In message , bill
writes
>On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:50:46 +0100, Bradipus wrote:
>
>> bill, 10:24, luned́ 23 gennaio 2012:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:18:36 +1100, SolomonW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Ooops everyone is correct, I should have said Sweden.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question's about as appropriate for Sweden too. Neutral
>>>>> countries which were surrounded by Axis territory were pretty well
>>>>> dominated without the trouble of an invasion.
>>>>
>>>> If the are well behaved, do not interfere and relatively small.
>>>
>>> The Germans would have been well advised to invade Sweden, the British
>>> managed to run regular supply conveys and flights in and out of there
>>> carrying parts, mainly specialised bearings, there were unavailable to
>>> them anywhere else.
>>
>>
>> On the other hand they had to place there some third rank infantry
>> division.
>
>Well given the choice between the UK not getting vital supplies and a
>third rate infantry division I think I'd take the UK being inconvenienced.
Fide Wikipedia, the German garrison in Norway was counted in hundred of
thousands. Sweden is easier terrain, but larger and more populous. I
doubt that one division would be anywhere near sufficient. Apparently
even Denmark has a garrison of 200,000 troops.
http://www.milhist.dk/besattelsen/ww2stat/ww2stat.html
>
>>
>>
>>> Also they'd have got their hands on Niels Bohr...
>>
>>
>> Was him important for Manhattan Project?
>>
>
>Horribly so.
>
--
Kelbert Hawsing |
