Sweden took into account that the air bases would be bombed into oblivion. This is why every modern Swedish jet fighter is designed to be able to land and take off from ordinary roads. The current Gripen fighter can land on a strip of road, do a 3-point turn around, be serviced by a few conscripts under the survelliance of a single trained officer and up in the air again within 10 minutes.
Which was idiotic as constant sorties would ruin engines, make the planes easy target in air, and all Soviets needed to do is wait a day or two before attacking for all of the planes to be on the ground due to lack of fuel. Not that Soviet Union ever intended to attack in the first place (see Soviet war plan archives), that was all CIA brainwashing to have more cannon fodder...
That is actually not true. However, up until 2010, military service (all from 6 months to a couple ofyears) was mandatory. So the majority of men over 30 in Sweden have a basic understanding and knowledge of basic military tactics and how to use the equipment.
@@JohanHaagg It is true. Out pamphlets "Om kriget kommer" (if war comes) have always had the message printed clearly that any announcement of surrender should be taken as a lie. This is also true for the latest pamphlet.
@@GameGabster I am reading it right now, where does it say it? The only thing mentioning anything about communications are to "listen to trust sources" which bascily means P4 and TextTv. There is nothing about surrending or not.
This was a good klipp. I was deployed as a Artic Ranger in Kiruna in 1987 to stop the russian invasion in the nordic part of Sweden. It was a special time back then. We were hunting russian u-boat in the norden parts of Baltic sea back then also.. 👍🇸🇪🪖
Interesting video and good summary, as mentioned before Sweden had a lot of storage in bunkers and deep mountains like fuel, food, hospitals etc. One other thing was that all the conscripts had various job types so in every unit there was people with different skills useful in war. Jonny (previous Marin Jaeger Kustjägare)
The first air fleet, ÖBs Klubba, or as it was called ÖBs hammer was 3 squadrons containing 2-3 divisions each that was his to use as the major blow to a naval invasion by the WP. It had about 120-140 aircraft carrying naval ASM, either RB 04 or RBS 15. The idea was to destroy the enemy at sea in a mighty blow and they trained for this flying at 30 feet above sea level at maximum speed. They had no illusions regarding the losses, it was estimated that the formation would last 3-5 days as a unit. The rest of the airforce was to be used as normal assets with the hammer being used at the most vital time to stop the enemy. Fun fact: During a defence conference in the 80s after one of the Swedish militarys speakers took questions, one of the reporters asked. You have talked about different scenarios and the enemy is always coming form the east, isnt it possible that the enemy attacks from the west. There was a moment of silence and then the Swedish general said, of course, he can go around....
A thing that needs to be mentioned was that despite the military believing in the Swedish air force to at very least last 2 weeks the soviets were in no spot to be able to do much damage to the Swedish air force. The mig-21s didnt have the range to even reach Sweden, The Mig-23 was such a lackluster airframe and had a horrible safety record to the point they focused on upgrading the 21 instead and the Mig-29 despite being more modern had huge problems with its long range r-27 missiles to the point the Viggens often won in mock bvr fights. Their Su-27s were only stationed in east Germany and had strict orders to only do air missions in west germany if the cold war had gone hot and they didnt have the logistics to do air missions in the baltic sea if they wanted to
I don't think you realize how thin the Baltic sea is. With combat range of 500km and stationed on what is today Latvia coast, Mig-21s would have about half of southern Sweden within its range.
@@Aztetos That is certainly true, but there are a few factors that you probably didn't consider. The combat range might be sufficient to reach Sweden and get back to Latvia. However, the useful time in air combat would be very much limited, due to excessive fuel consumption during an active combat. When the Mig-21 would have flown 500km, there would be no fuel left to do anything useful before having to head back to base. Second, there would still be vast areas in the north left where the Swedish air force could seek shelter and remain out of range of the Mig-21. Therefore options to critically damage the Swedish air force would have been limited. Third, additionally the Swedish planes could manveouver much more freely without being susceptible to ground based attacks (AAA or SAM). Flying in low altitudes to avoid detection by SAM increases your fuel burn, and you would reduce the combat radius further. Additionally you would start any air to air engagement with an energy disadvantage. Surely that doesn't mean absolute safety for the Swedish air force, but 500km combat range sounds more generous than it actually is. The Mig-21 simply wasn't built for an engagement far away from supporting bases.
Yes, I think Sweden and Finland would have kicked their ass. The Soviets could never commit most of its forces , and left the rest of the county undefended for the Americans to invade.
This is a good overview of general Swedish strategy, though a bit hyperbolic with its title and emphasis on the impossibility of mobilising 800k men in a matter of weeks or even days. For comparison, in June 1941 the Finns with a population of c. 3.7 million mobilised 660k men and women for the defence of the nation, of which about 500k men belonged to the armed forces. This was done in a single week. Incidentally, throughout the Cold War Finnish strategy against a Russian invasion was largely similar to the Swedish one, strong coastal defences, large mobilised armed forces (700k men) and all.
Fair point of view. Although in my defense, I mentioned that it was a "monumental task" and a "logistical nightmare," not that it was impossible. Especially when you take sabotage and other factors into consideration, mobilization becomes an increasingly difficult process where a few small errors or mistakes can create significant problems.
@@GeopolitiGraphics The Swedish Army was expected to reach full mobilization within seven days, although this could take longer without adequate civilian transportation and communication support. The Air Force, however, was anticipated to be fully mobilized within three days. Soviet military exercises frequently simulated advancing into Finnish territory to confront NATO forces, indicating that, in an actual conflict, the USSR might prioritize an incursion into Finland before engaging Sweden, if deemed strategically necessary. This scenario would allow Sweden additional time to complete its mobilization before direct engagement.
@@GeopolitiGraphics It was a monumental task but it had been specifically designed to not be a logistical nightmare due to the dispersed nature of the mobilisation organisation. The same dispersion reduced the effects of errors and sabotage simply becasue of the redundancy in the system as well as the sheer number of mobilisation sites. The usual mobolisation depot only had equipment for one or two companies which meant that you would have to expend a lot of effort just to impact a single brigade. Now the air force and navy were more vulnerable but they were also usually manned at a different level already in peace time and had the ability to move to their wartime stations using only the currently serving conscripts and cadre. High priority units of the field army, designated local defence units and the Homeguard also had short mobilisation times, 24 hours was not uncommon, with the units made up from local men being able to mobilise surprisingly fast. Depending on the time of year and the defence budget a considerable number of men would also be carrying out refresher training, at peak periods you would have 40-50.000 men already in their wartime units though defence budget shortages meant that the number was often lower by the final decade of the Cold War. The key weakness was not the mobilisation process as such but the decision making process needed to trigger it. There was always a lot of worrying in military circles that the goverment would not act on intelligence in time due to the cost of mobilisation and the preassures present in the "grey zone" before hostilities were a fact. On his own the Supreme Commander could only activate the peacetime organisation and bring it to the highest level of alert ("Givakt"), separately he can also activate the Homeguard.
The Russian troop deployment on the Ukrainian border started in spring 2021. A Russian military focused solely on pure brutality has neither the equipment nor the capabilities for a surprise attack.
Kiddo, compare fuel, ammo and supply train of WW2 light infantry to modern unit then repeat this nonsense again. Modern troops need literally 100x more supplies by weight, that's why modern armies are 20x smaller than WW2 ones. If Sweden or Finland tried to mobilize 800k soldiers, the country would literally collapse in a week due to lack of workforce, too.
I think you are spot on with this video! The editing is flawless and you managed to highlight the keypoints in a very good way. Regards from a fellow swede. Once a part of the "famous" Kalixlinjen. The lock of the north 😊
Sadly there isn't any more. The building I live in in Karlstad was built a decade ago. No shelter. We are supposed to go to neighbouring buildings, but they won't have space.
@@threegoldmartlets Realistically speaking, the odds of you-know-who invading Sweden is non-existant after what's happened in Ukraine. At least if we're talking conventional warfare.
@@RoniiNN Russia don't even have the means to reach Sweden through conventional means other than possibly an air raid that would decimate their already depleted air force.
Great video, very informative. For the Ending (Around 5:00) where you begin talking about what would happen to tanks, Sweden did actually incase of war burry huge ammounts of oil and fuel in large silos underground so the most likely thing would be that tanks and other armored units would be forced to dig in around said oil depots while small fuel tankers would relocate small portions for other military units in the close region.
Yes, I appreciate that you mentioned this, and honestly, if I could make the video again, this would 100% be something worth mentioning and explaining.👍
well made and concise summary of swedish appproach to the cold war. Great nostalgia trip. Those were the days, when Sweden had a bigger (and arguably better) air force than West Germany.
In Sweden, there’s a college program focused on becoming a pedagogue guard, also known as a "väktare." After completing this program, graduates can train further to become "skyddsvakter," or security guards. In the event of war, these guards would be equipped with heavy rifles or SMGs to protect critical military infrastructure, assuming they’re not drafted or mobilized as soldiers. Even if I’m not conscripted, my responsibilities would include engaging in combat if needed, handling riots, and assisting the police. This duty falls under what we call "civil plikt," or civilian duty, as part of Sweden’s total defense.
@@RoniiNN No, under total defense. All citizens no matter if they are suited for conscription requires to do an civial duty. You could be an trucker and the military can demand you to delivery supplies to different areas. Every citizen is required to help the military if needed. It doesn't matter if you work for a private or state company. Our system is very different compared to other nations.
@@arvideng9333 Yeah, but the civil duty is not a contract between an employer and citizen. It is a concept of total war. We are talking about the work contract.
@@RoniiNN Well, actually no. In Sweden, if total defense were to be activated, I would either be assigned by the security company or the military. The military and the security company decide beforehand who will have control over the worker. Since I have no military experience but security guard training, I would most likely be placed under the authority of the security company. If I fail to perform the tasks assigned by the company, I could be fined or jailed for neglecting my civil duty. So it wouldn't be considered as a work contract, I by law have to work for the company in case of war. Thats how it works for every security company and other bussnies in Sweden. We don't decide if we want that contract. I know its confusing.
We are trained with the motto "Swedish Soldiers do not surrender" and "On the Officers Iniative" which means when no higher command exist you as any rank will be the Officer demanding progress and causing progress.
1990s Sweden was fun to visit. I was on a small boat when two Viggens buzzed us in tight formation. I was also walking past a factory next to a canal when a small fast boat full of training reservists zipped past and started firing blanks. Guys in the factory started shooting back. I had no idea what was going on so I hid for a couple minutes and watched and then saw locals just walking by paying half interest lol
The interesting result of a national service is in theory is the number of potential service personnel that can be handed a rifle in the event of a sudden war.
There's a very long series printed together with the Swedish government called "Om Kriget Kom", or "If the War Came" which goes over the same points that this video discusses, but each segment is almost an hour long. I don't know if you can find an English texted version of it, but It's published here on TH-cam with Swedish speech.
There are "hidden" with supplies all along the coasts as well. Also, with the exceptions of Gotland, Stockholm, Gothenburg and parts of Skåne, the coasts would not really be defended. The main tactics is guerilla tactics. Let them land, then hit them with their backs to the sea and no escape. Kust jägarna would do sabotage missions, gather intil, and then let artillery and airstrikes do their thing. Most roads built after.. I think it is like 1970, have long very straight strips, a lot of them have, what most people think are rest stops, but is infact to park and hide planes, so they can carry out airstrikes when it is safe. The Archer artillery system is designed to do "hit and run" strikes and then hide. In fact, our whole army is now a days built around speed, mobility and firepower. Meent to strike hard, fast and then disepear. To be fair, getting into the country would proberbly not be that big of a challange. Staying here without taking major casualties... now that will be the problem.
Read Operation Garbo. It extensivly cover what would most likely happen in case of an invasion. First thing to remember is that Sweden wouldnt have been alone, Finland and the Baltic states would also be involved for obvious reasons.
Another thing I keep thinking about is Finland. An attack on Sweden would be difficult without going through Finland first. Of course they could try to attack only by sea and air and by that way put troops on the ground. But ships carrying massive, massive amounts of troops in the Baltic would be kinda easy targets. If Finland would get invaded, before or simultaneously as Sweden - the country would have much more time to prepare for war.
@@crunks2955 Some information about Soviet war plans in Northern Europe during the Cold War has come to light after 1991, and they all envision the Red Army going through Finnish territory. NATO, Sweden and Finland also assumed as much, and prepared accordingly.
Good video! I was Coastal Ranger in 1983-84 educated and exactly our mission was to retake islands in Swedish territory from the Russians. My final duty was as Boat Commander so I know every inch of the Stockholm Archipelago. Unfortunately Sweden started to Break Down our defense 1991 and put the state funds into other things, which was very unfortunate. Still though our Military technology is top notch , but the Quantity of educated and Battle ready soldiers are lacking. Joining Nato is very expensive and I never liked it. We should use our state funds building our own defense, beacuse we are very good when we focus and not easy to beat. However the Video is exactly how we were military educated if an invasion should come. My Captain Gustafsson at "Kustjägarskolan" ( Coastal Ranger Academy ) was a real badass. He spent his Holidays on the beaches in Russia in the 80thies to recon for a counter attack on Russian territory. So focused were we 1984 and totally committed to defend Sweden at any point!
I did my liltary service the same years as you but in the army, a mechanised battalion. After that I joined the home guard and it was thd over all thought that the "slaughter" of the armed forces after the cold war was the same misstake that sweden made in 1921. When WW2 started it took untill 1946-47 untill they weree truly ready and by then the war was already over. It's sad when one don't learn from earlyer mistakes.
@lassemann1677 Hej, Sjölund var mitt huvudbefäl tills jag blev uttagen till båtchef. Som vi alla kände så var Sjölund viktig och mänsklig. Mentalt var det svårt att lämna Skogen och tillbringa tiden på havet som huvudtjänst, då jag är Jägare. Fick dock mycket tid med Sjölund I båten när jag ofta transporterade staben. Saknar honom självklart fastän det är nu 40 årsedan! Jag frågade honom en gång , Varför är du så bra och trevlig när de andra befälen är över jävliga .. Han svarade nästa år är det min tur att vara elak med ett leende!
@lassemann1677 Skriver om.. Sjölund var viktigt för mig. Jag hade en ryggskada när jag kommer till KJ, men kanon värden. Så Sjölund gav mig 2 månader att komma i ordning, normalt så skickas man med vändande post. Det gick bra. . Då jag redan som 14 åring hade en AK4 i hemvärnet trivdes jag bättre I fält än I Kasern. Vi hade fina stunder tillsammans jag och Sjölund ute på fältet. Jag fick en del stryk av andra befäl då jag råkade skratta när jag gjorde Hitlers hund på morgon gympan, så jag frågade Sjölund varför han var reko. Han sade med ett leende, nästa år är jag elak. Vilket du och jag vet han inte var. Som båtchef I huvud tjänsten körde jag Sjölund mycket för att förbereda övningar och annat. Så om ngn hade bra kontakt med vår vän Sjölund så var det jag.
The war plan was not insane. It was very rational.: keep the Ruskies at bay until the Americans arrive. Simple as that. Sweden had very close relations with the USA and NATO during the Cold War. The Russians knew that. NATO and the US obviously knew it. The only group of people kept in the dark about it was the Swedish people.
The thing is this was basically the same as Canadian planning if invaded from the north get ammo to even northern civi hunters to slow it down till nato mobilization……
Well it worked since Sweden was not invaded. A fact forgotten here was the marginal doctrine. It said that only a smaller Russian force could be allocated against Sweden, since most of the Russian force would be tied to the central European front.
A Swedish friend told me about when he was training in the Swedish Army in the 70's or 80's they were discussing potential invasion situations. One guy, sincerely or not, noted that all the scenarios involved Soviet aggression. "Well, what about aggression from the West? What is the plan then?" I don't recall the exact response but it involved a lot of mockery and noting he was an idiot.
The fifth column was and still is active in Scandinavia. Don’t confuse them with socialists. Those fifth columns are still paid and steered by the new stalinists in Moscow.
Armed neutrality in Sweden, like in Swizterland, depends not on being able to defeat an invader, but to make any potential invasion so costly that it never happens in the first place. That has been Sweden's doctrine for 200 years - but it has flaws. Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium were all neutral in WW2 - up until they weren't, because the Nazis saw the strategic necessity to capture them as worth the losses incurred. Norway especially was able to punch well above its weight and draw out the invasion far beyond what the Germans had hoped for, but it was invaded none the less. Ukraine hoped to depend on armed neutrality with Russia, but as Ukraine was convinced to surrender it nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russian promises never to send troops into Ukraine, when the Russians inevitably betrayed that promise, they were left to fight a numerically and industrially superior enemy anyway, and made dependent on Western arms and ammunition. That's why Sweden is now in NATO, as is Finland, and before long so will Ukraine - neutrality is well and good, on paper, but you can't guarantee neutrality in the face of a foreign aggressor, especially an aggressor that doesn't value the lives of its soldiers and is happy to trade hundreds of them for a few square meters of land.
Very interesting video. The Swedes are a clever bunch and they possess a very effective military. Personally, based on the woeful performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, I suspect that had the Soviet hoard attacked Sweden, it would have received terrible punishment from the Swedes. They are well trained and possess excellent kit. I think it's fair to say that they are world leaders when it comes to developing very effective anti-armour weapons- as the joint UK-Swedish NLAW has proven in Ukraine. Sweden is a great addition to NATO and it's very welcome. RESPECT from Britain!
No mention of deep strike capability - a big lesson from Ukraine's experience. Regardless of Sweden's clear competence in the close battle - It would be a struggle to defeat an enemy that is an order of mag larger with a commensurate tolerance for attrition.
An okay description, but a play on words as an introduction is needed. Everyone thinks that their view is the correct path to peace; and those who disagree with that view will only bring endless war. Calling yourself "pro-peace" only serves as an insult to anyone who doesn't agree with your views, who are, therefore, by default "pro war." Sweden's strategy was not to be neutral, but we chose not to be belligerent. There of my little play on words in the introduction. We had agreements with both warring parties. Some gave sharp criticism for this, others less verbal. That Sweden did not choose to be neutral, Finland is the best example to use. During the Finnish Winter War and the Continuation War, Sweden did not participate as a belligerent country against the invasion, even when most sources state that "we are next". We chose to help Finland with lots of material, when others stood by and watched (including ourselves politically at first). Sweden allowed "volunteers" to freely participate in the battles (from the domestic criticism that arose), most of them were foot soldiers and some important part of the air support mainly in Northern Finland. Although Sweden's air force was large for its time, it was outdated at best. They did a great deal of good in the Northern part of Finland and there are lots of Finnish sources to take part in, interesting time in our history. The USA gave quantities of materiel to the Soviet Union, no one usually criticizes the USA for this "double standard". Most people in Sweden believe that the United States can decide for themselves what they want to do with their properties since we traded with them. We were a nation in favor of free trade, unlike the British Empire which was threatened with destruction by… UK led by Churchill threatened Sweden several times if we didn't do what they wanted, then they would invade us. The Allies mined our entire coast (West and East coast) to disrupt and prevent our importation of goods. Thanks to this, we changed our strategy to be as self-sufficient as we can during the cold war. We learned something important from the decisions made during WW2. We built lots of underground silos for fuel, we have also built up infrastructure in Norway for this very purpose and for several years now these buildings are Norwegian property. Very interesting story if you are interested in strategy and secrecy, huss-huss... Sweden and Norway have also jointly built underground roads and rail links to support both nations with the ability to move goods and supplies, in the event of war. The depth of the defense is thus via three nations, Finland, Sweden and Norway, although two out of three were not allied in any organization until we move to modern times, and NATO. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland are all like a group of four siblings with dysfunctional parents (King and Church) during their difficult and bitter separation, forced the four siblings to go different ways through time. As a post-war child, I am proud that we are together again, even if there are some scars left in us.
I cannot speak about the Swedish navy. Your Air Force. But I can speak about the Swedish infantryman. I've lived in Sweden for 7 Years. And in those 7 years I travelled a lot mostly enforce.They can in the nature , but Along the way, I noticed a lot of things. No hills, no mountains, just straight danced. Forests, that's ideal for gorilla warfare. Are there plenty of lakes hidden valleys Along the coast. A lot of facilities, they will hidden around the bases of dense foliage and forests. I'm in london , you'll go , you have Rocky mountains and hills. Or the very good cave systems. Trust me, a flasher would have invaded. Sweden, it would have been a blood bath for them. For one Swedish soldier, Ten Russian Wolf fall. And the Swedish geography where the cities are on and the main roads or ideal for ambushes. Write next to tall pone trees stack knittley side by side, giving excellent cover. In every highway, you have 3 huge towns. Which urban warfare would be devastating for the opposing enemy? And then you have small villages. And towns spread out not too far apart to be remote, but not too close enough as to be easy accessible. I've lived in one of those towns. And trust me me and 5 other of my Swedish friends talked about this matter. If we had plenty of ammunition an explosives unheavy weaponry, we can hold one of those towns very easily for months. These towns have usually 2 ways in and out for vehicles. Either is that or you walk through the forest Which means armoured vehicles would be easy to deal with. But infantry is gonna be the biggest problem of defending one of these small towns. But since we knew the train very well. We know where to hide were to ambush. Which route to Use the Retreat? And we lucky to attack them again from behind. By using the rivers natural path to cover us. Or maybe the long lines of Wooded forests with trees so close to each other. They will block the sun. The ground is heavily dense with bushes. Perfectly for booby traps minds an ids. The Russians attack Sweden. I guarantee it is gonna be like Vietnam.
Frågan jag ställer mig är om sovjet hade samma logistiska problem som ryssland har i Ukraina idag. Speciellt när all personal som skulle landstiga i Sverige skulle komma med båt. Vad tror du?
Förmodligen ja. Den Sovjetiska krigsmaskinens storlek kom både som en styrka och svaghet. Ju större en arme blir ju svårare blir den att mobilisera och anpassa till en given situation. Dock är det viktigt att påpeka att Sovjet unionens militära teknologi fortfarande var modern för sin tid. Efter Sovjetunionens fall 1991 fastnade stor del av Rysslands militära teknologi där. Därför blir det kanske lite svårt att jämföra det med Rysslands nuvarande logistiska problem i Ukraina.
Sweden didn't need Nato, Nato needed Sweden. Even without Nato, there were no chance for Russia to attack and win over Sweden due to the inofficial scandinavian pact between the 4 countries. Russia taking over Gotland as a forward staging point would be impossible due to Sweden's super-submarines and having it's supplylines constantly bombarded by air from both Finland and Denmark due to the defense pact. Not to mention that Sweden's military tech and quality is decades ahead of Russia, who's military has shown to be subpar at best.
True, but the video is about the cold war. Back then the Soviet Union was a different animal than the half that is left of Russias armed forces today. Besides that, it's never a good idea to become cocky and underestimate your enemy.
And yet, Crimea was occupied in a surprise move by Russia. Sweden saw that and learned from it. That Sweden provides a military punch to other allies is only a plus, if they should ever need help.
@@christopherx7428 "And yet, Crimea was occupied in a surprise move by Russia" - it was more a surprise move of the US orchestrated the revolution that led to country's disintegration
Do you noticed something about the difference in mindset? Instead of grown up men leaving the country the make citizens are mobilized and prepared to protect their country against a strong opponent. This is big contrast to grown up men in some other countries who leave and then they start to talk about national pride while living abroad. Don’t get me wrong, understand why done flee but honestly, grow some and fight for your country instead of leaving the old and weak in suffering.
I think we could have stopped the Warshaw pact. Sure they had a huge amount of planes and ships to invade, but their quality? The swedish military gear had only on purpose, and was therefore specially produced to stop soviet gear. That was prioirity nr 1, 2 and 3. And 4, 5 and 6. The quality of the swedish veapons was superior to the crap Soviet produced. We can see it in Ukraine today, were soviet made tanks explodes and their turrets become airborn. Our figthing planes were better, and the robots under their wings of latest US production. And, dont forget, we had the morale, what did the soviets had? Vodka?
Sweden, aiming to become some kind of Vietnam or second Finland in their Winter War. The state also proclaimed it would never surrender so do not believe any news of Swedish surrender.
How could rhe state force people to fight when there's no will? Only the most gullible and fanatic defenders of the NWO would freely fight, the rest would oppose it
@@thehoogardnowadays the US allies can’t trust america anymore, especially when the US did nothing about Crimea, and if trump wins european NATO must form its seperate army, i think forceful conscription will happen in sweden where all men will be forced into military training if Russia decides to invade the baltics, it’s like america wants their allies to dislike them and move away from them
russia deciding to risk a military adventure against a technically more advanced neighbour? Only a complete moron would entertain such an idea. (Enter Mr Putin...)
The Soviet Union would not need to invade Sweden. Without the collapse of the eastern bloc, soner or later socialist partys would take over control over Sweden and then joined the Warshaw Pact. Even in West Germany, despite the deadly antifascist protectionwall, many socialist politician wanted to increase cooperation with Eastern Germany and adopt it's ecconomic system by socialising big and medium cooperations.
Just about every German tank n WW2 was made with iron that came through Sweden, German soldiers took trains through Sweden all the time, and yet you claim they were neutral in that conflict?
Back when the West actually planned to defend itself in comparison to now when the political class of the West have colonial ambitions regarding the entire world, starting with Russia, then China, then the entire globe. I supported my country in the 1980s but no more / Sweden
this was just old facts if you older then gen z you know all this and not insane at all, get your facts right you cud have talked about nuking the baltic states insted
I guess this video's primary target audience is not bitter, grumpy boomers in Västerhaninge who did their badass military service as storage assistants.
Finland did as Sweden, but the difference is that Finland didn't end with that in the 1990:s. Thats why Finland have got nuclear shelters to some 4,6 million (population about 5,6 million) of its inhabitants today. The rest of us will be the one melting to a heap of flesh or the one that will defend our country depending on what kind of war it will be. Im fine with both of them, because in case of a Nuclear war I will try to be in the first blast there is, because I do not want to stay alive after a nuclear war have been fought in the world... Hundreds of years of winter and snow storms..... and yes, this "Njet" to that winter comes from a Finnish man 😊
It has been shown that the "Nuclear winter" scenario so often propagated actually would not happen, even during a massive nuclear war. The amount of smoke and dust is simply not large enough, and most of it stays close to the ground, settling within a few days or weeks.
Play any strategy (war) game, and you will understand. Why would you attack a small neutral piece of the map? To take that land before the other side takes it.
The large island of Gotland is a strategic position to control the Baltic sea. But also other parts of Sweden is. Also Swedish steel exports could be very important to the Western Europe's military industry.
The air force only “holding out for a few days” feels very pessimistic. During each peak in the 80s Sweden had 4.000 aircraft’s and Soviet had 10.000. The soviets would never launch all those 10.000 aircraft against Sweden during an invasion. First of all they don’t have enough airfields within range to host all those aircraft’s and second they would never put all their aircraft’s on one front and expose themselves to all other NATO fronts. Sweden would also have home field advantage with Sweden’s 1980s air defenses including MIM-23 Hawk SAMs, Bofors 40 mm guns, RBS 69 and RBS 70 MANPADS, and the Bas 90 system for dispersed air base survivability.
Swedens airforce did never during the cold war have anywhere near 4000 airplanes. By 1980 all Tunnan has been taken out of duty, many of the Draken planes were outdated and had been taken out of service. The same was the situation for Lansen. And not all of the Viggen’s had been built. The airforce didnt have more than 1000 airplanes at the time. Instead more likely it is that they had around 600-700 airplanes or less
@@maxelmlund1008 I acknowledge my mistake-I didn’t verify the Wikipedia sources, and they were inaccurate. However, I still maintain that Sweden’s Air Force could have held out longer than just a few days. According to the CIA’s research paper on Nordic Forces in the 1980s (available on cia.gov), Sweden had over 400 combat aircraft (excluding reconnaissance, trainers, and helicopters), while the USSR had fewer than 3,000 combat aircraft. Realistically, the USSR would never have deployed its entire air fleet against Sweden alone, and Sweden would have benefitted from its strong air defense systems, including SAMs and the Bas 90 air base network.
@ I acknowledge my mistake-I didn’t verify the Wikipedia sources, and they were inaccurate. However, I still maintain that Sweden’s Air Force could have held out longer than just a few days. According to the CIA’s research paper on Nordic Forces in the 1980s (available on cia.gov), Sweden had over 400 combat aircraft (excluding reconnaissance, trainers, and helicopters), while the USSR had fewer than 3,000 combat aircraft. Realistically, the USSR would never have deployed its entire air fleet against Sweden alone, and Sweden would have benefitted from its strong air defense systems, including SAMs and the Bas 90 air base network.
Sweden took into account that the air bases would be bombed into oblivion. This is why every modern Swedish jet fighter is designed to be able to land and take off from ordinary roads. The current Gripen fighter can land on a strip of road, do a 3-point turn around, be serviced by a few conscripts under the survelliance of a single trained officer and up in the air again within 10 minutes.
aka STOL (Short Take off and Landing)
Also why there was so many roads around the country that were oversized to possibly be used as runways
It's like in Finland.
Fighters are worthless in modern war. Defense missile systems take them out in an instance.
Which was idiotic as constant sorties would ruin engines, make the planes easy target in air, and all Soviets needed to do is wait a day or two before attacking for all of the planes to be on the ground due to lack of fuel. Not that Soviet Union ever intended to attack in the first place (see Soviet war plan archives), that was all CIA brainwashing to have more cannon fodder...
Sweden repeatedly told its people that it would never surrender and any announcement of surrender should be ignored
That is actually not true. However, up until 2010, military service (all from 6 months to a couple ofyears) was mandatory. So the majority of men over 30 in Sweden have a basic understanding and knowledge of basic military tactics and how to use the equipment.
@@JohanHaagg It is true. Out pamphlets "Om kriget kommer" (if war comes) have always had the message printed clearly that any announcement of surrender should be taken as a lie. This is also true for the latest pamphlet.
@@GameGabster I am reading it right now, where does it say it? The only thing mentioning anything about communications are to "listen to trust sources" which bascily means P4 and TextTv. There is nothing about surrending or not.
@@JohanHaagg2018s utgåva sida 12, 2024s utgåva sida 5
@@Janzzze Vilket inte hjälper när vi pratar om senaste, vilket är 2024. Sida 12 handlar om hur man skyddar sig vid luftangrepp.
Very about Sweden and Cold War, took me almost back to military service in 1978. We want more of this. Thank you👍👍
Like a short version of Melker Becker's Om Kriget Kom. Cool.
Thanks, a lot of inspiration for this video clearly came from that series. 👍
This was a good klipp.
I was deployed as a Artic Ranger in Kiruna in 1987 to stop the russian invasion in the nordic part of Sweden. It was a special time back then. We were hunting russian u-boat in the norden parts of Baltic sea back then also.. 👍🇸🇪🪖
Bra video.
Interesting video and good summary, as mentioned before Sweden had a lot of storage in bunkers and deep mountains like fuel, food, hospitals etc. One other thing was that all the conscripts had various job types so in every unit there was people with different skills useful in war. Jonny (previous Marin Jaeger Kustjägare)
The first air fleet, ÖBs Klubba, or as it was called ÖBs hammer was 3 squadrons containing 2-3 divisions each that was his to use as the major blow to a naval invasion by the WP. It had about 120-140 aircraft carrying naval ASM, either RB 04 or RBS 15. The idea was to destroy the enemy at sea in a mighty blow and they trained for this flying at 30 feet above sea level at maximum speed. They had no illusions regarding the losses, it was estimated that the formation would last 3-5 days as a unit. The rest of the airforce was to be used as normal assets with the hammer being used at the most vital time to stop the enemy.
Fun fact: During a defence conference in the 80s after one of the Swedish militarys speakers took questions, one of the reporters asked. You have talked about different scenarios and the enemy is always coming form the east, isnt it possible that the enemy attacks from the west. There was a moment of silence and then the Swedish general said, of course, he can go around....
We have that same "If the enemy comes from the west" joke here in Finland 😁
A thing that needs to be mentioned was that despite the military believing in the Swedish air force to at very least last 2 weeks the soviets were in no spot to be able to do much damage to the Swedish air force. The mig-21s didnt have the range to even reach Sweden, The Mig-23 was such a lackluster airframe and had a horrible safety record to the point they focused on upgrading the 21 instead and the Mig-29 despite being more modern had huge problems with its long range r-27 missiles to the point the Viggens often won in mock bvr fights. Their Su-27s were only stationed in east Germany and had strict orders to only do air missions in west germany if the cold war had gone hot and they didnt have the logistics to do air missions in the baltic sea if they wanted to
I don't think you realize how thin the Baltic sea is. With combat range of 500km and stationed on what is today Latvia coast, Mig-21s would have about half of southern Sweden within its range.
@@Aztetos That is certainly true, but there are a few factors that you probably didn't consider.
The combat range might be sufficient to reach Sweden and get back to Latvia. However, the useful time in air combat would be very much limited, due to excessive fuel consumption during an active combat. When the Mig-21 would have flown 500km, there would be no fuel left to do anything useful before having to head back to base.
Second, there would still be vast areas in the north left where the Swedish air force could seek shelter and remain out of range of the Mig-21. Therefore options to critically damage the Swedish air force would have been limited.
Third, additionally the Swedish planes could manveouver much more freely without being susceptible to ground based attacks (AAA or SAM). Flying in low altitudes to avoid detection by SAM increases your fuel burn, and you would reduce the combat radius further. Additionally you would start any air to air engagement with an energy disadvantage.
Surely that doesn't mean absolute safety for the Swedish air force, but 500km combat range sounds more generous than it actually is. The Mig-21 simply wasn't built for an engagement far away from supporting bases.
Yes, I think Sweden and Finland would have kicked their ass. The Soviets could never commit most of its forces , and left the rest of the county undefended for the Americans to invade.
@@smurface549 Good points. Without aerial refueling, the MiG-21 just doesn't have long "legs".
@@Aztetos mig 21 would have been shot down by the Viggen fighter.
Very interesting, also amazing quality for such a small channel :) Subscribed!
Thank you, greatly appreciated🙏
This is a good overview of general Swedish strategy, though a bit hyperbolic with its title and emphasis on the impossibility of mobilising 800k men in a matter of weeks or even days. For comparison, in June 1941 the Finns with a population of c. 3.7 million mobilised 660k men and women for the defence of the nation, of which about 500k men belonged to the armed forces. This was done in a single week. Incidentally, throughout the Cold War Finnish strategy against a Russian invasion was largely similar to the Swedish one, strong coastal defences, large mobilised armed forces (700k men) and all.
Fair point of view. Although in my defense, I mentioned that it was a "monumental task" and a "logistical nightmare," not that it was impossible. Especially when you take sabotage and other factors into consideration, mobilization becomes an increasingly difficult process where a few small errors or mistakes can create significant problems.
@@GeopolitiGraphics The Swedish Army was expected to reach full mobilization within seven days, although this could take longer without adequate civilian transportation and communication support. The Air Force, however, was anticipated to be fully mobilized within three days.
Soviet military exercises frequently simulated advancing into Finnish territory to confront NATO forces, indicating that, in an actual conflict, the USSR might prioritize an incursion into Finland before engaging Sweden, if deemed strategically necessary. This scenario would allow Sweden additional time to complete its mobilization before direct engagement.
@@GeopolitiGraphics It was a monumental task but it had been specifically designed to not be a logistical nightmare due to the dispersed nature of the mobilisation organisation. The same dispersion reduced the effects of errors and sabotage simply becasue of the redundancy in the system as well as the sheer number of mobilisation sites. The usual mobolisation depot only had equipment for one or two companies which meant that you would have to expend a lot of effort just to impact a single brigade. Now the air force and navy were more vulnerable but they were also usually manned at a different level already in peace time and had the ability to move to their wartime stations using only the currently serving conscripts and cadre.
High priority units of the field army, designated local defence units and the Homeguard also had short mobilisation times, 24 hours was not uncommon, with the units made up from local men being able to mobilise surprisingly fast. Depending on the time of year and the defence budget a considerable number of men would also be carrying out refresher training, at peak periods you would have 40-50.000 men already in their wartime units though defence budget shortages meant that the number was often lower by the final decade of the Cold War.
The key weakness was not the mobilisation process as such but the decision making process needed to trigger it. There was always a lot of worrying in military circles that the goverment would not act on intelligence in time due to the cost of mobilisation and the preassures present in the "grey zone" before hostilities were a fact. On his own the Supreme Commander could only activate the peacetime organisation and bring it to the highest level of alert ("Givakt"), separately he can also activate the Homeguard.
The Russian troop deployment on the Ukrainian border started in spring 2021. A Russian military focused solely on pure brutality has neither the equipment nor the capabilities for a surprise attack.
Kiddo, compare fuel, ammo and supply train of WW2 light infantry to modern unit then repeat this nonsense again. Modern troops need literally 100x more supplies by weight, that's why modern armies are 20x smaller than WW2 ones. If Sweden or Finland tried to mobilize 800k soldiers, the country would literally collapse in a week due to lack of workforce, too.
I think you are spot on with this video! The editing is flawless and you managed to highlight the keypoints in a very good way.
Regards from a fellow swede. Once a part of the "famous" Kalixlinjen. The lock of the north 😊
Obefläckad ära!
Bra jobbat, riktigt proffsig video :D
Awesome video! 🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪
great video! Looking forward for more. Maybe also about Finland sometime.
Short & Good
Must add that the Civil Defense Force was huge as well
And there was bunker space for every Swedish citizen
Sadly there isn't any more. The building I live in in Karlstad was built a decade ago. No shelter. We are supposed to go to neighbouring buildings, but they won't have space.
@@threegoldmartlets Realistically speaking, the odds of you-know-who invading Sweden is non-existant after what's happened in Ukraine. At least if we're talking conventional warfare.
Russian won’t have conventional man power to do a another large scale war but that doesn’t mean you should weaken yourself even more.
@@RoniiNN Russia don't even have the means to reach Sweden through conventional means other than possibly an air raid that would decimate their already depleted air force.
Great video, very informative. For the Ending (Around 5:00) where you begin talking about what would happen to tanks, Sweden did actually incase of war burry huge ammounts of oil and fuel in large silos underground so the most likely thing would be that tanks and other armored units would be forced to dig in around said oil depots while small fuel tankers would relocate small portions for other military units in the close region.
Yes, I appreciate that you mentioned this, and honestly, if I could make the video again, this would 100% be something worth mentioning and explaining.👍
Sweden is rebuilding it
Best video yet!
Thank you 😁
well made and concise summary of swedish appproach to the cold war.
Great nostalgia trip.
Those were the days, when Sweden had a bigger (and arguably better) air force than West Germany.
In Sweden, there’s a college program focused on becoming a pedagogue guard, also known as a "väktare." After completing this program, graduates can train further to become "skyddsvakter," or security guards.
In the event of war, these guards would be equipped with heavy rifles or SMGs to protect critical military infrastructure, assuming they’re not drafted or mobilized as soldiers. Even if I’m not conscripted, my responsibilities would include engaging in combat if needed, handling riots, and assisting the police. This duty falls under what we call "civil plikt," or civilian duty, as part of Sweden’s total defense.
All jobs or companies related to the state has contract that in case of war you are obligated to serve.
@@RoniiNN No, under total defense. All citizens no matter if they are suited for conscription requires to do an civial duty.
You could be an trucker and the military can demand you to delivery supplies to different areas. Every citizen is required to help the military if needed.
It doesn't matter if you work for a private or state company. Our system is very different compared to other nations.
@@arvideng9333 Yeah, but the civil duty is not a contract between an employer and citizen. It is a concept of total war. We are talking about the work contract.
@@RoniiNN
Well, actually no. In Sweden, if total defense were to be activated, I would either be assigned by the security company or the military. The military and the security company decide beforehand who will have control over the worker. Since I have no military experience but security guard training, I would most likely be placed under the authority of the security company. If I fail to perform the tasks assigned by the company, I could be fined or jailed for neglecting my civil duty.
So it wouldn't be considered as a work contract, I by law have to work for the company in case of war. Thats how it works for every security company and other bussnies in Sweden. We don't decide if we want that contract. I know its confusing.
We are trained with the motto "Swedish Soldiers do not surrender" and "On the Officers Iniative" which means when no higher command exist you as any rank will be the Officer demanding progress and causing progress.
1990s Sweden was fun to visit. I was on a small boat when two Viggens buzzed us in tight formation. I was also walking past a factory next to a canal when a small fast boat full of training reservists zipped past and started firing blanks. Guys in the factory started shooting back. I had no idea what was going on so I hid for a couple minutes and watched and then saw locals just walking by paying half interest lol
Good to se John Pohlman pointing out the Russian fronts on the weather map! 😊
Oh you can bet Norway, Denmark and Finland would have been involved one way or another
Well edited video, i enjoyed it! Where did you get the archive footage from? :)
Amazing video!
The interesting result of a national service is in theory is the number of potential service personnel that can be handed a rifle in the event of a sudden war.
Bra skit det här. Prenumererar direkt!
Nice and short analysis, I would of enjoyed it more if it was more in depth and longer but thanks🙂 from Australia.
There's a very long series printed together with the Swedish government called "Om Kriget Kom", or "If the War Came" which goes over the same points that this video discusses, but each segment is almost an hour long. I don't know if you can find an English texted version of it, but It's published here on TH-cam with Swedish speech.
Bra kvalitet!
Vore intressant med en jämförelse med hur illa det ser ut idag
There are "hidden" with supplies all along the coasts as well. Also, with the exceptions of Gotland, Stockholm, Gothenburg and parts of Skåne, the coasts would not really be defended. The main tactics is guerilla tactics. Let them land, then hit them with their backs to the sea and no escape. Kust jägarna would do sabotage missions, gather intil, and then let artillery and airstrikes do their thing. Most roads built after.. I think it is like 1970, have long very straight strips, a lot of them have, what most people think are rest stops, but is infact to park and hide planes, so they can carry out airstrikes when it is safe. The Archer artillery system is designed to do "hit and run" strikes and then hide. In fact, our whole army is now a days built around speed, mobility and firepower. Meent to strike hard, fast and then disepear.
To be fair, getting into the country would proberbly not be that big of a challange. Staying here without taking major casualties... now that will be the problem.
Pretty sure this is no longer the case after some of them got robbed in the early 90s.
Read Operation Garbo. It extensivly cover what would most likely happen in case of an invasion. First thing to remember is that Sweden wouldnt have been alone, Finland and the Baltic states would also be involved for obvious reasons.
The baltic states WAS the soviet union at the time!!
@@MrZnarffy Im fully aware of that.
Op Garbo features a US president happy to undertake NATO missions.
Another thing I keep thinking about is Finland. An attack on Sweden would be difficult without going through Finland first. Of course they could try to attack only by sea and air and by that way put troops on the ground. But ships carrying massive, massive amounts of troops in the Baltic would be kinda easy targets.
If Finland would get invaded, before or simultaneously as Sweden - the country would have much more time to prepare for war.
@@crunks2955 Some information about Soviet war plans in Northern Europe during the Cold War has come to light after 1991, and they all envision the Red Army going through Finnish territory. NATO, Sweden and Finland also assumed as much, and prepared accordingly.
Good video! I was Coastal Ranger in 1983-84 educated and exactly our mission was to retake islands in Swedish territory from the Russians. My final duty was as Boat Commander so I know every inch of the Stockholm Archipelago. Unfortunately Sweden started to Break Down our defense 1991 and put the state funds into other things, which was very unfortunate. Still though our Military technology is top notch , but the Quantity of educated and Battle ready soldiers are lacking. Joining Nato is very expensive and I never liked it. We should use our state funds building our own defense, beacuse we are very good when we focus and not easy to beat. However the Video is exactly how we were military educated if an invasion should come. My Captain Gustafsson at "Kustjägarskolan" ( Coastal Ranger Academy ) was a real badass. He spent his Holidays on the beaches in Russia in the 80thies to recon for a counter attack on Russian territory. So focused were we 1984 and totally committed to defend Sweden at any point!
I did my liltary service the same years as you but in the army, a mechanised battalion. After that I joined the home guard and it was thd over all thought that the "slaughter" of the armed forces after the cold war was the same misstake that sweden made in 1921. When WW2 started it took untill 1946-47 untill they weree truly ready and by then the war was already over. It's sad when one don't learn from earlyer mistakes.
var du en av "Sjölunds Gossar?
@lassemann1677 Hej, Sjölund var mitt huvudbefäl tills jag blev uttagen till båtchef. Som vi alla kände så var Sjölund viktig och mänsklig. Mentalt var det svårt att lämna Skogen och tillbringa tiden på havet som huvudtjänst, då jag är Jägare. Fick dock mycket tid med Sjölund I båten när jag ofta transporterade staben. Saknar honom självklart fastän det är nu 40 årsedan! Jag frågade honom en gång , Varför är du så bra och trevlig när de andra befälen är över jävliga .. Han svarade nästa år är det min tur att vara elak med ett leende!
@lassemann1677
Hej fick du mitt svar ang Löjtnant Sjölund ? Bästa 609 Wirén
@lassemann1677
Skriver om.. Sjölund var viktigt för mig. Jag hade en ryggskada när jag kommer till KJ, men kanon värden. Så Sjölund gav mig 2 månader att komma i ordning, normalt så skickas man med vändande post. Det gick bra. . Då jag redan som 14 åring hade en AK4 i hemvärnet trivdes jag bättre I fält än I Kasern. Vi hade fina stunder tillsammans jag och Sjölund ute på fältet. Jag fick en del stryk av andra befäl då jag råkade skratta när jag gjorde Hitlers hund på morgon gympan, så jag frågade Sjölund varför han var reko. Han sade med ett leende, nästa år är jag elak. Vilket du och jag vet han inte var.
Som båtchef I huvud tjänsten körde jag Sjölund mycket för att förbereda övningar och annat. Så om ngn hade bra kontakt med vår vän Sjölund så var det jag.
The war plan was not insane. It was very rational.: keep the Ruskies at bay until the Americans arrive. Simple as that. Sweden had very close relations with the USA and NATO during the Cold War. The Russians knew that. NATO and the US obviously knew it. The only group of people kept in the dark about it was the Swedish people.
Not really is obvious that Sweden was on the side of USA since the end of ww2.
The wouldn't arrive since Sweden was neutral.
Vart hittade du alla klipp på militär övningarna?
Allting är taget från TH-cam
The thing is this was basically the same as Canadian planning if invaded from the north get ammo to even northern civi hunters to slow it down till nato mobilization……
Ge fan aldrig upp!
sweden also had multiple fuel depots blown down in the mountains to keep them safe. like a lot a lot of them..
Interesting and well made, but everybody heard of this who's into war history.
Well it worked since Sweden was not invaded. A fact forgotten here was the marginal doctrine. It said that only a smaller Russian force could be allocated against Sweden, since most of the Russian force would be tied to the central European front.
A Swedish friend told me about when he was training in the Swedish Army in the 70's or 80's they were discussing potential invasion situations. One guy, sincerely or not, noted that all the scenarios involved Soviet aggression. "Well, what about aggression from the West? What is the plan then?" I don't recall the exact response but it involved a lot of mockery and noting he was an idiot.
The fifth column was and still is active in Scandinavia. Don’t confuse them with socialists. Those fifth columns are still paid and steered by the new stalinists in Moscow.
@@eshatbereitsbegonnen7313 Money does talk. Often with a Russian accent!
The response was why would the enemy go around
Swedish Armed Forces were tough nut to crack in Cold War - era. Sad that Sweden took too rapid conclusions of Soviet collapse.
Armed neutrality in Sweden, like in Swizterland, depends not on being able to defeat an invader, but to make any potential invasion so costly that it never happens in the first place. That has been Sweden's doctrine for 200 years - but it has flaws.
Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium were all neutral in WW2 - up until they weren't, because the Nazis saw the strategic necessity to capture them as worth the losses incurred. Norway especially was able to punch well above its weight and draw out the invasion far beyond what the Germans had hoped for, but it was invaded none the less.
Ukraine hoped to depend on armed neutrality with Russia, but as Ukraine was convinced to surrender it nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russian promises never to send troops into Ukraine, when the Russians inevitably betrayed that promise, they were left to fight a numerically and industrially superior enemy anyway, and made dependent on Western arms and ammunition.
That's why Sweden is now in NATO, as is Finland, and before long so will Ukraine - neutrality is well and good, on paper, but you can't guarantee neutrality in the face of a foreign aggressor, especially an aggressor that doesn't value the lives of its soldiers and is happy to trade hundreds of them for a few square meters of land.
Very interesting video. The Swedes are a clever bunch and they possess a very effective military. Personally, based on the woeful performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, I suspect that had the Soviet hoard attacked Sweden, it would have received terrible punishment from the Swedes. They are well trained and possess excellent kit. I think it's fair to say that they are world leaders when it comes to developing very effective anti-armour weapons- as the joint UK-Swedish NLAW has proven in Ukraine. Sweden is a great addition to NATO and it's very welcome. RESPECT from Britain!
No mention of deep strike capability - a big lesson from Ukraine's experience. Regardless of Sweden's clear competence in the close battle - It would be a struggle to defeat an enemy that is an order of mag larger with a commensurate tolerance for attrition.
Best wake up cccp is back
An okay description, but a play on words as an introduction is needed.
Everyone thinks that their view is the correct path to peace; and those who disagree with that view will only bring endless war. Calling yourself "pro-peace" only serves as an insult to anyone who doesn't agree with your views, who are, therefore, by default "pro war."
Sweden's strategy was not to be neutral, but we chose not to be belligerent. There of my little play on words in the introduction. We had agreements with both warring parties. Some gave sharp criticism for this, others less verbal.
That Sweden did not choose to be neutral, Finland is the best example to use. During the Finnish Winter War and the Continuation War, Sweden did not participate as a belligerent country against the invasion, even when most sources state that "we are next".
We chose to help Finland with lots of material, when others stood by and watched (including ourselves politically at first). Sweden allowed "volunteers" to freely participate in the battles (from the domestic criticism that arose), most of them were foot soldiers and some important part of the air support mainly in Northern Finland. Although Sweden's air force was large for its time, it was outdated at best. They did a great deal of good in the Northern part of Finland and there are lots of Finnish sources to take part in, interesting time in our history.
The USA gave quantities of materiel to the Soviet Union, no one usually criticizes the USA for this "double standard". Most people in Sweden believe that the United States can decide for themselves what they want to do with their properties since we traded with them. We were a nation in favor of free trade, unlike the British Empire which was threatened with destruction by…
UK led by Churchill threatened Sweden several times if we didn't do what they wanted, then they would invade us. The Allies mined our entire coast (West and East coast) to disrupt and prevent our importation of goods. Thanks to this, we changed our strategy to be as self-sufficient as we can during the cold war. We learned something important from the decisions made during WW2.
We built lots of underground silos for fuel, we have also built up infrastructure in Norway for this very purpose and for several years now these buildings are Norwegian property. Very interesting story if you are interested in strategy and secrecy, huss-huss...
Sweden and Norway have also jointly built underground roads and rail links to support both nations with the ability to move goods and supplies, in the event of war. The depth of the defense is thus via three nations, Finland, Sweden and Norway, although two out of three were not allied in any organization until we move to modern times, and NATO.
Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland are all like a group of four siblings with dysfunctional parents (King and Church) during their difficult and bitter separation, forced the four siblings to go different ways through time. As a post-war child, I am proud that we are together again, even if there are some scars left in us.
Honestly the Sovjets would have been sooo fucked against this insanely organized, creative and cohesive Sweden.
Bra sammanfattning växte själv upp under kalla kriget.
i love your dialect
I cannot speak about the Swedish navy. Your Air Force. But I can speak about the Swedish infantryman. I've lived in Sweden for 7 Years. And in those 7 years I travelled a lot mostly enforce.They can in the nature , but Along the way, I noticed a lot of things. No hills, no mountains, just straight danced. Forests, that's ideal for gorilla warfare. Are there plenty of lakes hidden valleys Along the coast. A lot of facilities, they will hidden around the bases of dense foliage and forests. I'm in london , you'll go , you have Rocky mountains and hills. Or the very good cave systems. Trust me, a flasher would have invaded. Sweden, it would have been a blood bath for them. For one Swedish soldier, Ten Russian Wolf fall. And the Swedish geography where the cities are on and the main roads or ideal for ambushes.
Write next to tall pone trees stack knittley side by side, giving excellent cover. In every highway, you have 3 huge towns. Which urban warfare would be devastating for the opposing enemy? And then you have small villages. And towns spread out not too far apart to be remote, but not too close enough as to be easy accessible. I've lived in one of those towns. And trust me me and 5 other of my Swedish friends talked about this matter. If we had plenty of ammunition an explosives unheavy weaponry, we can hold one of those towns very easily for months. These towns have usually 2 ways in and out for vehicles. Either is that or you walk through the forest Which means armoured vehicles would be easy to deal with. But infantry is gonna be the biggest problem of defending one of these small towns. But since we knew the train very well. We know where to hide were to ambush. Which route to Use the Retreat? And we lucky to attack them again from behind. By using the rivers natural path to cover us. Or maybe the long lines of Wooded forests with trees so close to each other. They will block the sun. The ground is heavily dense with bushes. Perfectly for booby traps minds an ids. The Russians attack Sweden. I guarantee it is gonna be like Vietnam.
Frågan jag ställer mig är om sovjet hade samma logistiska problem som ryssland har i Ukraina idag. Speciellt när all personal som skulle landstiga i Sverige skulle komma med båt. Vad tror du?
Förmodligen ja. Den Sovjetiska krigsmaskinens storlek kom både som en styrka och svaghet. Ju större en arme blir ju svårare blir den att mobilisera och anpassa till en given situation. Dock är det viktigt att påpeka att Sovjet unionens militära teknologi fortfarande var modern för sin tid. Efter Sovjetunionens fall 1991 fastnade stor del av Rysslands militära teknologi där. Därför blir det kanske lite svårt att jämföra det med Rysslands nuvarande logistiska problem i Ukraina.
Sweden didn't need Nato, Nato needed Sweden.
Even without Nato, there were no chance for Russia to attack and win over Sweden due to the inofficial scandinavian pact between the 4 countries.
Russia taking over Gotland as a forward staging point would be impossible due to Sweden's super-submarines and having it's supplylines
constantly bombarded by air from both Finland and Denmark due to the defense pact.
Not to mention that Sweden's military tech and quality is decades ahead of Russia, who's military has shown to be subpar at best.
True, but the video is about the cold war. Back then the Soviet Union was a different animal than the half that is left of Russias armed forces today.
Besides that, it's never a good idea to become cocky and underestimate your enemy.
And yet, Crimea was occupied in a surprise move by Russia. Sweden saw that and learned from it. That Sweden provides a military punch to other allies is only a plus, if they should ever need help.
@@christopherx7428
"And yet, Crimea was occupied in a surprise move by Russia" - it was more a surprise move of the US orchestrated the revolution that led to country's disintegration
@АлександрМолния-т2щ Mouth of Putin speaks
@@christopherx7428
It was John McCain's speaks. You can find the video of him supporting protests in Kiev
is it realistic tho? nah fr keep up the work that video is fucking awsome
Thanks Paul!😁
Do you noticed something about the difference in mindset? Instead of grown up men leaving the country the make citizens are mobilized and prepared to protect their country against a strong opponent. This is big contrast to grown up men in some other countries who leave and then they start to talk about national pride while living abroad. Don’t get me wrong, understand why done flee but honestly, grow some and fight for your country instead of leaving the old and weak in suffering.
För skön svängelska, intressant video trotts allt!😂
Bro who is barely old enough to have lived in the pre NATO sweden era giving facts like a veteran.
Don't know whether to take this as a compliment or an insult😅
skit bra video.
Weird hearing your voice in a youtube video when it's been so long since last time
Hey Romsdal 😂
@@GeopolitiGraphicsGotta say nice video
I think we could have stopped the Warshaw pact. Sure they had a huge amount of planes and ships to invade, but their quality? The swedish military gear had only on purpose, and was therefore specially produced to stop soviet gear. That was prioirity nr 1, 2 and 3. And 4, 5 and 6. The quality of the swedish veapons was superior to the crap Soviet produced. We can see it in Ukraine today, were soviet made tanks explodes and their turrets become airborn. Our figthing planes were better, and the robots under their wings of latest US production. And, dont forget, we had the morale, what did the soviets had? Vodka?
Sweden, aiming to become some kind of Vietnam or second Finland in their Winter War. The state also proclaimed it would never surrender so do not believe any news of Swedish surrender.
not only that they would not surrender they could not surrender it is impossible for the swedish state to surrender if we are attacked
How could rhe state force people to fight when there's no will?
Only the most gullible and fanatic defenders of the NWO would freely fight, the rest would oppose it
Why did Sweden give away it military nuclear program?
All classified, but presumably they got a nice deal and promises of support from the US.
@@thehoogardnowadays the US allies can’t trust america anymore, especially when the US did nothing about Crimea, and if trump wins european NATO must form its seperate army, i think forceful conscription will happen in sweden where all men will be forced into military training if Russia decides to invade the baltics, it’s like america wants their allies to dislike them and move away from them
@@thehoogard Basicly: Nuclear programs are *expensive* .
@@Mr.Kingen So what in your opinion should the US have done ten years ago when Crimea fell to Russia's coup, start a world war?
@@pickinthatbanjo Sanctions and actually stick to them. If the west had an actual backbone this whole war could've been ended with sanctions.
Stand of neutrality eh? But Sweden supplied Vietcong and North Vietnam during the Vietnam war.
With hospitals. And the south
They supplied Nazi-Germany as well, so what's your point?
Don't forget Hemvärnet - The Home Guard.
önskar vi kunde ha samma anda i dag att varje individ i detta land är redo att ge sitt liv och aldrig ge upp för fosterlandet
"All information about the end of the resistance are false!!"
Du.... vad säg som att citera "Om kriget kom" bland dina källor
Planes just looked better back then.
Agreed, these are amongst the nicest
Seems like they're gonna need it, after all.
2 min and 48 sek. Isn't that a danish tropedoboat? Xd. judging by the flag
russia deciding to risk a military adventure against a technically more advanced neighbour? Only a complete moron would entertain such an idea. (Enter Mr Putin...)
And now we need to watch out for the West
KAN VI FÅ HÖRA KLACKEN!?!?!
Sweden ?????🎉🎉🎉🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
and sadly politicians have pretty much ruined this capability.
With a title like that and not mentioning the nuclear weapons program or the "first use" doctrine... Hard fail.
The Soviet Union would not need to invade Sweden. Without the collapse of the eastern bloc, soner or later socialist partys would take over control over Sweden and then joined the Warshaw Pact. Even in West Germany, despite the deadly antifascist protectionwall, many socialist politician wanted to increase cooperation with Eastern Germany and adopt it's ecconomic system by socialising big and medium cooperations.
Soviet Union where literally held together with military force. Soviet Union invaded countries that had revolutions. So no.
Just about every German tank n WW2 was made with iron that came through Sweden, German soldiers took trains through Sweden all the time, and yet you claim they were neutral in that conflict?
GUD BEVARE KONUNGEN OCH FÄDERNESLANDET!
Kungen kan suga av mig, mitt land är en demokrati, inget jävla kungavälde.
Vi ska kunna lita på vår egna försvarsförmåga. Vi ska ha ett starkt individuellt försvar och stå starka ensamma, utanför Nato.
Säg ba Draken grabben
Yäs gå swidän... 🤣🤣🤣
Is this a joke or just an exeptionably able person?
And the invasion came, from MENA.
Korrekt, läs landsförräderi av Politiker.
That is exactly the narrative the modern Russian regime wants you to believe…
Ridiculous. We imported Neoliberalism - that was the actual, sneaky invasion.
De bruna bataljonerna marscherar redan på våra gator...
Calling immigration an invasion sure is edgy.
Back when the West actually planned to defend itself in comparison to now when the political class of the West have colonial ambitions regarding the entire world, starting with Russia, then China, then the entire globe. I supported my country in the 1980s but no more / Sweden
You seem to be a little bit confused by Poo-tins propaganda machine.
this was just old facts if you older then gen z you know all this and not insane at all, get your facts right you cud have talked about nuking the baltic states insted
I guess this video's primary target audience is not bitter, grumpy boomers in Västerhaninge who did their badass military service as storage assistants.
@@ordningsmannenThanks, couldn't have said it better to be honest 😅
when tf did we have nuclear capabilities? lol
@@mandela7147never did bomb was made and plans was drawn
Finland did as Sweden, but the difference is that Finland didn't end with that in the 1990:s.
Thats why Finland have got nuclear shelters to some 4,6 million (population about 5,6 million) of its inhabitants today. The rest of us will be the one melting to a heap of flesh or the one that will defend our country depending on what kind of war it will be.
Im fine with both of them, because in case of a Nuclear war I will try to be in the first blast there is, because I do not want to stay alive after a nuclear war have been fought in the world... Hundreds of years of winter and snow storms..... and yes, this "Njet" to that winter comes from a Finnish man 😊
It has been shown that the "Nuclear winter" scenario so often propagated actually would not happen, even during a massive nuclear war. The amount of smoke and dust is simply not large enough, and most of it stays close to the ground, settling within a few days or weeks.
@MrAstrojensen oh, really 🤔🤔🤔🤔.... Well, then it's time for a new plan for me... 👍
sweden has space for around 7 million in our shelters however most are quite out of date and need of refit
Why would Soviet or Russia invade Sweden if Sweden was neutral?? Makes no sense in the first place !
because sweden has a strategic benifit over the balkan sea
Play any strategy (war) game, and you will understand. Why would you attack a small neutral piece of the map? To take that land before the other side takes it.
The large island of Gotland is a strategic position to control the Baltic sea. But also other parts of Sweden is. Also Swedish steel exports could be very important to the Western Europe's military industry.
Same reason they've invaded like, I lost count how many times. Dumb question, give another one.
Does anyting the communists do make sense?
Kh-47M2 Kinzhal liked this video
Lmao 😂
The air force only “holding out for a few days” feels very pessimistic. During each peak in the 80s Sweden had 4.000 aircraft’s and Soviet had 10.000. The soviets would never launch all those 10.000 aircraft against Sweden during an invasion. First of all they don’t have enough airfields within range to host all those aircraft’s and second they would never put all their aircraft’s on one front and expose themselves to all other NATO fronts. Sweden would also have home field advantage with Sweden’s 1980s air defenses including MIM-23 Hawk SAMs, Bofors 40 mm guns, RBS 69 and RBS 70 MANPADS, and the Bas 90 system for dispersed air base survivability.
Swedens airforce did never during the cold war have anywhere near 4000 airplanes. By 1980 all Tunnan has been taken out of duty, many of the Draken planes were outdated and had been taken out of service. The same was the situation for Lansen. And not all of the Viggen’s had been built. The airforce didnt have more than 1000 airplanes at the time. Instead more likely it is that they had around 600-700 airplanes or less
@@maxelmlund1008 I acknowledge my mistake-I didn’t verify the Wikipedia sources, and they were inaccurate. However, I still maintain that Sweden’s Air Force could have held out longer than just a few days. According to the CIA’s research paper on Nordic Forces in the 1980s (available on cia.gov), Sweden had over 400 combat aircraft (excluding reconnaissance, trainers, and helicopters), while the USSR had fewer than 3,000 combat aircraft. Realistically, the USSR would never have deployed its entire air fleet against Sweden alone, and Sweden would have benefitted from its strong air defense systems, including SAMs and the Bas 90 air base network.
@ I acknowledge my mistake-I didn’t verify the Wikipedia sources, and they were inaccurate. However, I still maintain that Sweden’s Air Force could have held out longer than just a few days. According to the CIA’s research paper on Nordic Forces in the 1980s (available on cia.gov), Sweden had over 400 combat aircraft (excluding reconnaissance, trainers, and helicopters), while the USSR had fewer than 3,000 combat aircraft. Realistically, the USSR would never have deployed its entire air fleet against Sweden alone, and Sweden would have benefitted from its strong air defense systems, including SAMs and the Bas 90 air base network.