Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Sweden's ball-bearings
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 20th July 2011
It seems that the supply of ball-bearings from Sweden during WW2 was mentioned in a recent programme 'Coast' - which I didn't see.
This reminded me of hearing a story c1948 about meetings in neutral Sweden, during the War, between representatives from Britain and Germany and the Swedish manufacturer S.".F., to decide on allocations - who was to get what and how many. It struck me at the time as appalling. What! Our chaps actually sat down at the same table with Nazis?
Years later I heard another story (from an ex-RAF pilot) which seemed to confirm this.
Can it be true? -
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 20th July 2011
Jak
It often seems strange to people brought up to think of "total war" to realise that wars used to go on without any necessary disruption of normal economic relations.. The British people faced food shortages during the French Revolutionary War not because the French deliberately tried to damage England and refused to sell it food any more, but because French agriculture was badly disrupted by Revolution and recruitment for National Armies (where the French government had often employed foreign mercenaries).
I believe that the position of Sweden as a neutral country produced many such situations.. And Swedish steel had long been considered among the best.
A few months ago I saw a TV documentary about Himmler's personal doctor, a Finnish man who had studied Buddhist medical techniques in Nepal and was the only person able to check Himmler's crippling stomach problems.. Though this doctor had previously quite an elite practice, including European Royalty, Himmler insisted that he stay with him full time.. But in "payment" the doctor started asking for the release of people imprisoned by Himmler's Gestapo.
Gradually he worked up to getting Jews out of concentration camps. An American Jew flew from New York into Sweden and then to Himmler's HQ in Berlin, aware of what danger any Jew risked in entering such a place.. Himmler raved for a while about the Jewish problem. But negotiations ensued and many thousands found their way out by that same route through Sweden.
The doctor was interrogated for Neuremberg but was judged to have acted only in accordance with the hipocratic oath as far as Himmler was concerned.
Perhaps it is worth saying again that my father-in-law who lived through the German occupation in France, still makes a clear distinction between the arrogant Nazi and the ordinary German.. As they had to negotiate with the Swedes no doubt they sent the kind of people that others felt that "they could do business with".
Cass -
Message 3
Posted by Hugh Mosby-Joaquin (U14258131) on Thursday, 21st July 2011
"An American Jew flew from New York into Sweden and then to Himmler's HQ in Berlin, aware of what danger any Jew risked in entering such a place.. Himmler raved for a while about the Jewish problem. But negotiations ensued and many thousands found their way out by that same route through Sweden. "
....There's a TV drama or stage-play in this story, I feel....
Furthermore to the point of economic collaboration, I always assumed that Switzerland being neutral to the military aims of European war was largely brought about by the vested financial interest the Swiss had in the conflict. They were in effect, acting as bankers for both sides, and were largely Jewish organisations. But seemingly that did not stop Switzerland opening its banks' doors to anybody of any persuasion or ideology, so long as they had a hefty deposit. -
Message 4
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 21st July 2011
To be fair to Sweden I was rather shocked when I read in Eric Hobsbawm of the terrible plight of Scandinavia during the Thirties.. Of course we are familiar with the warning signs- all those people of Scandinavian origin who flooded to "litttle houses on the prairie" and the like..
It may have been Norway and not Sweden but I seem to remember that Hobsbawm talked of 60% unemployment.. The Swedes probably did not call their new politics National Socialism, but it seems that- just as Britain saw a widespread adoption of socialism after 1935 Sweden set itself along that course which now makes it appear a shining example of what old Englanders might call "Commonweal".
And Britain did everything it could not to go to war with Germany, and, as the MB reminded us yesterday (?) with another PM than Winston Churchill- whose Iroquois warrior blood was perhaps an ever-present factor in his life, reinforced by his connection with John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough, Britain might have accepted Hitler's peace offer in 1940.
Cass -
Message 5
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Thursday, 21st July 2011
I think the 'Coast' item was describing not just ball-bearings but also ball-bearings in a mounting ready for insertion into whatever weapon might be appropriate. It was stated that they were at first flown back to Britain in fast aircraft such as Mosquitoes, but later the sheer quantity made it necessary to use fast motor-gunboats instead.
With its neighbour Norway already invaded, no doubt Sweden wanted to be viewed as scrupulously impartial. In fact, however, Britain evidently had influential friends in Sweden, for the "Oslo Report" episode from our dark 1940 period clearly shows this. I suppose it is likely that there must have been some Swedish people with the nazis mentality, but I've never heard of any equivalent "Oslo Report" episode benefiting the German side in the conflict. -
Message 6
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 21st July 2011
Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
I know that people are very often cynical about Swiss neutrality- but in fairness I believe that the role of its banks- not unlike those of the City of London- owed a great deal to the actual physical security of funds deposited there..
In the case of London that security was based for a long time upon London's position in a Sceptred Isle behind "walls of oak", and also by England/Britain's predominant tradition of not signing up to alliances that committed the country to entering into wars.. After all the end of Britain's policy of Splended Isolation" only resulted in an "Entente Cordiale" with France, so that in 1914 the debate over whether Britain should or should not go to war over the violation of Belgian neutrality was serious enough.
The case of Switzerland is obviously different, but perhaps only in detail. Switzerland in many ways can be seen as a collection of small states that are largely contained within the High Alps. Almost any General would quite naturally avoid trying to invade such territory, and, in addition to the disadvantages of terrain, the Swiss long ago learned to export their milltary competence so that the Vatican and the French Court made a point of having Swiss Guards.
My Swiss brother-in law, if I remember correctly , was still doing some annual military service at the age of 40, and he assures me that Switzerland is probably better equipped to survive a nuclear holocaust than any other country on Earth.. Mountains always have been a great place for caves..
Perhaps internal politics too encourages the Swiss to just focus on their "own business".. for there are three parts of Switzerland - German, French and Italian- each with at least a version of the language employed in the associated nation states, and with what appear to be quite strong cultural links as well.
What seems impressive to the visitor, however, is the sense of ownership that seems to come through the Swiss Cantonal system, where collective action at a local level is much more easily attempted. When my sister-in-law first lived in Switzerland her village had a communal freezer room where all families could store their goods in safety (a bit like the money in the banks).. And there was surely one Canton that voted to experiment with a "no-cars day" one day every week.. That sense of ownership very obviously extends to the scrupulous way that individual homes and general localities are kept neat, tidy and litter free.
Cass -
Message 7
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Saturday, 23rd July 2011
Oops - I have to own up to an error. Oslo is of course in Norway and not Sweden!
-
Message 8
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 25th July 2011
Was one of the 'reasons' for Hitler's invasion of Norway not to close off the flow of high-quality Swedish ore to Britain?
Was it exported via Narvik, in the far north, over the mountains, or something? -
Message 9
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 25th July 2011
Was one of the 'reasons' for Hitler's invasion of Norway not to close off the flow of high-quality Swedish ore to Britain? Was it exported via Narvik, in the far north, over the mountains, or something?Β
The reverse... Britain had enough iron ore for its needs and access to world markets, Germany was highly dependent on Swedish supplies. It was the Allied threat to these supply lines that prompted Hitler's occupation of Norway and Denmark. Narvik was indeed the port through which the iron was shipped in winter (after transport by railway), when ice prevented transport across the Baltic.
At the time, the Allies were half-heartedly planning to use the pretext of assistance to Finland, which was at war with the USSR at the time the idea was first floated, to land in Scandinavia and cut off iron ore supplies to Germany. (If this sounds far-fetched: They were also considering attacking the Kaukasus to interrupt oil supplies to Germany through the USSR.) After the end of the Winter War, they couldn't quite convince themselves to do it without the pretext, so they left the initiative to the enemy. That turned out (as usual) to be a really bad idea. The sudden appearance of German forces in Narvik was rather embarrassing to the Royal Navy. -
Message 10
Posted by hoddles off into the sunset (U14129169) on Monday, 25th July 2011
SKF was the ball bearing company. It registered the trade name "Volvo" (I roll - Latin) but then used the name for the car manufacturing subsidiary it developed.
-
Message 11
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
At the time, the Allies were half-heartedly planning to use the pretext of assistance to Finland, which was at war with the USSR at the time the idea was first floated, to land in Scandinavia and cut off iron ore supplies to Germany.Β Why would they need the pretext of assistance to Finland for cutting supply routes to Germany, which they were already at war with? Especially, since they were not at war with the USSR? Perhaps, it could make sense the other way around, i.e., using cutting supply routes to Germany as the pretext for intervening in the Winter War in some way, shape of form.
-
Message 12
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Why would they need the pretext of assistance to Finland for cutting supply routes to Germany, which they were already at war with?Β
Because it involved violating the sovereignty of a neutral state, Norway. There already had been a diplomatic incident when the Navy boarded the German ship Altmark, supply ship to the (already sunk) Graf Spee, in Norwegian territorial waters. The Allies also planned to lay mines in Norwegian waters. But they still hoped that the blame for dragging Norway into the war would fall on Germany.
Especially, since they were not at war with the USSR? Β
Not formally, no. But for all practical purposes, the USSR was a German ally, sharing in the conquest of Poland and supplying raw materials that were essential to the German war effort.
Their strong belief that, as in 1914-1918, the Western Front would become immovable, induced the French and British general staff to look for a "back door". According to this logic, if they would defeat the weaker partner first -- the USSR -- then Germany's position would become untenable. With hindsight such ideas are utterly absurd, but in 1939-1941 the USSR was widely perceived to be militarily weak, a weaker opponent than Italy or even Spain. -
Message 13
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Because it involved violating the sovereignty of a neutral state, Norway. .... But for all practical purposes, the USSR was a German ally, sharing in the conquest of Poland and supplying raw materials that were essential to the German war effortΒ For the discussion's sake, the fact that the Allies would violate the sovereignty of a neutral state is a foregone conclusion. The question is why would hostility toward the USSR - albeit a German ally at the time, but not formally at war with the Allies - be more justifiable than hostility toward formally at war with the Allies Germany.
in 1939-1941 the USSR was widely perceived to be militarily weak, a weaker opponent than Italy or even Spain.Β Can you refer me to something supporting this view by the Allies? -
Message 14
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Can you refer me to something supporting this view by the Allies?Β
It is a subject worthy of more serious study... I've found only occasional remarks in general histories, e.g. Raymond Cartier's history of WWII, which is scathing about the intellectual capabilities of French generals.
Julian Jackson in "The Fall of France" remarks that French army leaders were uniformly skeptical of Soviet military strength. General Loizeau attended Red Army maneuvers in 1935 and came back with a very positive report, but his colleagues sidelined him. General Schweisguth, who was sent in the next year, duly came back with a very negative report. Stalin's purges in 1937 strengthened the position of those who regarded the USSR as a weak ally.
I can't find the source now, but Admiral Drax, who was the head of the British delegation sent to Moscow to negotiate a possible alliance against Germany, was privately of the opinion that Spain was a more important potential ally than the USSR. This helps explain that the negotiations did not make much progress... -
Message 15
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
I can't find the source now, but Admiral Drax, who was the head of the British delegation sent to Moscow to negotiate a possible alliance against Germany, was privately of the opinion that Spain was a more important potential ally than the USSR. This helps explain that the negotiations did not make much progress...Β No, it doesn't. I have already mentioned a pretty meticulous analysis of the negotiations in Moscow by Keistut Zakoretzky. It is unequivocal in that the Soviet Delegation never intended to make a deal with the Allies, and that the negotiations were used purely as a tease for Hitler in the ongoing behind-the-scenes talks with the latter.
-
Message 16
Posted by vesturiiis (U13688567) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
Cass
Just noticed your post.......
Did Sir W Churchill really sort of descend from Iroquois people---you never know I guess but hadn't heard of this before.
In Canada there are people called Metis which really means half native and half French but nowadays here anyone with Native blood is called Metisand I would say in the old days this was often hidden but thankfully now that is not so much the case-------I think!
Ian -
Message 17
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 28th July 2011
By the way, After the end of the Winter War, they couldn't quite convince themselves to do it without the pretext, so they left the initiative to the enemy. That turned out (as usual) to be a really bad idea. The sudden appearance of German forces in Narvik was rather embarrassing to the Royal Navy.Β There was another bit of bitter irony for the Allies in this whole sequence of events: when Hitler launched the invasion of Norway, Stalin allowed him to use naval bases next to the port of Murmansk as a staging and resupply hub.
-
Message 18
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 26th August 2011
vesturiiis
I think that I first discovered reference to Churchill's Iroquois descent in a French book about Britain. It is the kind of fact that the French often pin-point as significant, but I think that I have found confirmation of this elsewhere..
And why not? His mother was an American, and the King of the Iroquois was received by the English Court during the Anglo-Iroquois alliance during the War of the Spanish Succession.
People were not necessarily as racist as is commonly assumed. I think that there was no secret in Lady Mountbatten being one of the many descendents of Pocohontas: and Indian wisdom may have seen some significance in her descent from that woman capable of love that transcended barriers in the longstanding affair between Lady Mountbatten and Jawaharlal Nehru during the Mountbatten's stay in India before and after Independence.
Nehru like Churchill being an old Harrovian.. Top people were top people
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.