
Sweden distributes 'be prepared for war' leaflet to all 4.8m homes - plg
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/21/sweden-distributes-be-prepared-for-war-cyber-terror-attack-leaflet-to-every-home
======
viksit
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_...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/02/occupied_a_political_thriller_on_climate_change_now_on_netflix_reviewed.html)

~~~
sorokod
The Russians had a go at Finland in 1939.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War)

~~~
dogma1138
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](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War)

~~~
kinsomo
> 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization)

~~~
dogma1138
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.

~~~
mkempe
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?

~~~
dogma1138
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Mannerheim_recording).

------
mindcrash
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden)

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

[3] [http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/10/sweden-has-a-problem-
with...](http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/10/sweden-has-a-problem-with-hand-
grenades-and-here-s-why)

[4] [https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/violent-crime-in-
sweden-...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/violent-crime-in-sweden-is-
soaring-when-will-politicians-act/)

------
chvid
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.

~~~
arojn
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...](https://www.msb.se/en/Tools/News/The-brochure-If-Crisis-or-War-Comes-
is-available-to-download/)

------
Willson50
> “we will never give up. All information to the effect that resistance is to
> cease is false.”

That seems like a rather dangerous philosophy.

~~~
mkempe
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.

~~~
kinsomo
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/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Usability_and_maintenance)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip#Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip#Sweden)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49L9BlYQSjw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49L9BlYQSjw)

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

------
moneytide1
It's as if war occurs when too many resources are sitting idle not being mass
deployed for some common goal.

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

