En Svensk Tiger. It can mean "A Swedish Tiger" because all the translators said so in WW2 but the thing is that it's a secret code. "Tiger" in Swedish can mean two things: "Tiger" and "Att Tiga". "Att Tiga" means "Keeping Quiet" and in this case it means "A Swede Keeps Quiet".
Have you considered doing a series of videos on the lesser Axis powers in the same vein as this series? Basically, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, maybe Italy or even Thailand (if you count them) or Finland. There's a lot of interesting stuff that often gets overlooked.
Yes, I have considered that and at some point, I will probably do something like that. At the moment, I don't have a sufficiently strong background on the Axis minor powers, but I am reading up on Italy right now and I will probably even start turning out videos on WWII Italy before the end of the year. As for the other Axis nations, I will need to acquire books on those topics before I can make any kind of forward progress.
+Thersites the Historian - Ah, crap, I just saw that you replied - sorry about that. Italy's role (and the Italian experience) in WW2 is actually one of my specializations. Not just as a Fascist member of the Axis powers but as a "co-belligerent" as well. There's actually a really stellar piece I found recently by (I believe) a member of the Italian military enrolled in an American military academy that goes in-depth on the circumstances of the two Armistices and the formation and performance of the co-Belligerent forces, as well as the unit performance beforehand. I found it pretty enlightening, if you're interested in that sort of thing. I've accumulated a bit of a backlog on the subject, as the Italians were an actor in the conflict who through-out its duration fought the British(and colonial forces), French, Americans, Russians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Germans, and themselves. It's a wonderful clusterfuck of history that often gets overlooked.
Oh, and - bizarrely - the Brazilians. The Italians fought the Brazilians as well. It's very weird, Brazil's involvement, in itself. EDIT: One other thing, I've found that the English historiography is very lacking on the subject, so I think if one really wants to have an understanding of the Italian side of the war - and this goes for pretty much any of the minor Axis or Allied powers - you have to consult with a native language speaker, because most of the historiography hasn't been translated.
It's nice to find another channel that simply gives you info without stupid antics and clickbait and shaking the camera and wasting time on other pointless annoying stuff. I've watched a bunch of your vids now and like them. However, you need to list your sources. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you don't list any sources, then it's worse than wikipedia (which is not all that bad, actually). If you're serious about history then it's just something you have to do. Please edit your video descriptions and make a list of the sources used, even if it's just one book.
Finally, as said by others it's very well balanced and nice that you share some facts not well known. Consider also that it is easy to blame when you look back i history and when you know what has happened, but for the people living during this difficult period there were only uncertainties. Thanks also that you mention that there is people that makes the decisions, like Per Albin Hansson not a person like "country" and then judge the rest of the population living in that time (most is likely dead by now). Thanks a lot for your research.
A correction we had three small battleships of the Sverige class, commissioned between 1917 and 1922, main armament four 11” Bofors naval guns, secondary eight 6” Bofors naval gun, during the 30’s all three were mordenised and during WWII AA battery was improved and the secondary battery reduced. Fully loaded 7200 Sverige, 7700 tons Drottning Viktoria and Gustav V. All three were commissioned to the Navy between 1917 and 1922
I really like how you recognized the 5 neutral countries (in EU). Not sure why you limited yourself to so called EU geography. I think you are missing a pivotal neutral country called Iran. A country that is very underreported and mostly intentionally NOT reported by the allies, because it does not fit the "good guy" image of the Brits and Soviets. I think most students of history who would want to understand the WWII history, not just a partial EU version, and would like to review the lessons learned. So, please reconsider.
Unusually initiated summary of Sweden in WWII. Some points though. The iron ore trade is often painted optional or casual war profiteering. In reality ore was traded for German coal the only source of energy available to Swedish industry. Even had Germany allowed it, abstaining from the trade would mean a shutdown of the Swedish economy and an inability to produce the massive amount of armament now manufactured for defence. The trade was simply more important to Sweden than it was to Germany after they taken possession of the French Iron mines. There is also the part that Sweden's defence was built for stopping Soviet Russia, were Germany would be the counterweight. The German power surge put that in disarray, yet if Sweden went all in against Germany, what to stop Russia picking up the pieces including Sweden when Germany goes down? It's funny if people can perceive Sweden as cowards for not choosing to declare war and be crushed by the vastly more powerful Nazi-Germany. Nobody but great imperial powers like Britain and France chose to fight the Nazi's. Being forced to fight and surrendering like most countries isn't much of a display of moral courage. Even the USA who couldn't be attacked by Germany, didn't fight until Germany declared war on them.
Unfortunately it seems many miss this association today. like oh those nazi they were snowflakes. Yet somehow Todays snowflakes are just good people being advocates for those who have been wronged and not authoritarians, which they are. Even this channel is on the side of snowflakes.. makes zero sense
true - the Finns were co-belligerents with the Germans. Finns has a women's org named Lotta Svard. Please, the Finns were not allied with Germany, they just went a bit beyond the old 1940 border and stayed there (not attacking Leningrad as the Germans wanted them to do) and finally they sued for peace with the USSR, lost land & paid a HUGE indemnity....so far the successor to the USSR failed to return conquered lands.WHY?
@@granskare Russians are land grabbers, they're obsessed with territory as can be observed at the moment in Ukraine. I really mean this, they're absolutely obsessed of expanding and getting extra lands. And once they get the lands, they spoil everything, they pollute, mismanage, pillage and then they leave everything in disrepair and toxic. That country is a cancer, a tumor of the worst kind.
You got your numbers wrong it was not 8000 that went to finland during the winter war its even said by field marshal mannerheim that 20,000 volunteers was sent to Finland. You also said the major ammount of people where communist lovers i can say this they where not the major group that wanted Swedens politics changed was the NSAP.
Norway declared themselves neutral as well in WWII. Invaded anyway; that blows a large hole in the whole "Sweden had to be neutral to not be invaded" thesis, that I do not hold to. Like AJP Taylor explained, but is also a pretty normal part of modern International Relations, neutrality is not neutral. There is beneficial neutrality and hostile neutrality. In the Balkans conflict of the 1990s, belatedly banning all arms sales was effectively beneficial neutrality towards the Serbs, since the Serbs were already sitting on the entire Yugoslav army equipment reserve. From that we can really deduce why the Nazis invaded whom they invaded and not. I'm glad you mention Bofors. As you mention, they licenced designs to the British and the USA. For tiny calibre AA guns, that apart from the autoloading had a new type of gun cradle that enabled 90 degree to flat angle fire. You missed out the fact that the Bofors licenced designs to the Germans lead to the 88mm, a legendary gun in WWII, and the British had the bofors pom pom, the same design on a smaller scale with a natty autoloader. I feel there are some geopolitical and economic factors missed out on in this talk. Sweden was also overall on the side of the allies in spying. It was thanks to them that the RM Bismark was tracked coming out of the Denmark Strait, however, overall the story is one of keeping Germany in the war, because Germany invaded Norway to ensure safety of supply of that same iron ore from source. The decision not to invade is as telling as the decision to invade with Norway regarding causation.
According with International Law of Neutrality created by Hague Conference in 1907, Sweden with your acctions was not truly neutral and permittenttrafiken and polistrupperna showed this.
why do everyone garante ocupation of sweden. we are 2 times the size of norway and denmark also we was prepered and worth noting is that norway was not a contry until 1905. Finland was able to fight the russians. and we are twice the size of them. We had a Good navy and Able army. An we had some planes. we would lose eventually, but sweden is a big contry and it would take time. time the germans dont have if we cut the iron trade of.
Badly researched and sloppy as usual. The writer needs to learn English grammar and spelling. Finland was a 'co-belligerent' against the Soviets but never an Axis ally. German and Finnish troops fought bitterly in the Lapland War. Finns are not Scandinavian. Sweden's conduct in WW2 was self-interested only and the government waited to see which side was going to win. Assisting POWs and Jews was opportunistic and designed to quell the ire of the USA and Britain. The Swedish elite profited from WW2 and should have faced more censure than it did. Norway is not on friendly terms with its complacent neighbour and Finland diluted Swedish cultural remnants at home as soon as possible.
Forgotten that USA traded with Germany until dec-41, even sold to Wehrmacht. England and France didn’t lift a finger to help Poland though they were allies. Later run like rabbits when the germans came... All countrys acted self- interested, Norway and Denmark did nothing to help Finland durig winter war, Sweden helped as much as they could. Would Norway declared war on Germany if only Sweden had been attaced? No, they didn’t even mobilize their army when Germany attaced them. To late, and by MAIL!
Sweden as same as Turkey,Portugal and Spain should have all declared war on Germany. Their silence and cowardice is responsible for the prolonging of the war and its excessive human casualty's.
En Svensk Tiger. It can mean "A Swedish Tiger" because all the translators said so in WW2 but the thing is that it's a secret code. "Tiger" in Swedish can mean two things: "Tiger" and "Att Tiga". "Att Tiga" means "Keeping Quiet" and in this case it means "A Swede Keeps Quiet".
That's clever.
"En Svensk Tiger" is equivalent to "Loose lips sink ships" in how it was used :)
"En svensk tiger inte längre"
Thanks for the presentation. Not over detailed (and thus too much info) and not superficial either, well balanced.
Thanks, I'm glad that you liked it.
Your stuff is so helpful man, better than any website
Thanks, I'm glad that you enjoyed it.
Have you considered doing a series of videos on the lesser Axis powers in the same vein as this series? Basically, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, maybe Italy or even Thailand (if you count them) or Finland. There's a lot of interesting stuff that often gets overlooked.
Yes, I have considered that and at some point, I will probably do something like that. At the moment, I don't have a sufficiently strong background on the Axis minor powers, but I am reading up on Italy right now and I will probably even start turning out videos on WWII Italy before the end of the year. As for the other Axis nations, I will need to acquire books on those topics before I can make any kind of forward progress.
That would be really interesting,
+Thersites the Historian - Ah, crap, I just saw that you replied - sorry about that. Italy's role (and the Italian experience) in WW2 is actually one of my specializations. Not just as a Fascist member of the Axis powers but as a "co-belligerent" as well. There's actually a really stellar piece I found recently by (I believe) a member of the Italian military enrolled in an American military academy that goes in-depth on the circumstances of the two Armistices and the formation and performance of the co-Belligerent forces, as well as the unit performance beforehand. I found it pretty enlightening, if you're interested in that sort of thing. I've accumulated a bit of a backlog on the subject, as the Italians were an actor in the conflict who through-out its duration fought the British(and colonial forces), French, Americans, Russians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Germans, and themselves. It's a wonderful clusterfuck of history that often gets overlooked.
Oh, and - bizarrely - the Brazilians. The Italians fought the Brazilians as well. It's very weird, Brazil's involvement, in itself. EDIT: One other thing, I've found that the English historiography is very lacking on the subject, so I think if one really wants to have an understanding of the Italian side of the war - and this goes for pretty much any of the minor Axis or Allied powers - you have to consult with a native language speaker, because most of the historiography hasn't been translated.
You forgot "Operation Save Denmark" :) It is interesting even though it never happened, and they only practiced for it.
It's nice to find another channel that simply gives you info without stupid antics and clickbait and shaking the camera and wasting time on other pointless annoying stuff. I've watched a bunch of your vids now and like them.
However, you need to list your sources. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you don't list any sources, then it's worse than wikipedia (which is not all that bad, actually). If you're serious about history then it's just something you have to do. Please edit your video descriptions and make a list of the sources used, even if it's just one book.
Finally, as said by others it's very well balanced and nice that you share some facts not well known. Consider also that it is easy to blame when you look back i history and when you know what has happened, but for the people living during this difficult period there were only uncertainties. Thanks also that you mention that there is people that makes the decisions, like Per Albin Hansson not a person like "country" and then judge the rest of the population living in that time (most is likely dead by now). Thanks a lot for your research.
Sweden gave us the Husqvarna model M38.
The finest Mauser pattern bolt rifle in the superb 6.5mm chambering.
ps. they also gave us ABBA, bless them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Mauser Good morning fam
Sweden’s gave the world, Volvo’s three-point car safety belt on open-licence which has since become a world standard.
A correction we had three small battleships of the Sverige class, commissioned between 1917 and 1922, main armament four 11” Bofors naval guns, secondary eight 6” Bofors naval gun, during the 30’s all three were mordenised and during WWII AA battery was improved and the secondary battery reduced. Fully loaded 7200 Sverige, 7700 tons Drottning Viktoria and Gustav V. All three were commissioned to the Navy between 1917 and 1922
I really like how you recognized the 5 neutral countries (in EU). Not sure why you limited yourself to so called EU geography. I think you are missing a pivotal neutral country called Iran. A country that is very underreported and mostly intentionally NOT reported by the allies, because it does not fit the "good guy" image of the Brits and Soviets. I think most students of history who would want to understand the WWII history, not just a partial EU version, and would like to review the lessons learned. So, please reconsider.
Unusually initiated summary of Sweden in WWII. Some points though. The iron ore trade is often painted optional or casual war profiteering. In reality ore was traded for German coal the only source of energy available to Swedish industry. Even had Germany allowed it, abstaining from the trade would mean a shutdown of the Swedish economy and an inability to produce the massive amount of armament now manufactured for defence. The trade was simply more important to Sweden than it was to Germany after they taken possession of the French Iron mines.
There is also the part that Sweden's defence was built for stopping Soviet Russia, were Germany would be the counterweight. The German power surge put that in disarray, yet if Sweden went all in against Germany, what to stop Russia picking up the pieces including Sweden when Germany goes down?
It's funny if people can perceive Sweden as cowards for not choosing to declare war and be crushed by the vastly more powerful Nazi-Germany. Nobody but great imperial powers like Britain and France chose to fight the Nazi's. Being forced to fight and surrendering like most countries isn't much of a display of moral courage. Even the USA who couldn't be attacked by Germany, didn't fight until Germany declared war on them.
Sounds like excuses to me.
Its such a cute version. Look further with Investor AB and swedens role in ww2 or any war before and after ww2 for that matter...
'The Nazis were the snowflakes of 1940, ironically' love your snarky contemporary political jokes hahaha
Thanks.
Unfortunately it seems many miss this association today. like oh those nazi they were snowflakes. Yet somehow Todays snowflakes are just good people being advocates for those who have been wronged and not authoritarians, which they are. Even this channel is on the side of snowflakes.. makes zero sense
Very interesting video! The German alliance with Finland was the only inaccurate fact.
true - the Finns were co-belligerents with the Germans. Finns has a women's org named Lotta Svard. Please, the Finns were not allied with Germany, they just went a bit beyond the old 1940 border and stayed there (not attacking Leningrad as the Germans wanted them to do) and finally they sued for peace with the USSR, lost land & paid a HUGE indemnity....so far the successor to the USSR failed to return conquered lands.WHY?
@@granskare
Russians are land grabbers, they're obsessed with territory as can be observed at the moment in Ukraine. I really mean this, they're absolutely obsessed of expanding and getting extra lands.
And once they get the lands, they spoil everything, they pollute, mismanage, pillage and then they leave everything in disrepair and toxic.
That country is a cancer, a tumor of the worst kind.
En Schwinks taiger is definetly not right :P
I'd like to point out that Folke Bernadotte was a part of the Swedish royal family.
Very informative and balanced, thanks!
11:40 "En svensk tiger" means "A swedish tiger"., and you definitely did not pronounce it correctly haha
Tiger of Sweden ;)
En svensk tiger doesn't translate to Tiger of Sweden :P
Haha jag syftade bara på klädmärket xD
It also means "A swede keeps silent"
That was the main point. But the Tiger it self help to make the point come across even better.
You got your numbers wrong it was not 8000 that went to finland during the winter war its even said by field marshal mannerheim that 20,000 volunteers was sent to Finland.
You also said the major ammount of people where communist lovers i can say this they where not the major group that wanted Swedens politics changed was the NSAP.
"Right wing militia" Is was the Swedish army that was there. How the shooting started on the other hand.
Norway declared themselves neutral as well in WWII.
Invaded anyway; that blows a large hole in the whole "Sweden had to be neutral to not be invaded" thesis, that I do not hold to. Like AJP Taylor explained, but is also a pretty normal part of modern International Relations, neutrality is not neutral. There is beneficial neutrality and hostile neutrality. In the Balkans conflict of the 1990s, belatedly banning all arms sales was effectively beneficial neutrality towards the Serbs, since the Serbs were already sitting on the entire Yugoslav army equipment reserve.
From that we can really deduce why the Nazis invaded whom they invaded and not.
I'm glad you mention Bofors. As you mention, they licenced designs to the British and the USA. For tiny calibre AA guns, that apart from the autoloading had a new type of gun cradle that enabled 90 degree to flat angle fire.
You missed out the fact that the Bofors licenced designs to the Germans lead to the 88mm, a legendary gun in WWII, and the British had the bofors pom pom, the same design on a smaller scale with a natty autoloader. I feel there are some geopolitical and economic factors missed out on in this talk.
Sweden was also overall on the side of the allies in spying. It was thanks to them that the RM Bismark was tracked coming out of the Denmark Strait, however, overall the story is one of keeping Germany in the war, because Germany invaded Norway to ensure safety of supply of that same iron ore from source.
The decision not to invade is as telling as the decision to invade with Norway regarding causation.
According with International Law of Neutrality created by Hague Conference in 1907, Sweden with your acctions was not truly neutral and permittenttrafiken and polistrupperna showed this.
can you please tell the name fo violin vst /?
snaps*
you pronounced En svensk tiger as like En skfvenks taigerr. You pronounced the En pretty good tho
This makes me proud to be a Swede.
why do everyone garante ocupation of sweden. we are 2 times the size of norway and denmark also we was prepered and worth noting is that norway was not a contry until 1905. Finland was able to fight the russians. and we are twice the size of them. We had a Good navy and Able army. An we had some planes. we would lose eventually, but sweden is a big contry and it would take time. time the germans dont have if we cut the iron trade of.
Exactly, Sweden could’ve kicked the shit out of Germany if all of Scandinavia fought together.
What do you mean brother with SOVIET union not gonna happen
rule 34 War is good for business rule 35 Peace is good for business if the mix up you get new rule "34!35" Sweden use it in world war II
Calls sweden neutral proceeds to go on for 30 minutes showing sweden not so neutral
What right wing militia? There wasn't any.
🇬🇧 ☕️
This is very inaccurate
Badly researched and sloppy as usual. The writer needs to learn English grammar and spelling.
Finland was a 'co-belligerent' against the Soviets but never an Axis ally. German and Finnish troops fought bitterly in the Lapland War. Finns are not Scandinavian.
Sweden's conduct in WW2 was self-interested only and the government waited to see which side was going to win.
Assisting POWs and Jews was opportunistic and designed to quell the ire of the USA and Britain.
The Swedish elite profited from WW2 and should have faced more censure than it did. Norway is not on friendly terms with its complacent neighbour and Finland diluted Swedish cultural remnants at home as soon as possible.
Forgotten that USA traded with Germany until dec-41, even sold to Wehrmacht. England and France didn’t lift a finger to help Poland though they were allies. Later run like rabbits when the germans came... All countrys acted self- interested, Norway and Denmark did nothing to help Finland durig winter war, Sweden helped as much as they could. Would Norway declared war on Germany if only Sweden had been attaced? No, they didn’t even mobilize their army when Germany attaced them. To late, and by MAIL!
1.5 speed is recommended
Bruh
Very biased.
really, How so?
Not really
Sweden as same as Turkey,Portugal and Spain should have all declared war on Germany. Their silence and cowardice is responsible for the prolonging of the war and its excessive human casualty's.