Sell Iron Ore to the Nazis throughout the war

I'm not in denial about the shit that has been going on in Sweden for the last 15-20 years, but even with some really bad decisions Sweden somehow stays afloat. But shit like the decline of school results, the healthcare issues and increasing and changing population are things we have to deal with.
But it's more complex than just saying it's the Brown people's fault. Next election has to change something, because Sweden's liberal/centrist parties have fucked up pretty bad.

Wasn't a priority.

What kind of non-answer is that?

It would probably disrupt Swedish iron ore production, which Germany was pretty reliant on for imports.

delete this

>Swedes will die with thunderous applause
Pls don't do it Sweden. Your women are beautiful and you contributed so much to the world. In a 100 years will talk about Sweden like we do now about the indigenous people of America.

All people of races should be allowed to prosper, it's cruel to think that the Swedes need to die to make space for more Muslims.

>and how the people I have been friends with since childhood just can't wait to rape my family and blow themselves up
they do though lol

t. beur

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden

True or false?

...

True, but read about them and you'll find out it's a more complex situation than just immigrants bombing civilians.
Basically all of the grenade attacks have ties to organised crime and the Russian/Serbian maffia. The aim of the attacks is property damage and extortion, not killing civilians.
Why do people post shit like this without reading a single article about it? Same with the rape statistics, where people draw conclusions fitting their views without actually reading about Swedish laws and justice system.

>true but
>but
Ah, so its part and parcel then? I guess "re-integration" of returning ISIS fighters who were busy beheading people is also miss constructed in the media?

>Same with the rape statistics, where people draw conclusions fitting their views without actually reading about Swedish laws and justice system.
So, answer it straightforward then. Did increase in migration also bring an increase in violent and sexual crimes committed? Is white pixeling made up?

>allow the allies to deploy troops through your territory as well
what?

Holy shit you are dense.
>So, answer it straightforward then. Did increase in migration also bring an increase in violent and sexual crimes committed?
No. As the population increases, so does the crime, pretty logical. Sweden is very progressive when it comes to sexual harassment, and the victims are more comfortable with coming our with allegations due to a working justice system and an accepting society. Also if one person rapes another person multiple times it is not counted as one rape case, but each rape is recorded separately.
But I wouldn't know anything about this because I don't get my news from /pol/ approved totally non-biased sources.

>Holy shit you are dense.
Yes, how dare I question anything.

>No.
So there was no increase in crime due to immigration? Is that what you are claiming?

>No. As the population increases, so does the crime, pretty logical.
Only if you abandon all logic and fail to understand the difference between crime rate and total number of crimes.

>Sweden is very progressive when it comes to sexual harassment, and the victims are more comfortable with coming our with allegations due to a working justice system and an accepting society.
Ah, yes, is that why the Police are discouraged from using race or ethnicity in description of perpetrators in order to no appear "racist"?

>But I wouldn't know anything about this because I don't get my news from /pol/ approved totally non-biased sources.
Ofc not, you only writ down prepared talking points in order to "disprove" the fact that ever since large scale immigration crime, violent crime and sexual assaults have all increased on per capita basis. That would be racist. According to you grenade attacks were always an integral part of Swedish society.

Lastly, I appreciate how you literally ignored half of my post so you don't have to address it. Not like I feel bad for Sweden anyway, in fact I hope Jihadi John beheads you after his shift as a janitor on his way home to his tax paid apartment.

>tits

I lived in Stockholm for half a year. Don't pretend its not fucked Sven.

All capital cities are dogshit

According to limp wristed Swedes, the rape is only so high because they're such a progressive society and people report it more often (as opposed to the rest of the western world where honor killings are committed or something)

That's why the number of children raped increased two fold, not because the number of raped children increased, no no no, but because they just weren't reporting it earlier on :^)

Also, Norwegians are barbarians that's wh-
>Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year. Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo’s Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising – the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments. While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo’s population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

Oh wait. Maybe it is all the mass immigration after all?!? No, cant' be! That would be /pol/!

Also their Bofors anti Aircraft gun was used by almost every major participant in the war. Either bought on license, produced in a captured country that had bought the license, or just straight up copied from a captured example.

No, tell me its not so!

>According to Swedish Radio on Tuesday, statistics from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995. Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men. (Note: These four men were Kurdish Muslims, who raped the girl for hours and even took photos of doing so).
W-we're progressive! That's why rape statistics are so large, we're just too damn progressive!!

Noooooooo

>A 2016 report from the Swedish Police map 53 so called "exposed" areas (Utsatta områden), of which 15 were "particularly exposed". An "exposed area" is an area with low socioeconomic status and the area is affected by criminality. A "particularly exposed" area is defined by an unwillingness to participate in legal proceedings, difficulties for the police to carry out their mission, parallel social structures, violent extremism and finally proximity to other exposed areas. These definitions are used to adapt their procedures when working in these areas, for example bringing certain equipment and working in pairs when in a "particularly exposed area".[46]

>In March 2015, journalist Henrik Höjer discussed the rise of criminality, especially organized crime, in various neighborhoods within Sweden since the mid-1990s, especially in the city of Malmö. He interviewed a police officer and task force chief who referred to such areas as "no go areas" and wrote that gangs like to lay claim to an area by throwing stones at mailmen, police, firefighters and ambulances who enter the area.[47]

>In February 2016, a news crew for Australia's 60 Minutes working with anti-immigration activist Jan Sjunnesson[48][49] reported having come under attack, including having stones thrown on them and a car running over the foot of a cameraman who was trying to prevent it from leaving in the immigrant-dominated district of Rinkeby of Stockholm.[50] 60 Minutes published the video, on which reporter Liz Hayes states "there are now 55 declared no-go zones in Sweden."[51]

This is how it has always been in Sweden, right pal? Nothing to do with mass migration. No-go zones are part an parcel.

to be fair mate it's mostly immigrants raping immigrants in the asylum centers

>Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year. Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo’s Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising – the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments. While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo’s population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.
This is Norway, not Sweden, but its safe to say its close enough.

Anyway, do you know how the ingenious Swedes solved the problem? They stopped writing down ethnic or racial details. That way you can't prove its not ethnic Swedes doing the raping :^)

No real reason to as long as the snowjews kept proving iron ore

The only sources I can find are some alt-right or far right-wing websites.

I get it, your country is shit and you want someone else to be worse. Try coming here.
Also SD2018!

>I guess 1 million of those are real Swedes, rest mixed or immigrants.They paid the ultimate price.
Don't believe everything you read on Veeky Forums

>It's a "alt right kiddos who have never had a passport will tell you about your country" thread.

Goody goody gumdrops.

As far as I'm aware, Sweden has a very lax definition of rape, which includes no using a condom you told your partner you would.

That obviously inflates the numbers

> End up the wealthiest European country in the post war years
It was only smart

those arent no go zones, mate, those are the zones that police puts extra resources to work with

The majority of German tanks were built with Swedish iron ore and the Swedes, despite knowing this, continued to fuel the nazi war machine. They should have been punished just like Germany.

That is why one uses victim statistics - which, incidentally, are on par with rest of west European countries.

But surely Stockholm is unique in having shitty areas, which based Moscow has none of!

Not trading with Germany would have potentially meant:
Swedish people starving, freezing and rioting like they did during WW1
Swedish industries closing
Germany invading Sweden
Depriving Jewish refugees, Danish and Norwegian resistance/police forces, allied intelligence and diplomats of a safe haven
None of the Jews that were saved by Swedish diplomatic efforts and buses would have been saved

Sweden didn't just make money but traded for absolutely necessary goods, like food and fuel (there are also sources of Germans complaining about a lack of coal for the industries while at the same time they were shipping coal off to Sweden). Refusing to trade or otherwise entering the war would have been stupidly self-destructive. Sweden pretty much rescinded its concessions as soon as it seemed safe. The UK at the time recognised this and largely sympathised with Sweden's neutral position.

Sweden was between a rock and a hard place. They had a policy of neutrality since they got fucked hard in the aftermath of Napoleonic wars. Sweden assumed hostile invasion from Germany was bound to happen at some point, but like its neighbours didn't want to join the allies outright either. My older relatives always talked about how they feared German invasion at the time. Then Finland got attacked by the commies, a so-called Ally, and again that put it in a tough position. Then Norway was "pre-emptively" invaded by the Germans to prevent the Brits from doing the same thing (as they intended to do).

Meanwhile, they could still try to officially trade with both.

According to the Angus-Maddison series youn got left behind after adopting socialism actually.

You were never first, but Switzerland's gap with you (they were always first) grew larger and eventually Norway and Finland overtook you as well.

I fully expect Sweden to be a developing country 50 years from now if present trends continue.

Literally semantics. My friends don't want to live there. They describe it as hell on earth and never want to hang there either. They also know that it didn't USE to look like that and think that the local organized crime has something to do with immigration.

THE NOOOOOOOOOORTHERN BROTHERS

>the west is cucked
le 56% face

Do I need through Somalia or Afghanistan to know it is a shithole Sven?

German fears the Swedish Warrior

>shart compares wartorn countries to sweden
>meanwhile he is tanking bullets on his mobility scooter as he goes to burger kang.

Truth is right wing now.

>mental gymnastics
Here's your Olympic gold top kek

Ho ho, nou

actually yes, the Swedish army was mobilized and prepared unlike the tiny army which Norway almost beat the germans with

The Swedish army was still small and badly equipped and would not be able, even remotely, to stop the Germans for any prolonged period of time. It would also be far more isolated than Norway was.

>unlike the tiny army which Norway almost beat the germans with
Things that never happened. They had some success, especially with stalling the German naval invasion of Oslo, but was never even close to "almost beating" the Germans, that's despite thousands of French and British soldiers landing at Narvik.

>I spend a fraction of time on a densely populated spot in your huge country
>PhD in stupidity acquired

>mass immigration is followed by ghettos, no-go areas and increased crime where foreigners are clearly over represented
>cities which had no history of large scale organized crime and gang violence are now hot beds for it
>this has nothing to do with mass immigration despite gangs being formed by immigrants and the no-go areas being present in immigrant neighborhoods
>>PhD in in cuckolding acquired

>small
500.000 men in arms
>badly equipped
Maybe not totally modernised but it wasn't shit
>prolonged period of time
Debatable.

>500.000 men in arms
Only a fraction professional, even less properly equipped and trained, severely restricted in heavy weapons (of which most were out dated as well) and forced to defend across a wide front. Numbers alone don't say much. Belgium fielded over 500k men, along with far more heavy weapons and motorized element as well as major fortifications, didn't do much. Likewise was the case in Holland and Yugoslavia, for example.

>Maybe not totally modernised but it wasn't shit
Barely any motorized let alone armored elements and those which existed were obsolete, tiny air force composed of out dated aircraft and an inferior navy.

>Debatable.
Only if you consider irregular warfare

6 mil are white ethnic swedes
3 mil of that 6 mil are above 50
swedish women have on average 1.9 children
100k immigrants and refugees enter the country every year
in 2-3 years refugees and immigrants will be allowed to take bring in their families, expected be 500k-1 million people in the course of one year.

and 50k white swedes leave the country every year

>even less properly equipped and trained
What is conscription? Almost every man capable of bearing arms was trained for combat in some sense and was ready for invasion in 1940.

As for your other arguments, Germany needed a quick victory and Sweden is wholly the wrong opponent for that. They could've won in a drawn out fight over a couple of months if the allies wouldn't help Sweden, but this is not in Germanys interest.

>Almost every man capable of bearing arms was trained for combat in some sense and was ready for invasion in 1940.
Wishful thinking is when you think handing out rifles is what constitutes "being ready for an invasion". Clearly you don't understand what made the German army so successful. Pro tip; it was combined operations with air and land units coupled with fast moving armored elements that exploit tactical break troughs and turn them into strategic break troughs. If you think you can line infantry in a line and expect to hold you're deluded.

>Germany needed a quick victory and Sweden is wholly the wrong opponent for that.
And how is that the case? Germany won quick victories against far larger states with better, larger and more heavily equipped armies. What makes Sweden special exactly? The 30 or so tanks that Sweden had in 1940? Again, take a look at the performance of those larger and better equipped armies which the Germans quite literally steam rolled in weeks if not days. Again, what makes Sweden special in this regard?

>They could've won in a drawn out fight over a couple of months
How? What is stopping a German panzer division moving across Swedish territory? Sweden had no motorized elements barely any anti-tank capabilities, any opposition would simply be side-lined like was the case in aforementioned campaigns.

>if the allies wouldn't help Sweden
Help how? They way they helped Poland? Would the allies teleport into the Baltic? This is literally nothing but wishful thinking.

>Wishful thinking is when you think handing out rifles is what constitutes "being ready for an invasion"
Swedish conscripted soldiers were stationed everywhere along the borders of Sweden. Since Germanys jig was up they were prepared for their surprise schnitzel if they would've attacked. This eliminates the element of surprise.
>And how is that the case?
They needed a quick victory since a prolonged war over the sea would've delayed action against the allies in the battle of France. Time is against them and they know it.
>What makes Sweden special?
Yugoslavia was gangbanged from all sides and Hollands conscripted armies were busy building unfinished fortifications. Germany could also build up a local numerical superiority in ways they won't be able to in a battle against the northern countries.

We need to define the type of invasion if we're supposed to keep arguing this. I'm imagining, as was the original poster you answered to, that along with the invasion of Norway Germany either invaded Sweden simultaneously or they took over Norway and then didn't stop when they saw the Swedish border.

>Swedish conscripted soldiers were stationed everywhere along the borders of Sweden
Great, that's only, what, 1000km of borders? This makes it LESS likely of a successful defense. Defending across a broad front, like Poland did, is something you should never do against an enemy that has both superior numbers and far superior mobile elements that will exploit that broad front while you yourself have none.

>Since Germanys jig was up they were prepared for their surprise schnitzel if they would've attacked.
What prevents German units from moving across Sweden after they break trough? Sweden has NONE, ZERO, mobile reserves. Do you even have the slightest ideas of how the German army attained its success? Do you think this is the 15th century with armies facing off in a pitched field battle?

>This eliminates the element of surprise.
Ah, yes, like in Poland?

>They needed a quick victory since a prolonged war over the sea would've delayed action against the allies in the battle of France.
Why would there be a prolonged war over the sea? With what would Sweden fight that war? A small navy and even smaller air force? How exactly are you imagining this?

>Yugoslavia was gangbanged from all sides and Hollands conscripted armies were busy building unfinished fortifications
I like how you ignored Belgium and how you started pretending that the Dutch army was just ignorantly building fortifications and didn't notice the German attack. The Yugoslav army was almost twice that of Sweden, it collapsed in a few days. "it got gang banged from all sides" doesn't explain why it collapsed, neither does it explain the Belgium, Polish, French, etc armies. They all collapsed because of the position they found themselves in.

>Germany could also build up a local numerical superiority in ways they won't be able to in a battle against the northern countries.
Germany did not win due to numerical superiority. In fact the German spearhead composed of armored units was pretty fucking small.

>We need to define the type of invasion if we're supposed to keep arguing this.
At the end of the day it doesn't even matter because Sweden didn't have shit to defend with except lightly equipped infantry.

Pulling away even greater resources from the upcoming battle of France is a shit idea since unlike Norway and Denmark, Sweden was actually prepared and had a huge army. It may be canon fodder but logistically Germany couldn't have been able to take on Sweden in the same way they took out the other countries of Europe. Germanys small navy cucked itself in the battle for Norway and you intend to not only bring Swedens navy into the fight but also increase the logistical strain by bringing in hundreds of thousands of more soldiers?
Unless the question is 'Could Germany have taken out Sweden instead of Norway?' then Germany doesn't get the quick victory it needs.

Your examples were Yugoslavia and Holland, both of which fell for the reasons I mentioned. I know this is trite but I'm questioning your awareness of actual WW2 history here.
Properly define your invasion of Sweden here or consider yourself schooled.

>Sweden was actually prepared and had a huge army.
You keep saying this but Sweden was not prepared and did not have a huge army. You have to be literally deluded to believe this line. How many pieces of heavy artillery did Sweden poses? How many tanks did Sweden poses? How many trucks did Sweden poses? How many air craft did Sweden poses? How many surface ships did Sweden poses?

>Germanys small navy cucked itself in the battle for Norway and you intend to not only bring Swedens navy into the fight but also increase the logistical strain by bringing in hundreds of thousands of more soldiers?
What logistical strain? The Germans were not strained in the Baltic. The casualties the German navy suffered were mostly in the north Sea or directly from coastal defenses, not in the Baltic Sea, where the Royal Navy could not intervene.

>Your examples were Yugoslavia and Holland, both of which fell for the reasons I mentioned.
Wrong, they both fell because they were not equipped to deal with 20th century mobile warfare and instead relied on mass conscription. Turns out having X men doesn't stop a mechanized army with air support that can just by-pass and isolate any points of resistance.

>then Germany doesn't get the quick victory it needs.
Yeah, because Swedish rifle men are super human, right?

>Properly define your invasion of Sweden here or consider yourself schooled.
There's no point, you'll just maintain that SWEDEN STRONK and was not impossible to invade meanwhile countries with far larger armies were broken in a matter of weeks.

Boyhood is thinking two armies met on the grassy plains of BattlefieldTown and the one which was best won the war.
Adulthood is realising context is key.
Have a nice day.

>No-go zones are part an parcel.
desu no go zones are pretty comfy. I live in one.

Shitskins out!

So now let's get real for a minute here. Even though Yugos, Iraqis, Somaliens and so on are shit-tier immigrants, and not really known for education and working hard in their own countries, the Swedish state wasn't really doing much to improve the situation. I'm talking about the 90s here. I mean, if you shove all crappy foreigners into the same commie block in one neighbourhood and then have zero integration programs, it's not a mystery what will happen. They will form their own criminal economies.

Finns, Norwegians, Poles, Danes, Chileans -- they don't really cause problems do they?

Yes Sven yes we get it, Somalis and Arabs and balkan filfth are running amok not because they wete given too many luxury flats and free education but because they wete given too few...

A) I'm not Swedish. Try thinking about a message before posting, instead of creaming your pants with glee that you get to post your same old /pol/ copypasta.

B) I'm not talking about giving handouts to shitskins. I'm saying they have to work and contribute, but if they (any immigrant group, really) are are not granted reasonably fair access (or opportunity to access) to the job market, then you will get a certain amount criminality. As I said, Yugos, Somalis and Arabs aren't known for reaching the loftiest heights of education and work ethic, but there you go. Sweden imported shit-tier immigrants in a show of humanitarian MeTooism (in the 90s), but then had no real plan for them. What's more, they were too poor and deprived to understand social welfare system isn't meant to be free manna from heaven forever (I doubt very many native Swedes would consider it honourable to stay on welfare for any longer then necessary). Rather it's meant to keep you floating to straighten yourself out. But for a Somali or Arab refugee, it's like they hit the jackpot.

Free education isn't a bad thing per se, although I do think there should be some low token tuition fees to make students appreciate what they're studying (I work at a uni, and I see what entitled unethusiastic shits a near-free university education does in my country). The "luxury flats" myth is as retarded as always.

...

>The Jews might have suffered most during WW2
Slavs suffered the worst, not Jews

How the fuck do you have 1.9 children?

> The 30 or so tanks that Sweden had in 1940?
Sweden made hundreds of tanks

One is normal, the 0.9 one posts Pepes on Veeky Forums.

Do you not know what "on average" means? The average roll of a die is 3.5, despite the fact that you will never actually roll one. You get the average Swedish woman having 1.9 kids by having a bunch of them have 0 or 1 kids, and others having more, so that when you take the total number of babies and divide it by the total number of women, you get 1.9

I don't think the dude is saying that Swedes will march in Berlin in a year, he's just telling you invasion would be a costly affair for Germans.
And it certainly would be. Swedish terrain isn't really suited for mechanized warfare, Swedes did have an okay-ish native arms industry, and they were prepared for a conflict. Furthermore KM was crippled in Norway and later on so Swedish Navy might cause a lot of frustration to German operations, even if Luftwaffe would achieve air superiority.
Also, your vision of war being nothing but a confrontation of equipment in a vaccuum is childish.
Germans would have problems supplying an invasion force in Norway, and invading from Denmark would be even harder.

How the fuck are 'averages' a new concept for you?

I think China wants word with you, m8.

I would imagine that attacking Sweden would cause other Scandis to rise up (FWIW). All the Aryan propaganda wouldn't look so nice if the Nazis were battering their Norse idols.

It's true that long-term Sweden could probably not defeat Germany just from a numbers game, but I also think it would be more complicated then assumed.

Out of the weeds came a dozen Swedes, pursued by one Norwegian.