forests.

As for fishing.

You are joshing, aren't you?

Unless a certain well known religious figure is dividing the loaves and the fishes, I don't think so. Not in Trackless Forest with the Germans controlling the Baltic and occupying, or at least destroying, all the fishing ports, which were never set up to supply 600,000 men in any case.

Look, really, you can keep making increasingly silly statements, accompanied by violent handwaving that will rapidly allow you to achieve escape velocity, and which have less and less contact with anything resembling military logistic reality, but, like I said, what happens to a surrounded out of supply unit in ToF?

It dies.

Trackless forest = out of supply.

That's what it boils down to even in the game.

Phil

[Akmatov]

"porcupine neutrality policy"

I particularly like that.

Regarding Switzerland, I remember reading somewhere or other that at one point when Hitler was especially irritated with the Swiss he tasked his military to review the feasibility of occupying Switzerland.  The answer was that it could be done, but forget about the German military being able to do anything but spend the next year or two in intensive care recovering from the experience of victory over the Swiss.

[aspqrz02]

More to the point, the Swiss had in place plans to blow up everything worth having. All major public infrastructure ... bridges, damns, power stations etc. had built in facilities to enable them to be demolished easily ... all that needed to be done was to actually emplace the explosives. The Swiss Army planned to, largely, fight a delaying war from mountain redoubts with pre-sighted artillery which, while not impregnable, would have made the losses involved in taking them horrendous for the attacker.

So, as you say, the attacking forces would have been decimated, possibly literally, and they would have captured a smoking ruin.

Hardly seems worthwhile, does it?

Which, of course, was the point! [8D] [:D]

Phil

[StellarRat]

So, the defending the mountains "primeval" cut off from your supplies works, but defending a country 10x bigger covered primeval forest, hills, mountains, lakes, rivers, with worse weather while supplying an Army over the ocean with a crappy navy doesn't? [:-] Obviously, the Swiss are a superior race to the Swedes. You don't think the Swedes would have blown every bridge between them and the Germans? Have you ever spent anytime in a northern forest "primeval"? I used to live in Alaska. It is the ultimate defensive terrain.

[aspqrz02]

Read up on "Swiss Mountain Redoubt" on Wikipedia.

But I'll cite a part of it that is particularly relevant ...

"Switzerland's Réduit strategy during World War II was essentially one of deterrence. The idea was to make clear to the Third Reich that an invasion would have a high cost. Simultaneously, economic concessions were made to Germany in the hope that the overall cost of a German invasion would be perceived as higher than the potential benefits. Despite this, it is clear that Hitler intended to invade eventually and that the Allied landing at Normandy as well as the difficulties faced in invading Russia were pivotal in merely delaying an invasion."

Now, the fortifications that were part of the plan had been being prepared since the 1880's ... did the Swedes have the same degree of preparation? Or see the need for it, as the Swiss did?

No to both.

And the fortifications were in the highest part of the Alps, defending, and blocking, the main transit routes through Switzerland that were the major reasons for invasion. Even so, the forts ()read carefully) were only provisioned for a six month defense.

Then look at the terrain they were defending, and some of the forts and their batteries ... attacks would not be going through well road and rail accessible wooded terrain (and it has to be, despite your constant handwaving, so that the supplies can be put there in the first place and then distributed), but through mountainous and rough terrain generally in the open (and the major fortifications were on the major transit routes already, and the nature of those transit routes made them easy to defend/block).

Still, they were planning on no more than six months.

Would they have lasted that long?

It would depend on how many casualties the Germans (and Italians) were prepared to take ... or how ruthless they were prepared to be ... the Swiss were planning to abandon the populated areas and there were no plans for evacuating the civilian populace to "safety", so, of course, kindly Uncle Adolf, the USSR defeated and Britain on the ropes (the preconditions for the invasion, in reality ... and unlikely to occur, in any non Handwavium based Fantasy scenario), could easily start executing hostages ... or simply drive hostages in front of the assaulting troops.

Rather different than your Fantasy Redoubt where the Swedes magic manna from heaven and last the entire war there.

Phil