What if German WW2 occupation forces in Scandinavia bombed resistance training camps in Sweden?

What if German WW2 occupation forces in Scandinavia bombed the training camps its was hosting in its country for Norwegian and Danish resistance forces?

This would have been quite possible, as the Swedes let German forces in Norway move through its territory toward the Eastern Front when it looked like Nazi Germany was winning in the early stages of the war, and when Soviet advances in Eastern Europe were menacing. Undoubtedly, German spies must have been very aware of these operations.

If this did happen, Sweden would have to make a choice. 1) Either close down the camps, and at best let the resistance forces "relocate" to another country (which would have been difficult) or declare disarmed refugee status, 2) continue to keep the camps open, or relocate them so they were less obvious to air attack and face continued German pressure, up to and including some sort of hostile contact with German land forces, or 3) completely sequester the Norwegian and Danish resistance forces hiding inside Sweden.

Sweden would have to consider the long term benefits of its official image as a politically neutral state, and the consequences of losing that traditional position. It would also have to consider the long term consequences of its actions in a post WW2 environment, with the goal of trying to alienate as few people as it can. if it moved against the Scandinavian resistance forces, at the very least Sweden would look weak. At the very worst, it would look traitorous. This is probably one of the reasons why Sweden permitted sanctuary training camps for Scandinavian resistance forces in its territory.

If, on the other hand, it decided to jump into war against Germany after such an attack on the resistance training camps in its country, the allies may have welcomed it, and it may have been able to pull it off without serious damage toward the end of the war. At best however, Sweden would have been a tie down of German military resources, which may have sped up the war. Which front would benefit the most if Sweden stepped is a matter of conjecture. If it benefitted the Soviets more than the armies fighting on the western front, it would not have benefitted Sweden's interests. Also, it would cost Sweden its neutrality label, which it probably saw as more politically valuable in the long run.

In conclusion, if German forces did bomb Scandinavian resistance forces training inside its country, I would guess Sweden would most likely publicly state that they were "unaware" of these facilities, and would have closed them down, offering the resistance forces a safe passage to England if they did not chose to "disarm" and declare refugee status. Getting them to England would have been the tricky part; it would most likely involve a risky submarine or even riskier airlift operation.

This article based on the following Wikipedia source:

Norwegian police troops in Sweden during World War II - Wikipedia

Brian Ghilliotti

 

Wot?

Have you taken any care to actually read the article, look at the numbers trained, look at the dates and timing of what you are suggesting?

In July 1943, how are these "German spies" you allude to going to be aware of the massive numbers (all of 20) Norwegian policemen in training? The transits were going in sealed trains along the West, or in the far North, between Denmark-Norway, and Norway-Finland. Not near the capital Stockholm, and not free to wander around the countryside.

The Swedish cabinet had already decided (after Allied pressure) that the transports of German unarmed troops would cease before October on June 29th 1943, and informed Germany.

By the time the Swedish government was officially involved in the training of Policemen and police reservists (not resistance fighters) and approved training (in Nov '43) Germany had enough problems of it's own with worrying about a few thousand Norwegian policemen training for the possibility of securing a post-occupation Norway.

By Autumn 1943, the Germans didn't have enough LW to meet the threats from the Western Allies bomber fleets, and their needs on the Eastern Front. You want them haring off bombing a neutral country... A country which at that time was no longer the push over it would've been in 1939-1941. After a massive (and ongoing) rearmament campaign, Swedish armed forces in the summer of 1943 stood at 350,000 front line troops, 200,000 local defence units, and 200,000 "Home Guard." And they had lots of Anti-aircraft guns. Bofors guns, I might add. Sweden shot down foreign aircraft overflying its territory during WW2, both Allied and Axis planes.

The Germans had lost the Battle of Kursk, consequently the Red Army eat a big chunk in the East, the Germans loose their Italian Ally, and are fighting desperately in Italy.

So, no Germany wasn't about to do diddly squat about a few Norwegian policemen in Sweden.

 

Sweden (and Norway too) didn't help the Finns (people who one might say were their brothers) when they were invaded by the Soviets. Those people were like that - they didn't like to help.

 

Now you are blowing more smoke out of your uneducated rear.

You have zero clue what you are talking about.

1) The Swedish volunteers. The Swedish military allowed officers and men to leave their service with the Swedish Armed forces, and Join the Volunteers, while still getting paid from Sweden. What's more, those that absconded were accepted back into the Swedish armed forces when the Winter War ended. Some returned even later; during or after the Continuation War, and they too, were welcomed back.
2) The weapons; most of the weaponry used by the volunteers? Swedish military weaponry, from Swedish military stocks. Paid for from "donations"
3) Financial aid equivalent to twice the Finnish military budget. Almost matching the Swedish Military budget for 1939.
4) The Swedish Volunteer Air Force regiment F19, with aircraft and support material and personnel, represented a significant chunk of the Swedish Airforce capabilities at the time. Fully one third of the Swedish Fighter aircraft were in FInland flying under Finnish colours.

What "Armed forces" allows people to wander off with aircraft and ground maintenance staff, setting up logisitics,and supplies?

Never heard a Finn complain about the aid given.

So, care to reiterate the garbage you were just spewing?

They weren't helping, to the same degree the Nazis didn't help Franco. Except the Swedes did a better job of pulling wool over your eyes.

It's more like how Poles behave; wandering around with a chip on their shoulder for decades bitching about stuff they didn't understand then, and still don't.

 

As such, wm.'s blanket statement needs much clarification, because it can be effectively argued either way.

Sweden's politicians did turn down at least three Finnish request for military aid, the first refusal was on October 28,1939, and the last, by Sweden's King, on February 19, 1940. Mostly this was out of a healthy fear not to provoke the Soviet Union and a fear that they would not stop with Finland, but continue on(of course, they Swedes did not no of the spheres of influence discussions between the Soviet Union and Germany). The Swedish government was pushing strongly for the Finns to accept a deal with the Soviets, that would both end the war, and end the perceived threat to Swedish territory.

The Swedish military, OTOH, believed that the best way to defend Sweden was not by fighting in Sweden, but fighting in Finland. As such they pressed mightily for military intervention to Finland. When this was not forthcoming, they formulated their own ways of providing aid to Finland with the tacit approval of the Swedish government.

Thus, you can construct a credible argument, both pro and con, concerning Swedish "help" to Finland.

 

Do you want to fight the largest Army on this planet with 8,000 volunteers and 25 obsolete planes? With people who didn't even represent Sweden but actually represented only themselves?

On 19 February 1940, Sweden's king Gustaf V publicly rejected pleas from Finland's government for military intervention in the Winter War to help defend Finland against the Soviet invasion. This statement from the king was aimed at pressuring Finland to accept harsh Soviet peace conditions and to quiet a strong Swedish activist public opinion advocating participation in the war. The statement had this effect, but was also to produce substantial bitterness in Finland.

The Norwegian government did not even allow the Norwegians to volunteer for the war in Finland.

Both countries repeatedly refused British suggestions they should do more for their doomed Finish brethren, although it was quite possible Stalin would have hesitated to fight an united, even if weak, Nordic alliance.
A determined, swift and early Nordic response would encourage participation of others, and made their participation easier. Only in the small Hungary there were tens of thousands of volunteers ready to fight for Finland.

The fact is in the interwar period the liberal, defeatist, and pacifist Nordic countries, despite their wealth, reduced their armies so much they were mostly useless, unable to offer any meaningful resistance against the Nazi Germany and against the Stalinist Russia. Soldiers and the army were held in low esteem there, and when the need come they demonstrated their defeatist nature once again.
Many Swedes, Norwegians were willing, but their governments and elites weren't.


Good work with that name calling, ineffective unfortunately.

 

That's OK...The Finns would not have taken them if the did not come fully equipped, trained in combat, and had their own officers. You forget that in the early part of the Winter War, the Finns were being quite selective about their "volunteers," and it was not until after heavy losses, that the Finns would accept every able-bodied man willing to fight.

Are these the same British, Churchill specifically, that praised Stalin's invasion of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The same British that dragged their feet in helping their Finnish brethren? A weak Nordic alliance would not have dissuaded Stalin from attacking...You see, Germany trumps a weak Nordic alliance, or did you forget the Secret Protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

What wealth? None of the Nordic nations even come close to matching Germany or Russia in "wealth." The far "wealthier" Germany and Russia could maintain large standing armies, the far less "wealthier" Nordic states could not. The any Nordic state had roughly 1/40th of Germany's GNP and 1/25th of Russia's. The exception being Sweden, which was slightly more wealthier than the rest of the Nordic states. To that end, Sweden did begin to shift her "neutral" position to one of "armed neutrality" in 1936. At which time, Sweden began to steadily increase her military budget.

 

I found the quote I had in mind.
it was a few days before the Soviet invasion:

The Swedish Prime Minister, Per Albin Hanson, replied to a final plea for Sweden's help from the Finnish Finance Minister Väinö Tanner, who was a personal friend: You must not in your calculations count on Swedish intervention, for it would split the Cabinet.
Personally I would like to do much more, but I have to deal with a nation that is selfish about peace.


And this seems to be relevant:

Inspired by the stories they had beard, volunteer soldiers from a variety of countries, but especially from Sweden, Denmark and Hungary, began to arrive in January 1940. However, these men had to be trained, and then assembled into units, which meant that for any their participation in the war turned out to be largely symbolic. In theory, the Swedish government had given permission for the assembly of volunteers in Sweden, but in practice these men did not form cohesive units, and had received little training prior to arriving in Finland.

from: Finland at War: The Winter War 1939–40 by Vesa Nenye

 

If you somehow imagine, that the Swedish government had no control over what it's officers were doing, you might be right. Yet a closer study shows how the Swedish Armed forces, and the Political rulers were aligned, to produce action with deniability. Per Albin Hansson (spell his name right) was the PM for a very good reason. He was a politician, and quite skilled.
If you imagine, that the Swedish military and political forces did not for a single instant worry that Churchill's wish to send troops "through" Sweden, was connected with a desire to seize the Swedish Iron Ore fields and prevent their operation to the detriment of Sweden, you'd be wrong. How long would Germany accept that, do you think? How long before Nazi boots invaded? In Nanoseconds? With the German-Soviet pact, how would that help Finland?

Sweden walked a very tight rope, and did so very successfully.

Belittling the numbers of men, does not preclude, that the Swedes were in the North, where there were few Finnish troops either. How many Finnish planes were flying in that region to counter the Soviet air force prior to the arrival of the Swedes?

The Finnish defenders around Salla (3,500) were fighting two Soviet divisions against them. I'm guessing they were all disappointed to hear that it was 9,000 Swedes coming to help. But maybe you know something more.
Sallan suunnan taistelut 1939-1940


It is also worth noting, that on November 30th, 1939, Sweden's standing army to deal with any immediate incursion stood at 60,000 men. Providing soldiers and logistics for service in another country takes time to organize, especially when as unprepared as Neutral Sweden was in 1939, couldn't send normal units, and so had to scratch the forces together. They weren't allowed to advertise the volunteers in December for fear of what the big powers would say. Yet 10 weeks later, 9,000 Swedes stood there in Salla in February.

There is of course value in undermining the Swedish contribution after the war; 1) for the Finnish ego, 2) a message to the Bear.
While for Sweden, it retained a neutral friendly country for a neighbour, and not some tyrannical Stalinist.

If you insist on only looking at the war from the meat grinder in the South, where the preponderance of men fought, and where the final victory was afforded the Soviets, of course the Swedish contribution is trivial. Imagining that a neutral country would get a well-equipped professional force into place in another country within a few weeks is displaying severe imaginitus. Still, just as the Polish contribution in Italy was "largely irrelevant" in the scheme of the whole war, I'm sure no Pole would be offended if we belittled their contribution, and said "those people are like that, they don't like to help." "Largely symbolic," is not "entirely symbolic", and still symbols are known on occasion be important.


You are still discounting the massive amount of monetary aid, that Sweden couldn't really afford, given the state of its own forces, and its economy. But, I guess you know better about how incredibly wealthy they were. Perhaps you should enlighten us with some details of these super-wealthy Scandinavian states.

 

Especially...Hungary? You are joking right... Norway sent roughly twice the men Hungary did 700 vs. 346. Even the United States had more volunteers than Hungary 350 vs. 346(and some of the Americans actually saw combat, unlike the Hungarian volunteers). Sweden, of course, sent more men than all of the others, with Denmark coming in a distant second, and Norway wound out the Top Three.

Not saying much here...They are, after all, volunteers. Most, even your vaunted Hungarians, only had a one months training or less.

In "theory", one of the Swedish stipulations was that their "volunteers" would not be formed into units, but would be just what the word implies "volunteers."

Let's test the theory, show me any volunteers that received a lot of training before being sent to Finland...

 

It wasn't my words, as indicated it was from Finland at War: The Winter War 1939–40 by Vesa Nenye. And he wrote that:

Inspired by the stories they had beard, volunteer soldiers from a variety of countries, but especially from Sweden, Denmark and Hungary, began to arrive in January 1940. However, these men had to be trained, and then assembled into units, which meant that for any their participation in the war turned out to be largely symbolic. In theory, the Swedish government had given permission for the assembly of volunteers in Sweden, but in practice these men did not form cohesive units, and had received little training prior to arriving in Finland.

and it's not even his words, he only repeats what other Finnish historians say today.

And the reason is that:

only 33 of those Swedish volunteers were killed. In battles more soldiers were sometimes killed per minute.

Yes, Sweden contributed weapons, it didn't change anything and couldn't change anything.
Only full solidarity of the Nordic countries and their full commitment to war could have stopped Stalin, but there were selfish about peace. He was an opportunist, he wouldn't start a major and presumably long war for limited objectives.
He couldn't afford a major war anyway, Hitler was watching him closely, and Stalin knew it.

From the economic point of view the Nordic countries were 4 times smaller than Germany, and 5 times smaller than the USSR.
But still Poland was even smaller and was able to create over a million strong army, not very well armed, but they were caught at the beginning of their modernization cycle.
Switzerland - which were the size of Sweden was able to create 850,000 strong and decently armed army.

Finland, Sweden, Norway were mostly prime defensive terrain, 850,000 soldier would be sufficient to defend it for a long time against an army which couldn't afford "long time".

 

Not your words, but your source...Why would you use a source that has such basic errors in it? That does not bode well for the quality of your source.

Please keep your quotes straight...That was Green Slime that said that, not me.

Your guessing here, and badly I might add.

That would be country(singular), not countries(plural)...The Nordic countries were not Allies, and had no binding treaties, pacts...There was no Nordic Union that I know of Hence, they are to be taken as individual nations, and not grouped together.

Further, Germany had twice the GDP in 1939 that the USSR had(46 billion vs. 23 billion). Economically, that would put them at a little over 2 times as small as the USSR...Not 5 times. But, then again, the Nordic countries are not united whereas the USSR is.

Poland's economy was roughly 4 times larger than Finland's economy...'Nuff said about that.

Yet, Poland and their million man army collapsed much faster than the paltry army of the Finns did...You get what you pay for.

Mmmmm...AFAIK, Switzerland's army was never tested in combat, but I guess I was wrong...Dear wm., could you please tell me when Switzerland was invaded, whom was the invader, and what were the casualties?

And could you please tell me when this new nation called "Finswedway" was formed, and the nations of Finland, Sweden, and Norway were abolished?

 

Finland, Norway, Sweden were part of the same (quite progressive and liberal) kingdom longer than many countries exist on this Earth.
The Scandinavians are fraternal people like the British, Canadians, Australians - only more.

I wrote despite that "they didn't like to help each other" which was based on what the Swedish Prime Minister said to his personal friend in the Finnish government just before the war started.

Additionally I said that only full political and military cooperation between the Nordic countries could have saved Finland, and no amounts of rifles and obsolete planes could - it merely amounted to giving alms.

Even better it would be nice to be prepared.
As example I've given the tiny Switzerland which committed to total mobilization sufficiently early, and was able to create an enormous army just in time for the WW2 - so it was doable.
The terrain would act as force multiplier - so they didn't have to as strong as the invader - be it the Soviets or the Nazis.

But the main point was that they "they didn't like to help each other" because

despite their common history, geopolitics, geography, and the fraternal feelings among them in times when most European countries were arming themselves and creating new alliances and this included Britain, France, Switzerland.

The point has been proven in my opinion, and "when Switzerland was invaded, whom was the invader, and what were the casualties" has nothing to do with it, or even anything else.
It's just the usual arguing in bad faith.

BTW "Germany had twice the GDP in 1939 that the USSR" is wrong.
According to the Maddison Project database, the definite source on these things, in 1939 the GDPs were:

Germany = 377,284,000,000
USSR = 420,091,000,000

so for all intents and purposes they were basically identical.

 

You are being highly disengenuous.

1) The whole war was over in a matter of a few months: November 30th 1939, to 13th March 1940. The Swedish Armed forces on the start of the war were in general lacking in everything, including preparation and adequate planning. So too, were the Norwegian and Danish armies. Claiming they refused to help, is like claiming a quadraplegic in a wheelchair failed to save the toddler from drowning.

2) The Anglo-French plan was never to "save Finland" but to use the excuse of the war to seize the Swedish mine fields, Which would've seen Germany invade Sweden, and the whole war fought in Scandinavia. This is not something the Soviets wanted to happen either. It was supposed to be a quick seizure as the other Baltic states.

3) The Russian plan had not been to fight a war of attrition on the Mannerheim line, but tie down the forces in the South, and to cut across the middle of the country to the coast.Thus the fighting around Salla, and Soumussalmi were of greater importance than mere numbers suggest. Further, given the lack of roads, it would've been extremely difficult to keep more people supplied and active in the front, especially in Winter. But Winter was ending. If the war continued, the Finns around Salla would not have been sufficient to stall the Russian divisions in the Spring.

3)The Swedish volunteers only arrived in February. But their arrival in those numbers at that location guaranteed the Russians could not restart the plan of seizing the whole country with the forces they had, and the logistical problems they faced, even if the fighting continued in the Spring. Fighting an extensive guerilla war, even after occupying the South, was not in Russia's interest. Those Swedish troops guaranteed Russia a longer war, if Stalin wanted to take the whole country.

4) Judging the value of the unit by the number men of killed in that unit, is not a sensible unit of measure, when judging their efficiency, or strategic value. In fact, it is quite a stupid measure to use.If more had died, you would in all likelihood be claiming that as proof of their incompetence.

You are reaching conclusions not based on the realities of 1939, but on some kind theoretical dream world whereby everyone knew what would happen in 1939, already in 1933.

You are still ignoring the huge benefit of the Swedish financial aid and military supplies, which belies your original highly erroneous statement. Apparently, not enough volunteers died for their contribution to be noteworthy. I'll be sure to paste that epitaph onto the next Polish war graves I pass by.

 

You statement is, I would say, cartoonish. Unfortunately snarky comments are not replacement for knowledge.

1. Poland didn't intent to win the September Campaign, which was known to be unwinnable. The goal was to make the entire war unwinnable for the Germans.

2. An important subgoal was preventing Germany from waging a limited war, and this was achieved at the expense of the faster defeat.

3. the climate and geography of Finland, one of the world's northernmost countries is radically different from the climate and geography of Poland. One is prime defensive terrain the other is not.

4. Poland was attacked by three countries, Finland was initially attacked by just four badly prepared Soviet armies.

 

That was rich. It might actually have been insulting, if it didn't come from you.

In case you hadn't noticed, you've hijacked this whole thread with your original, ill-informed snarky message.

Just sayin'.

 

I commented on the fact that Sweden had "to consider the long term benefits of its official image as a politically neutral state" and "the Swedes let German forces in Norway move through its territory toward the Eastern Front" by saying that Sweden was similarly neutral during the Winter War. So it was relevant.
The "they didn't like to help" was based on what the Swedish Prime Minister said to his personal friend in the Finnish government just before the war started.

And no the rifles, obsolete planes, money didn't count. It changed nothing and couldn't change - and was motivated partially by the desire to neutralizing the Swedish public opinion calling for a real intervention in the war.
And as I've said only 33 of those volunteers died (some say 37), when in the Spanish civil war over 130 Swedish volunteers were killed. This shows their presence was mostly symbolic.

More importantly:

King Gustav V Adolf expressed concern about sending any kind of official military help to Finland. He even threatened to abdicate from the monarchy should England be granted permission to help Finland, for example, by sending troops through Swedish territory.
from: Swedish Volunteers in the Russo-Finnish Winter War, 1939-1940 by Martina Sprague.

and:

The Supreme War Council elected to send notes to Norway and Sweden on 27 December in which they urged the Norwegians and Swedes to help Finland and offer the Allies their support. Norway and Sweden rejected the offer on 5 January 1940. The Allies then came up with a new plan, in which they would demand that Norway and Sweden give them right of passage by citing the League of Nations resolution as justification. The expedition troops would disembark at the Norwegian port of Narvik and proceed by rail toward Finland, passing through the Swedish ore fields on the way. This demand was sent to Norway and Sweden on 6 January, but it too was rejected six days later.

some background:

Although Europe experienced growing tension in the interwar years [...] and many countries were viewed as "interests" to be divided between the Great Powers, Sweden continued to downsize its armed forces in part because the Great War had ended, and in part because the Swedish people at large had (and have) a negative view of war and lacked enthusiasm for military buildup.
in 1936, the Parliament was determined to make further cuts in defense spending, [...]
The total number of personnel in the Swedish armed forces at the time of Hitler's invasion of Poland was estimated at 130,000.

In September 1939, the political leadership in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland called a conference in Copenhagen, reconfirming their strong nonpartisan neutrality politics while upholding the right to engage in commerce with one another and the warring nations. [...]
The greater fear was that the Scandinavian countries would end up on opposite sides of the conflict should they be forced to join the war. The common cultural characteristics and emotional bonds, cemented together through hundreds of years of shared history, prompted the need to unite against the rise of German and Soviet power. The possibility of a joint defense of Finland was discussed — an idea that Sweden had considered as early as 1923, although the Social Democratic Party had voiced strong opposition - but further action was not taken.
from: Swedish Volunteers in the Russo-Finnish Winter War, 1939-1940 by Martina Sprague.

And btw, for the first time the Soviets informed Finland that they were going to annex Finish territory in 1935. There were plenty of time to do something useful.

 

Except that had not been true for over 100 years, after the Swedish Empire had imploded...Finland becoming part of Russia in 1809,and then fighting a brief civil war, and gaining independence from Russia in 1917.

Hmmm. Finland experienced the "benefits" of Swedish "fraternity" when they were conquered by the Russians in 1809. The same cannot be said of Canada and Australia. Further, the Americans are also a fraternal people of the British, and we have seen how that long-term relationship has gone. Some consider the Ukrainians to be a fraternal people of the Russian, and we see how that relationship has gone. Fraternal relationships can go many ways. You have just cherry-picked the one most beneficial to your POV.

And, of course, you got it all wrong...You presuppose that the Finns and Swedes are much closer than they really were. You see, they were more than willing to help each other, as is shown by the vast amount of Swedish material going to Finland...What they were not willing to do, on the whole, was die for one another.

You have made a guess...Congratulations. And, I have said, Russia and Germany trump any weak Nordic Alliance.

It is always nice to be prepared...Ardennes I, Pearl Harbor, D-Day, Ardennes II...Unfortunately, a reliable Crystal Ball has not yet been invented. Thus, we are forced to make due with alternative history - Which is what you have been posting.

Switzerland would be an example...But, their forces and defenses were never tested in combat. Thus, it is just an academic exercise. For all we know, it could have turned into another Maginot Line, Ardennes, Pearl Harbor, or Singapore.

The same thing was said about the Ardennes and Singapore...And we saw how they went.

You seem to place far more faith in "common history, geopolitics, geography, and the fraternal feelings among them in times", than it actually warrants. Further, Sweden, as has been stated before, had begun arming itself, and to a lesser extent so had Finland. However, the Finns were spending far less than the military was requesting for defense. please see Data of the Finnish Army in the Winter War, Part 1 for more information on the Finnish prewar defense spending.

Actually, it is arguing in good faith...You have placed unwarranted faith in an army that has never been combat tested. So how well these defenses would have performed, we can only speculate about. Which is my point. All of this is mere speculation, yet you pontificate as if it is the Gospel Truth.

 

I'm sorry...I thought you were going for"cartoonish" when you posted

If you are not going for "cartoonish", after all, the sentence is quite laughable as applied to this discussion. I would reccommed then you heavily edit that sentence to lessen it's humor.

Salve for wounded Polish pride? Reminds me of the Confederate "Lost Cause."

You do realize that this cuts the legs off of your "poorly trained foreign volunteers" argument"?
Oh, I am sorry...You did not make that argument...You parroted other authors making that argument.

Ignoring the fact that the Finns during the Winter War, proportionally, faced much more than Poland, during the 1939 invasion, did.

 

For The sake of God,

1) Counting the number of dead, is a really, really piss poor way of counting a unit's contribution. It is utterly stupid. The whole idea of an armed forces, is not to see how many of your troops die, but to actually prevent the enemy from doing what he wants to do, and enforce your political will.

2) Your argument does not make any sense. One one hand you stated "Those people were like that - they didn't like to help." Your words. Yet above, you state, and I quote: " ...and was motivated partially by the desire to neutralizing the Swedish public opinion calling for a real intervention in the war." So which was it? They did want to join the war and help, or didn't? You want to have your cake and eat it. You are the person that lumped the whole population of the Nordic countries together, and decided to insult them saying they don't like to help. In that respect, it is irrelevant what the King said (and the King had good reason to say it, which as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it would mean a German invasion.)

3) The Anglo French were only trying to use the Winter War as a pretext to take over the Iron mines. They were not interested in helping Finland, as we well know today. They were so desperate to seize the mines, they tried to convince Finland to keep fighting even after the Soviets had broken through the last line of defence in the South, and the road to Helsinki was wide open. They were so enarmoured of the plan to seize the mines, they still tried to take Narvik, and threaten the mines. They were more than happy to sacrifice the whole of Southern Sweden, with the vast majority of the population to the Germans. It would not be "a common defence" at all. But both the Swedes and the Norwegians saw through their ruse.

4) It is quite simple. Further action was not taken, because the Nordic countries did not trust each other enough, nor was the need particularly great. For example, the border between Norway and Sweden, was not allowed to have any military troops stationed there. The smaller states feared Swedish domination, culturally, economically, and needed to maintain their own ideas of nationhood, including their independent armed forces. Just as not a single one of Poland's smaller neighbours were willing to ally themselves with Poland. They did not trust Polish intentions.

5) And, btw, the Soviets did not "inform that they were going to annex." They discussed, and negotiated, and whinged, and moaned. And they did diddly squat for fear of the Germans. Which all changed, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop deal, didn't it. This is the deal breaker, which no one saw. This moment, rendered all previous assumptions mute. Which is something altogether different from the certainty of Soviet mumblings in 1935 you make them out to be. Threatening to do something, and actually doing it are two different things altogether. States go on bitching mode all the time. You want to take them seriously every time?!?

Your ability to happily and repeatedly dismiss and ignore important facts that disagree with your conclusion is known as cognitive dissonance.