Sweden preparing hundreds of nuclear bunkers amid fears of Russian attack

[krzepice1976]

Sweden is reportedly preparing hundreds of nuclear war shelters to prepare for a potential attack from Russia amid growing concerns in the Baltics.
The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) has ordered a review of 350 civilian bunkers on the Baltic Sea island of Gotland, where Sweden has stationed permanent troops.
The shelters are designed to protect people against the shock wave and radiation from a nuclear detonation, as well as chemical and biological weapons.Mats Berglund, head of civil protection at the MSB, told Sverige Radio the shelters should be checked by the end of the year.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-nuclear-bunkers-russia-attack-nato-baltic-ukraine-norway-a7642686.html

 

[ThunderStealer]

I don't think any of these preparations are an accident or fear mongering. The countries around Russia know something's up. I'll wager a crisp $20 bill that Norway, Sweden, and Finland get nabbed as this build up continues. They need the western ports of Norway to park their Navy. I'm just floating a theory though, but this tells me I'm kind of in the ballpark. NATO be damned, Russia doesn't like us, and of those 3 countries only one is a member. Would they take Norway, risking Article 5? I think they'd take that bet. Sweden isn't exactly a bastion of alpha male aggression and to see them preparing, signals that they know something.

 

[Doc]

I don't think any of these preparations are an accident or fear mongering. The countries around Russia know something's up. I'll wager a crisp $20 bill that Norway, Sweden, and Finland get nabbed as this build up continues. They need the western ports of Norway to park their Navy. I'm just floating a theory though, but this tells me I'm kind of in the ballpark. NATO be damned, Russia doesn't like us, and of those 3 countries only one is a member. Would they take Norway, risking Article 5? I think they'd take that bet. Sweden isn't exactly a bastion of alpha male aggression and to see them preparing, signals that they know something.

More than anything, this is for internal swedish consumption, to build up popular opinion in favour of a NATO-membership.

As for Norway, it was offered to Stalin during the Yalta conference. Stalin declined.

If you can deny the US access to Værnes Air force base and the (not that secret) American forward storage facilities close to it, you are right in that Norway is completely up for grabs and a very tempting harbour. The Norwegian cold war tactic was to be a member of NATO, but still avoid any provocation. This policy was been abandoned under the current administration. That has surely been noted in Moscow.

 

[krzepice1976]

I don't think any of these preparations are an accident or fear mongering. The countries around Russia know something's up. I'll wager a crisp $20 bill that Norway, Sweden, and Finland get nabbed as this build up continues. They need the western ports of Norway to park their Navy. I'm just floating a theory though, but this tells me I'm kind of in the ballpark. NATO be damned, Russia doesn't like us, and of those 3 countries only one is a member. Would they take Norway, risking Article 5? I think they'd take that bet. Sweden isn't exactly a bastion of alpha male aggression and to see them preparing, signals that they know something.

More than anything, this is for internal swedish consumption, to build up popular opinion in favour of a NATO-membership.

As for Norway, it was offered to Stalin during the Yalta conference. Stalin declined.

If you can deny the US access to Værnes Air force base and the (not that secret) American forward storage facilities close to it, you are right in that Norway is completely up for grabs and a very tempting harbour. The Norwegian cold war tactic was to be a member of NATO, but still avoid any provocation. This policy was been abandoned under the current administration. That has surely been noted in Moscow.

I have a simple question.: Why sweden signit plane flight close to kalingrad (almost daily basis/few days per week)?
Are they look for amber?

 

[ThunderStealer]

As for Norway, it was offered to Stalin during the Yalta conference. Stalin declined.

"I can only starve so many people at once. Let me finish my great work in Georgia, then we'll discuss starving out the Norse". -Stalin

If you can deny the US access to Værnes Air force base and the (not that secret) American forward storage facilities close to it, you are right in that Norway is completely up for grabs and a very tempting harbour. The Norwegian cold war tactic was to be a member of NATO, but still avoid any provocation. This policy was been abandoned under the current administration. That has surely been noted in Moscow.

Two birds with one invasion. Cut us off from our facilities, AND take Norways harbor.

 

[Navarro]

I'll wager a crisp $20 bill that Norway, Sweden, and Finland get nabbed as this build up continues. They need the western ports of Norway to park their Navy.

This is not unlike the interpretation of the German invasion of Norway. That interpretation is however erroneous, stemming from a Vice Admiral advising it in 1929. The proposed advantage was a more complicated version of the advantage which you propose. Never the less, the Grand Admiral (Erich Raeder) rejected the theory. He argued that a great quantity of personnel and resources would be required to capture and occupy Norway, and those resources could be best used elsewhere. Norway simply wasn't worth the effort in a Great War scenario. Germany did go on to invade Norway, but it wasn't for the reasons commonly believed. Germany had drawn plans for military action against Norway, and soo too had Britain. Germany however assessed Norway's neutrality to be advantageous for area denial, resource and shipping related purposes, and continued to believe the men and equipment needed to secure Norway could be better utilized elsewhere.

What changed was the Altmark Incident. A German civilian tanker (Altmark) was transiting Norwegian waters destined for Germany, and the Royal Navy repeatedly entered Norwegian waters to intercept and board the tanker. The British claimed the tanker was carrying British POWs but found nothing when searching the tanker. The Norwegian Navy was escorting the tanker, but was unable to intervene due to the superiority of the British task force. The British entered Norwegian waters several times, each time intercepting and searching the tanker without Norwegian intervention. On the final occasion, a battle ensued which lead to the defeat of the tanker, and still no interference from the Norwegians. The British boarded the defeated tanker a final time, now allegedly recovering 300 British POWs.

The Germans concluded that the British wouldn't respect Norway's neutrality. There would be no area denial and the British will attack German shipping in Norwegian waters regardless of neutrality, and the Norwegian Navy escorts will be unable to compete with the Royal Navy, thus never engaging the British raiders or "pirates" as Germany called them. Furthermore, Churchill was pressing for military action against Norway, to include mining ports and shipping lanes being used by Germany to gather its war resources. The British are looking to deny Germany use of the area. So far, however, Parliament has rejected Churchill's plans. So far. German intelligence was aware of this, and it was reasoned this was an inevitability. The area will be denied to Germany, access to the Atlantic and Norwegian shipping would be denied, and most importantly the resources Germany was collecting would be denied. Germany consequently attacked Denmark in order to utilize its airfields against Norway, and finally attacked Norway.

The Germans didn't desire the "western ports of Norway to park their Navy," nor are the Russians likely to today. The Russians are likely to have concluded the same as Raeder: in a Great War scenario, the men and equipment necessary to capture and hold Norway could be better utilized elsewhere. The capture of Norway would also greatly extend the frontline, thinning Russia's resources. Russia could either guard the 120 mile border it currently shares with Norway, or it can defend the 15000 mile coastline of Norway. Russia will likely choose to guard the 120 mile border, and to concentrate its efforts in Central Europe rather than invest so heavily in Scandinavia where there's relatively little to be gained, especially in the short-term.

I'm sure someone might wish to argue that Russia may desire Narvik, but I'd argue that such a motivation would be too simplistic and any potential benefit too long-term. The motivation for acquiring Scandinavia's resources would be similar. The next Great War will likely be much shorter than the previous, and no matter how much iron and aluminum Russia could gain from Scandinavia, nobody will be building hundreds of fighters or bombers per month anymore. Whatever resources Russia might gain from Scandinavia will be of little use during the war. Russia would be wise to keep its frontline as short as possible, and use its personnel and equipment in more advantageous regions, namely Central Europe. If Russia desires Scandinavia, it would be wise to pursue that in a later, separate war - after defeating NATO's major powers. This would likely be unnecessary however. Should Russia defeat NATO, then Scandinavia will likely choose to realign with Russia.

Would they take Norway, risking Article 5? I think they'd take that bet.

Russia wouldn't risk setting the world on fire for Norway in particular. Very little to be gained, where there's everything to lose. To suspect such an action, one would have to assume Russia's leadership possesses uncommonly poor intellects.

Sweden isn't exactly a bastion of alpha male aggression and to see them preparing, signals that they know something.

That's just the order influencing them, and Sweden in turn influencing its population. Sweden has been neutral since the Napoleonic Wars. This is the primary reason why Sweden is in the relatively strong position its in today, for a minor power. Sweden could in an instant lose what little its gained from these centuries of peace, and it would require yet more centuries just to get back to where it is today. Sweden's historic neutrality guarantees that it will be ignored by future Great War participants, like Switzerland has been. Not only is it then irrational (on the surface) for Sweden to join the game, but the inclination to do so is suggestive of foreign influence. One doesn't consistently say "no" for centuries only to suddenly say "yes" without having been influenced, especially when it's greatly to your disadvantage to say "yes."

More than anything, this is for internal swedish consumption, to build up popular opinion in favour of a NATO-membership.

Agreed.

The Norwegian cold war tactic was to be a member of NATO, but still avoid any provocation. This policy was been abandoned under the current administration. That has surely been noted in Moscow.

Which is unfortunate for Norway.

I have a simple question.: Why sweden signit plane flight close to kalingrad (almost daily basis/few days per week)?
Are they look for amber?

They've been doing that for a very long time, keeping up-to-date on Russian activity in area, and sharing the intelligence gained with NATO.

 

[Doc]

I'll wager a crisp $20 bill that Norway, Sweden, and Finland get nabbed as this build up continues. They need the western ports of Norway to park their Navy.

This is not unlike the interpretation of the German invasion of Norway. That interpretation is however erroneous, stemming from a Vice Admiral advising it in 1929. The proposed advantage was a more complicated version of the advantage which you propose. Never the less, the Grand Admiral (Erich Raeder) rejected the theory. He argued that a great quantity of personnel and resources would be required to capture and occupy Norway, and those resources could be best used elsewhere. Norway simply wasn't worth the effort in a Great War scenario. Germany did go on to invade Norway, but it wasn't for the reasons commonly believed. Germany had drawn plans for military action against Norway, and soo too had Britain. Germany however assessed Norway's neutrality to be advantageous for area denial, resource and shipping related purposes, and continued to believe the men and equipment needed to secure Norway could be better utilized elsewhere.

What changed was the Altmark Incident. A German civilian tanker (Altmark) was transiting Norwegian waters destined for Germany, and the Royal Navy repeatedly entered Norwegian waters to intercept and board the tanker. The British claimed the tanker was carrying British POWs but found nothing when searching the tanker. The Norwegian Navy was escorting the tanker, but was unable to intervene due to the superiority of the British task force. The British entered Norwegian waters several times, each time intercepting and searching the tanker. On the final occasion, a battle ensued which lead to the defeat of the tanker, and no interference from the Norwegians. The British boarded the defeated tanker a final time, now allegedly recovering 300 British POWs.

Not 100 % sure, but I seem to remember that the Norwegian navy was ordered to stand down in the Altmark-affair.

Now...Im sorry to help spin off yet another thread, because i find your reasoning without flaw. The resources bound up in Norway might very well have cost them the war. The Russians are in the same situation now.

But, I am an enthusiastic collector of old paperwork and I have some jewels in my collection. I don't think you will find this in any history book, so it's worth typing it in here.

Germany had two sources claiming a deal had been made between England and Norway where the english were to occupy certain harbours, and Norway would respond with nothing more than an official protest. There were also indications that the British and French wanted to land in Narvik and march to the Baltic sea, cutting scandinavia in two in an attempt to open up a north front.

One source was the Norwegian National Socialist Vidkun Quisling, who had learned this through his contacts among Norwegian politicians and military officers (he was at this point the former minister of defence and a Major). He is said to have, and was convicted of treason partly because he, pleaded to Hitler that Germany take Norway before this happened, to avoid the complete destruction of Norway.

The other one is still unknown to me, but I suspect a gentleman named Albert Viljam Hagelin. If so, the the two sources were not independant which explains the doubt:

The Germans didn't know if their intel was accurate, but to be on the safe side Rosenberg [yes, him actually] argued, an attack-plan was drawn up and preperations made. Late at night on the 3rd of March 1940 a transmission came in from an agent in Stockholm; british to land in Norway in april. Weserübung was given the green light.

British serviceman (later SOE) Malcom Munthe was at this point on location in Norway to research the landing of the British expedition force in a western Norwegian Harbour. This is from his mouth. He had rented a nice house with a view overlooking the harbour and on the morning of april 9th he awoke to see inbound warships.

"The lads are early!" he thought, dressed up in uniform and hurried to the docks to greet them. As he from a distance discovered that the helmets marching towards him was highly non-british, he elegantly sidestepped into someones garden and ran the back-alleys back to his house.

I know counterfact in historical research is like swearing in a cathedral, but the abscence of german troops in 1940, could have turned scandinavia into a battlefield.

The Norwegian cold war tactic was to be a member of NATO, but still avoid any provocation. This policy was been abandoned under the current administration. That has surely been noted in Moscow.

Which is unfortunate for Norway.

Yes. I am brushing up on my russian.

I have a simple question.: Why sweden signit plane flight close to kalingrad (almost daily basis/few days per week)?
Are they look for amber?

They've been doing that for a very long time, keeping up-to-date on Russian activity in area, and sharing the intelligence gained with NATO.

Since the 60ies actually. Maybe earlier.

 

[Navarro]

Germany had two sources claiming a deal had been made between England and Norway where the english were to occupy certain harbours, and Norway would respond with nothing more than an official protest. There were also indications that the British and French wanted to land in Narvik and march to the Baltic sea, cutting scandinavia in two in an attempt to open up a north front.

Indeed:
"Allied intervention to aid Finland could be expected to entail an occupation of Norwegian ports ... Churchill had presented his Plan CATHERINE, which involved sending naval forces through the straits leading into the Baltic Sea to gain control of those waters and to stop the Swedish ore traffic. Although CATHERINE was rejected as too dangerous and no other plan was devised, the Allies, influenced by the widely held thesis that Germany did not have the resources to sustain a long war, continued to regard Norway, and Narvik in particular, as their most promising strategic objective. With the Soviet invasion of Finland, the moment of opportunity seemed to have come, especially when the early successes of the Finns made it appear that the Red Army was weak. The French Government, eager to draw the main action of the war away from the Franco-German frontier went so far as to think of establishing a major theater of war in Scandinavia and of challenging both the Soviet Union and Germany there. The British, on the other hand, wanted to avoid offering excessive provocation to the Russians"
http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_02.htm

Everyone was sure that they "only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." After Finland, Stalin would've made a great card shark. In retrospect, then, it's possible that had Germany allowed the Allies to capture Norway early, it may have led to the defeat of the Allies, per the Allies attacking USSR. That's hindsight though. However, if the Allies didn't attack USSR, the Allies would have made great use of Norway.

Britain may be inclined to convert Norway into another Gibraltar, perhaps to later position forces to be utilized offensively against Germany. The Royal Navy could be supported by the air in the North Sea. Britain could have ports in Norway to better contain Germany, more efficiently blocking its access to the Atlantic. Denmark and northern Germany would be subject to intense bombing, including areas which would have otherwise been out of range. The already outnumbered Luftwaffe would have to be stretched even further. German shipping in the Baltic Sea could be attacked by air, perhaps even meaningfully by sea. This would quickly end Swedish supply of war materials. Securing Norway early would have been of great benefit to the Allies, so long as they didn't attack USSR.

One source was the Norwegian National Socialist Vidkun Quisling

Right, and from the same link as above:
"A British occupation of Norway, in Raeder's opinion, would be intolerable because Sweden would then come entirely under British influence, the war would be carried into the Baltic, and German naval warfare would be completely disrupted in the Atlantic and the North Sea"

Late at night on the 3rd of March 1940 a transmission came in from an agent in Stockholm; british to land in Norway in april. Weserübung was given the green light.

British serviceman (later SOE) Malcom Munthe was at this point on location in Norway to research the landing of the British expedition force in a western Norwegian Harbour. This is from his mouth. He had rented a nice house with a view overlooking the harbour and on the morning of april 9th he awoke to see inbound warships.

"The lads are early!" he thought, dressed up in uniform and hurried to the docks to greet them. As he from a distance discovered that the helmets marching towards him was highly non-british, he elegantly sidestepped into someones garden and ran the back-alleys back to his house.

Fascinating.

I know counterfact in historical research is like swearing in a cathedral, but the abscence of german troops in 1940, could have turned scandinavia into a battlefield.

Indeed. Could have.

Yes. I am brushing up on my russian.

The Russians certainly like to be able to talk with their friends, and to dance with them too. How's your Kazatsky? :lol:

 

[Doc]

Yes. I am brushing up on my russian.

The Russians certainly like to be able to talk with their friends, and to dance with them too. How's your Kazatsky? :lol:

It's very bad. I have a limp. But I do have Vodka in storage. And I know how to make soljanka in large quantities. And Just in case I have miscalculated, I also have the stars and stripes to fly over the Ranch, a large fryer and whiskey in the cellar.

If needed I can make a white banner as well.

The only flag I don't think I'll need, is "our own".

 

[Doc]

Two birds with one invasion. Cut us off from our facilities, AND take Norways harbor.

The Russians actually adressed it as 300 Marines were Fobbed there this winter.

"This will cost civilian lives and we regret that in advance". The Russians said. Værnes AFB is 20 min by car from Norways third largest city.

I think that means area denial. Radioactive glass. Norway chopped in two at the middle, the northern part undefendable and to be occupied by a battalion of Sibirians. They behaved like perfect gentlemen and withdrew orderly in 45, so you can't expect the locals to help you fight them either.