Sweden distributes 'be prepared for war' leaflet to all 4.8m homes | Hacker News Reader

Sweden distributes 'be prepared for war' leaflet to all 4.8m homes

theguardian.com

77 pointsplg65 comments

This reminds me of a recent Netflix show called "Occupied", whose premise runs something like this,

> In the near future, Russia initiates a "silk glove" invasion of Norway to restart oil production, but soon uncertainty, chaos and danger erupt.

More here [1]. That show gave a really interesting look into how a Russian invasion of a Scandinavian country may look like.

[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/02/occupied_...

The Russians had a go at Finland in 1939.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

And Russia kept part of the land they gained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelia

This example is often used to convince people that the Russians aren’t a scary adversary but this isnt a good example.

In 1940 the Soviet army was in a pretty bad shape, the Russian committed a fairly small number of personnel and equipment during the Winter and Continuation wars in comparison the initial defensive force in operation Barbarossa was 3 million soldiers, the battle of Leningrad seen about 6 million Russian troops in total and out of those Russia lost about 2 million.

While winning is winning Finland faught against an inexperienced, poorly trained, poorly equipped Russian army that at the time was fighting for essentially nothing.

Also that link isn’t the whole story Russia was fighting a trench and guerilla war in Finland until 1944 the Finns were very well equipped, well armed, and heavily supported by the Germans fighting while dug in on their home turf in a region where logistics were a nightmare and more importantly they faught against a very preoccupied enemy for those 3 years as Russia was invaded in 1941.

I also find it pretty amusing that people always mention the Winter war but not what came after I guess the time when Finland sided with the Germans, providing support and logistics including naval and air bases to the Germans and invadded Russia in 1941 which made the seige of Leningrad possible isn’t as foundly remembered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

> I also find it pretty amusing that people always mention the Winter war but not what came after I guess the time when Finland sided with the Germans, providing support and logistics including naval and air bases to the Germans and invading Russia later which lead to the seige of Leningrad isn’t as foundly remembered.

I don't envy the Finns of the 20th century. They were wedged in an extremely awkward spot for much of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

Don’t get me wrong I don’t blame them the Germans were their only real possible ally it’s just amusing to me that people always seem to forgo that period. That said the Finns weren’t as passive as one might think they sought out to gain the territory they lost and they went into the alliance with Germany quite willingly and even proactively.

You seem to have quite an axe to grind against Finland.

Since Soviet Russia was an ally of the USA and UK for the second half of WW 2, and Soviet Russia had already attacked Finland, still occupied large territories, and intended to take the rest of the country -- what were the Finns supposed to do in order to survive against the Soviets? objectively, why start a fight against the new enemy of their enemy?

Similar question for the people of Poland, attacked by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union at the outset of WW 2. Do you denounce them because some resistance eventually worked along with the Red Army when they pushed out the occupying Nazis? what about the resistance who fought against the Red Army?

What exactly in my post indicated that I have any axe to grind with Finland of all places? Finland and Russia have a pretty long and complicated history dating to the napoleonic wars. In more "recent" history Russia and Finland were at odds since the Russian civil war and the Finnish civil war that followed.

During the Finnish civil war the "Whites" which one were already supported by Germany with Mannerheim which remained the commander of the Finnish forces through WW2 having a pretty close relationship with Germany. Overall even prior to the winter war Finland was not exactly "neutral" or to be more exact passive and the whole concept of "greater finland" after the Finnish civil war wasn't just a shrug.

During WW2 the Finns acted in their own best interest and they were not coerced into every action by either Russia or Germany as they had a pretty clear agenda of their own even if they could not act on it all the time due to well them being Finland.

To their credit they are the only country that managed to fight both the allies and the axis with the same government as after Finland broke the Ryti–Ribbentrop agreement by negotiating a separate peace with Russia (or well the Soviet Union) they had essentially to spend the next 7 months "fighting" the German forces with Russian troops supporting them nonetheless but for all accounts the "lapland war" had only a few engagements.

Finland also gave us the only known recording of Hitler outside of his speeches where he bitched about losing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Mannerheim_recordin....

It's pretty crazy to see Sweden preparing for war against Russia, while a much bigger threat to both native and non-native Swedes resides in the streets of major cities like Stockholm or Malmo.

Or at least I can't seem to think of a single city in Western Europe where throwing actual hand grenades around is a pretty usual crime other than Malmo. [1][2][3][4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43667367

[3] http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/10/sweden-has-a-problem-with...

[4] https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/violent-crime-in-sweden-...

As someone living next door. I am curious what Swedes actually think of this? Do you see the current Russia as a credible threat? As your country’s biggest security threat?

Denmark had the strategically well located island of Bornholm occupied by the soviets after the end of the 2nd world. But most Danes today would see the chances of a Russian invasion more remote than ever.

We are a NATO member I suppose that makes a big difference.

I don't see Russia as a threat to the entire Sweden. I do, however, consider Russia a threat to some key locations like Gotland. But as far as threats go, I consider Russia to be Sweden's greatest threat, even if that threat is rather small.

I don't think many people see it as an immediate threat. But between unpredictable American policies affecting regional politics or the global economy, the Chinese bullying countries like Norway and the Russians trying to affect politics in other countries this could all change relatively quickly.

PS. The brochure can be downloaded here: https://www.msb.se/en/Tools/News/The-brochure-If-Crisis-or-W...

> “we will never give up. All information to the effect that resistance is to cease is false.”

That seems like a rather dangerous philosophy.

Indeed. Reminds me of Japan's Emperor's broadcast announcing the surrender of Japan, and the confusion/internal opposition that surrounded it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/do...

This is common within pacifist countries.

In Switzerland during WW2 nobody in the Federal Government (not even the head of the military) had the formal authority to surrender the country.

Citizens were instructed and trained to regard any news of Switzerland surrendering as propaganda.

Any other examples, or other support that it is "commmon"? More common than in other countries? I would be happy to learn more.

> That seems like a rather dangerous philosophy.

Well, it's dangerous to your population once you are attacked, especially by a superior enemy, but it's also a deterrent to attack in the first place. The net cost or benefit depends on a fairly complex balancing of concerns.

"In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. Let's begin with the rifle in every home combined with the Alpine terrain. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home." http://davekopel.org/2A/OthWr/Target_Switzerland.htm

And do you think that the Swiss' view on being invaded hasn't changed over the last 106 years?

It has not. Switzerland maintains a very strongly, openly armed neutrality.

Well, you are wrong.

I'd say it's a deterring statement and/or a way to boost confidence in the population, not something they would hold on to if it really came to it.

Swedish military doctrine was (and I expect remains) that: a) it is impossible to prevent the enemy from attempting an attack; b) we can make it as painful as possible to them, and our goal is to repel the invader from Swedish soil within days; and c) we will immediately mobilize all resources in the country to fight back, bringing hundreds of thousands of soldiers into their pre-assigned positions within 24 hours, abandoning all economic activity for the sake of total defense, so that whatever the enemy thought was a benefit in attacking Sweden, it will have been completely nullified.

Switzerland had a similar doctrine, and communicated it explicitly to potential invaders in the 20th century: try to invade the country and we will destroy all means of transportation in the plains, withdraw the army into mountain fortresses (e.g. air bases literally built inside mountains with tunnels serving as landing/take-off strips), and keep attacking you until the ends of time. Also, Swiss men keep their military rifles at home, with sufficient munition to fight their way to their assigned base in case of war.

It is interesting that neither country has been attacked over the last several hundred years, even while surrounded by fighting parties during WW II. I think armed neutrality is a beautiful thing.

IIRC, Swedish military doctrine assumes that much of their main military infrastructure will be quickly destroyed in an attack, so their forces are designed to disperse and operate from with minimal resources in difficult conditions. For instance, their main fighter is designed to operate from public roads with a small maintenance crew:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Usability_a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip#Sweden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49L9BlYQSjw

Yet instead of new Gripens, Croatian government decides to buy old used F16s from Israel.

So you'd rather their philosophy be to bend over and accept Russia? If that was there philosophy, Russia would already be there...

It's as if war occurs when too many resources are sitting idle not being mass deployed for some common goal.

Traditionally war has been the only socially acceptable way of getting rid of excess male population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com