It was planned before WW2. Also the fact that the Soviets installed puppet governments in the nations they conquered. I wonder why people thought the Soviets were a problem.
What plan do you mean? Sure, in theory, they believed that the communist revolution would spread all throughout the world and were certainly agitating in that direction. But they were hardly in a position to conquer the whole world militarily. The Allies agreed to the occupation zones and which areas would be occupied by whom. The Soviets likely wanted to ensure there were friendly governments on their borders so as to avoid repeating what they had just gone through.
At worst, they took advantage of an opportunity that had been presented to them as a result of the military adventurism of certain other nations. Nobody could have planned the outcome, but once the process was set in motion and they were already in the countries in question, they decided to stay - just as we did. And the fact that we remained was their justification for remaining in Eastern Europe.
They thought we were planning to attack them, and we thought they were planning to attack us. It turns out both sides were wrong on that point.
The problem is people know about Switzerland collaboration but not that of Sweden.
Or maybe it's just a matter of viewing them in balance. After all, as noted earlier, Sweden did do some good things.
Threats of invasion during a period which no such invasion was plausible.
Not in 42, 43, 44 and 45.
I think the bulk of their forces were on the Eastern Front during those years, if I recall correctly. Still, I can imagine that by '43, people were probably seeing more clearly which way the war was going and that the Axis would ultimately lose.
Sweden was already cut off due to the mining of the straits into the Baltic and fields in the North Sea. The Swedes that were outside those areas, and Sweden proper, flew Allied colours and could not return until the war ended.
Wrong. They picked the Nazis via trade. Sweden cut trade to the Allies without blasting Germany for mining fields.
Well, if they were cut off anyway, who else were they going to trade with?
So neutral that they let the Nazis use their train and port transportation systems to move troop to the Russia Front. Sweden ships escorted Nazi vessels thus attempting to use the protection of neutrality for ships that it would never be applied to. Yes very neutral.......
We were still officially neutral when our Navy escorted British merchant ships across the Atlantic. I think we may have even lost a few destroyers before hostilities with Germany formally began.
Sweden sold a valuable product Germany needed for the war especially after the Allies bombed the ball bearing industry in Germany into the ground. They were collaborators.
Well, again, if they were stuck between a rock and a hard place, perhaps they felt that compromising, playing along, and "working within the system" they were faced with (through no fault of their own) was the best course of action at the time.
The lack of teeth was due to Great War fatigue and disarmament. FDR was trying to get the US into the war from day 1. The US likewise claimed neutrality but picked a side. The right side.
I think there had always been a reluctance for Americans to get involved in European wars. It wasn't that we were "isolationist," but our foreign policy was focusing on other things, mainly our own hemisphere and the Pacific Rim. We wanted commerce and good relations with the nations of Europe, but we didn't want to get sucked into any of their conflicts or enmities with each other.
Moreover, we thought they could handle their own problems anyway. Europe has had plenty of wars in the past, but eventually, they sit down and hash out their differences at the bargaining table. That's what we had seen in the past. We counted on the balance of power and its ability to maintain the status quo, but the balance of power was going out of whack. With the resources, industry, and manpower available to the U.S., FDR (and others) believed that the U.S. had to take a more active role in order to restore the balance of power.
Some might argue that there may have been a certain shrewdness and pragmatism in FDR's approach, particularly when one looks at the results. Being on the winning side as the dominant power and mostly intact, while much of Europe and Asia was in ruins, put us in a greatly advantageous position in the world.
The US at the start of WW2 had the 17th largest army in the world. 17th...... The 100k were a drop in the bucket compared to the 11 million French military, the 7 million Germany military, the 1 million of the UK. The US army was smaller than Canada's until spring/summer 42.
The US military is large due to Japan and how Europe disarms regardless of threats on the world stage. That is why the US is active. Europe never gets it's **** together.
I remember reading that the US Army had to give some early recruits wooden sticks instead of actual rifles to train with, since they didn't have enough rifles at the time.
Another aspect might be that they were still thinking in terms of older era wars when armies moved slower and there was still time to build up defenses. The French were thinking in terms of WW1. Fortunately for us, we had a two-ocean buffer which gave us the time we needed.
