Inded, the only time I've seen it suggested in fiction was in Fletcher Knebel's Night of Camp David, where President Hollenbach favors annexing the whole of Scandinavia (and Canada also). But Hollenbach is portrayed as mentally ill.
WI: The United States invades Sweden in the 1970s?
- Thread starter dokidokiboy
- Start date
There is a very real problem with the use of Casus Belli. The War in Vietnam was not a declared war, it was a state of belligerency, a term in International Law that has fallen out of favour and largely been supplanted by terms such as Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The legal implications of, and between, the two are very real.
First of all, absent a legal state of war, aid given to the Viet Cong is quite legal. It is no different than U.S. aid given for example, to China prior to Pearl Harbor; of for that matter, of Soviet aid given to China prior to August 1945. Legally, Japan and China were in a state of peace with one another, no matter how many millions of dead may protest otherwise. Providing aid to a nation Japan is legally at peace with is no legal affront to Japan.
Invocation of Casus Belli has another side effect. A declaration of war conveys diplomatic recognition on the recipient(s) of the declaration. Citing or invoking Casus Belli against Sweden grants diplomatic recognition on the National Liberation Front as the legitimate government of South Vietnam, the mechanism by which Swedish aid becomes an act of war against the United States as a privileged entity now engaged in a declared war.
We lesser mortals argued the merits of declaring a state of war against the Taliban Government of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda after 9/11; as opposed to passage of an AUMF. There are obviously liabilities in granting legal recognition to a terrorist organization and its sponsors. For example, personnel captured on the battlefield must be released within six months of the legal cessation of hostilities. Immunity is given to officials unless successfully prosecuted at a formal war crimes tribunal, which are quite limited; and would not include, for example, material support to terrorism.
Advantages are that anyone associated with the Taliban or Al Qaeda found in a nation which has not recognized the Taliban or Al Qaeda and is neutral in the conflict must intern the Taliban or Al Qaeda associates until the cessation of the conflict. This would create a headache for Pakistan, for example, which would have to restrict all movement across its border with Afghanistan. It also greatly expands permissible military rules of engagement.
I've tried to keep this simple, but obviously once individual cases and incidents multiply, they will become extremely complex. Policy consistency becomes difficult.
This may explain a small part of the why the Vietnam War was waged the way it was. If I were advising the President considering any military action against Sweden, I would remind him of the sage advice to remember that the sex life improves when you quit hammering your nuts flat.
Hope I haven't bored anyone.
Not bored here. It's amazing what you can learn about actual history through doing alt history.
My latest theory [1] is that President Nixon was trying to assemble an Ikea wardrobe and things just kind of escalated from there.
[1] possibly ingluenced by rum.
We'd have to imagine an ATL where by some date in the 1970s Sweden had become a feared and despised pariah nation. This is even with the USA meanwhile also going down a parallel path of outright dictatorship, to shut up the vast numbers of American citizens who would have quite a bit of sympathy with Sweden's OTL official position--but it is not enough for the USA to be an authoritarian dictatorship ourselves; if the more powerful nations of Western Europe despised both Uncle Sam and the ATL Swedes, they would first of all break the NATO alliance, or rather reconstitute it as a wholly European thing and send the Yankees home (or give them asylum, those who didn't want to go home to such an America) then handle the regime change wanted in Sweden themselves.
With Sweden being united with similar capabilities to OTL, anyone trying to force unwanted change there would have tough sledding--one might think therefore the NATO European nations call on the USA with its vast capacities, but of course OTL we were deeply bogged down in 'Nam. No telling how things would be in an ATL but probably not being tied down in SE Asia means the region has already gone Communist (which might help explain a right wing dictatorship in the US to be sure).
But if Sweden is much hated and feared in Europe, presumably it is different than OTL, by a lot. On one hand, maybe considerably more armed and fanatical than OTL; on the other, would any regime in Sweden so despised outside it be capable of the sort of arms the Swedes made OTL?
And if Sweden has gone so wrong the nations of Europe would even consider pulling a Western version of the Brezhnev Doctrine and invading to impose some order more to their liking, facing the steep cost of it, would Sweden itself be united in its vaguely imagined wrongheadedness? Might it not be itself a fanatical regime barely able to suppress opposition which would turn on it immediately if foreign troops were invading?
It is just plain silly to suggest even an American President, even one as weasel-like as Nixon, would seriously expect even Americans, poorly informed as we tended and tend to be, to follow a trumpet call to invade Sweden just because the government and presumably a majority of free democratic voters there share an opinion or three with millions of US born and raised anti-war protestors in the USA. Might be different if the US regime itself is a dictatorship arising precisely to silence and repress those American protestors, but starting with slapping the Swedes down is completely absurd.
The elephant in the room is that the other European powers aren't a lot less "guilty" than Sweden would be. NATO did not actively and usefully support the US adventure in Vietnam either, certainly not with troops. (Australia, I believe under SEATO auspices and in general alliance as well as having regional interests, did send some troops to Vietnam). And plenty of their citizens enjoying democratic freedom also had what ranged from reservations to outright opposition to US policy.
If the European nations stand aside and let Uncle Sam declare a cage fight, just US against Sweden, they are setting themselves up to be taken down one by one in turn by the mad American gorilla. (Assuming the mad American gorilla is not deranged and disintegrating itself due to the strong opposition of repressed US former citizens now subjects threatening to fight a second American Revolutionary War to overthrow such a high handed, headstrong, and idiotic regime). If in fact the USA were crazy and stupid enough to take such a disproportionate stance, in OTL circumstances, we just would not be in Europe at all, save by invading and fighting our way to the Swedish borders via conquering Norway and Denmark and then having to fight off the British and in these circumstances, the French and West Germans and everyone else in western Europe. (Except maybe Francoist Spain I suppose, and whatever dictatorship we might have imposed in Greece, but we would not have access to the latter; perhaps we could bribe Italy to stay pro-Yankee, maybe).
They aren't going to stand aside and let Uncle Sam pick on a smaller power unhindered--whereas if they agree with Washington, soberly, that the Swedish regime, which would have to be ATL nasty, for much weightier reasons than expressing sympathy for the right of Vietnamese people to have different political opinions than dictated by the US security complex (which remember, not all US citizens agreed with, especially after the ongoing debacle in 'Nam) then in that case it would indeed have to be a bloc action, the risks, costs, guilt (and credit) shared by all the major NATO powers--and if we are not so ATL the USA is already out of Southeast Asia on our ear, it would in fact be the European forces that outnumber the Yankees. If the USA commands the same degree of respect it did OTL despite Nixon (or if you like, reservations about Johnson, Kennedy, and even Eisenhower (the Suez crisis would like a word with him after all)) then no doubt the US forces would be leading and coordinating the joint effort, but it would hardly be properly labeled "US invades Sweden" except I suppose in suitably slavish US newspapers and TV reports.
With all NATO in on it, the military situation is quite different of course--the main thing would be to contain the Swedish navy and air force in the Baltic while mustering a land invasion force in Norway then surging over that border to systematically secure the place. Which, again, if Sweden retains both its OTL military quality and quantity, and also general loyalty of Swedes to the regime, would be a hard and costly fight, one NATO would win by attrition primarily--very fast attrition to be sure. Then God knows what it would take to occupy and suitably reform Sweden itself, a lot would depend on just how and why Sweden went all pariah in the first place. "They've got to be protected, all their rights respected, until someone we like can be elected!" Hah, that might be forever. Or genocide of course.
Anyway it is pretty inconceivable that Sweden would wind up doing anything that would approach justifying such an extreme response, or even making it plausible very bad men could persuade a nation or five it was the expedient thing to do. It is less inconceivable to me that the USA might turn into such an overtly blowhard and impetuous monster of a military dictatorship, but if we did, we'd lose all soft power and not be welcome anywhere in Europe save a few outposts themselves of dubious decency and quite weak in themselves, and a united Europe could well insist we don't lodge ourselves even there in places like Spain.
We'd be invading Britain or Ireland or southern France first, you see. And not get anywhere near Sweden until a general nuclear Armageddon ensues mooting the whole mess.
With Sweden being united with similar capabilities to OTL, anyone trying to force unwanted change there would have tough sledding--one might think therefore the NATO European nations call on the USA with its vast capacities, but of course OTL we were deeply bogged down in 'Nam. No telling how things would be in an ATL but probably not being tied down in SE Asia means the region has already gone Communist (which might help explain a right wing dictatorship in the US to be sure).
But if Sweden is much hated and feared in Europe, presumably it is different than OTL, by a lot. On one hand, maybe considerably more armed and fanatical than OTL; on the other, would any regime in Sweden so despised outside it be capable of the sort of arms the Swedes made OTL?
And if Sweden has gone so wrong the nations of Europe would even consider pulling a Western version of the Brezhnev Doctrine and invading to impose some order more to their liking, facing the steep cost of it, would Sweden itself be united in its vaguely imagined wrongheadedness? Might it not be itself a fanatical regime barely able to suppress opposition which would turn on it immediately if foreign troops were invading?
It is just plain silly to suggest even an American President, even one as weasel-like as Nixon, would seriously expect even Americans, poorly informed as we tended and tend to be, to follow a trumpet call to invade Sweden just because the government and presumably a majority of free democratic voters there share an opinion or three with millions of US born and raised anti-war protestors in the USA. Might be different if the US regime itself is a dictatorship arising precisely to silence and repress those American protestors, but starting with slapping the Swedes down is completely absurd.
The elephant in the room is that the other European powers aren't a lot less "guilty" than Sweden would be. NATO did not actively and usefully support the US adventure in Vietnam either, certainly not with troops. (Australia, I believe under SEATO auspices and in general alliance as well as having regional interests, did send some troops to Vietnam). And plenty of their citizens enjoying democratic freedom also had what ranged from reservations to outright opposition to US policy.
If the European nations stand aside and let Uncle Sam declare a cage fight, just US against Sweden, they are setting themselves up to be taken down one by one in turn by the mad American gorilla. (Assuming the mad American gorilla is not deranged and disintegrating itself due to the strong opposition of repressed US former citizens now subjects threatening to fight a second American Revolutionary War to overthrow such a high handed, headstrong, and idiotic regime). If in fact the USA were crazy and stupid enough to take such a disproportionate stance, in OTL circumstances, we just would not be in Europe at all, save by invading and fighting our way to the Swedish borders via conquering Norway and Denmark and then having to fight off the British and in these circumstances, the French and West Germans and everyone else in western Europe. (Except maybe Francoist Spain I suppose, and whatever dictatorship we might have imposed in Greece, but we would not have access to the latter; perhaps we could bribe Italy to stay pro-Yankee, maybe).
They aren't going to stand aside and let Uncle Sam pick on a smaller power unhindered--whereas if they agree with Washington, soberly, that the Swedish regime, which would have to be ATL nasty, for much weightier reasons than expressing sympathy for the right of Vietnamese people to have different political opinions than dictated by the US security complex (which remember, not all US citizens agreed with, especially after the ongoing debacle in 'Nam) then in that case it would indeed have to be a bloc action, the risks, costs, guilt (and credit) shared by all the major NATO powers--and if we are not so ATL the USA is already out of Southeast Asia on our ear, it would in fact be the European forces that outnumber the Yankees. If the USA commands the same degree of respect it did OTL despite Nixon (or if you like, reservations about Johnson, Kennedy, and even Eisenhower (the Suez crisis would like a word with him after all)) then no doubt the US forces would be leading and coordinating the joint effort, but it would hardly be properly labeled "US invades Sweden" except I suppose in suitably slavish US newspapers and TV reports.
With all NATO in on it, the military situation is quite different of course--the main thing would be to contain the Swedish navy and air force in the Baltic while mustering a land invasion force in Norway then surging over that border to systematically secure the place. Which, again, if Sweden retains both its OTL military quality and quantity, and also general loyalty of Swedes to the regime, would be a hard and costly fight, one NATO would win by attrition primarily--very fast attrition to be sure. Then God knows what it would take to occupy and suitably reform Sweden itself, a lot would depend on just how and why Sweden went all pariah in the first place. "They've got to be protected, all their rights respected, until someone we like can be elected!" Hah, that might be forever. Or genocide of course.
Anyway it is pretty inconceivable that Sweden would wind up doing anything that would approach justifying such an extreme response, or even making it plausible very bad men could persuade a nation or five it was the expedient thing to do. It is less inconceivable to me that the USA might turn into such an overtly blowhard and impetuous monster of a military dictatorship, but if we did, we'd lose all soft power and not be welcome anywhere in Europe save a few outposts themselves of dubious decency and quite weak in themselves, and a united Europe could well insist we don't lodge ourselves even there in places like Spain.
We'd be invading Britain or Ireland or southern France first, you see. And not get anywhere near Sweden until a general nuclear Armageddon ensues mooting the whole mess.
It goes without saying that this is how the US would lose the Cold War. Even if Sweden somehow became a deeply unpopular tyranny without western Europe changing, the United States mounting an invasion is going to make it deeply unpopular among its allies. Not unreasonably, people might start to wonder how wrong the Americans are. Maybe the Viet Cong is right.
Making the Soviet Union look like a status quo power in Europe is a huge own goal.
Making the Soviet Union look like a status quo power in Europe is a huge own goal.
I can see husker du and the replacements singing about it a decade later
“ sorry pa forgot to load my gun “ or something like that
This.
The Italian Communist Party wins the next election hands down, with a platform of leaving NATO ASAP, if NATO even survives this long. The PCF might go Front Populaire again, and win.
Assuming Revolutionary Portugal exists here... I guess they'll just join the Eastern Bloc outright.
The European Western alliance collapses, and whatever survives out of it would have to recenter to, I'd guess, Paris or London...
Cold War ends, the Soviet Union won.
Societal malaise, division, deep isolationism grip the US.
The ensuing Soviet unipolar hegemony phase will be shakier and more contentious than America's OTL global dominance.
China would oppose it starkly and a lot more countries would not like it. The US are wounded and discredited, but still a large power.
While the premise of this scenario is ridicolously unrealistic, it's consequences are interesting to think about.
It is quite fatalistic to think that after the invasion NATO would cease to exist, it was needed less by the US and more by Europe and the fear of a Soviet invasion or spreading or communism.
The majority of NATO members will grit their teeth, swear at the US but stand together because it is obvious the government who ordered the invasion will not last and the next one will certainly be more reasonable. Though no doubt stuff will change with NATO and European-US relations will degrade, there will be consequences but not extreme ones like the dissolution of NATO or the US becoming a pariah or whatever. The US knee-jerk reaction to invade Sweden will not be answered by more knee-jerk actions but by moderate and politically empowering moves that attempt to maintain a status quo.
The majority of NATO members will grit their teeth, swear at the US but stand together because it is obvious the government who ordered the invasion will not last and the next one will certainly be more reasonable. Though no doubt stuff will change with NATO and European-US relations will degrade, there will be consequences but not extreme ones like the dissolution of NATO or the US becoming a pariah or whatever. The US knee-jerk reaction to invade Sweden will not be answered by more knee-jerk actions but by moderate and politically empowering moves that attempt to maintain a status quo.
Wouldn't this require the US invasion, occupation and possible withdrawal to have been successful with no ongoing conflict or insurgency?
As far as I can see 85% of Swedish males had done national service during the Cold War. That's a lot of people with military training.
Neither President Johnson nor Nixon nor any hypothetical American administration elected between 1964 and 1972 would ever pursue a war against a Sweden and if they did, Congress would never authorize one.
Sweden still has not joined, it applied last year but Hungary and Turkey still has not ratified Sweden's application.
Strictly speaking there wasn't an EU to be joined yet, it was still the European Community.
It is hardly fatalistic. The United States has just demonstrated that it is willing to launch a costly war against a supposedly friendly unaligned neighbour without a casus belli. In this sense the United States is less predictable and more dangerous than the Soviet Union, which invaded only its satellite states. The status quo has been ruptured: The US is now the biggest threat to its allies.
Really silly idea I'm sorry I just can't see this happening. It'd cause the worst PR the US had done for itself in its entire history and be an incredible strategic blunder since invading Sweden would be incredibly difficult and not worth it.
I think you missed the "you and what army" segment of the conversation. If the land of the free dictates staging and overflight rights for this ...venture to it's NATO allies and threatens the reluctant ones (and there will be reluctant ones) as was posited, then NATO would indeed cease to exist.
Well put. This is a fundamental shift of the world stage. Anyone who expects business as usual afterwards is naive. This isn't Grenada or Iraq. The Danish will be able to see the explosions! Add in the threatening behaviour to see it done? The FRG, Denmark & UK are all nominally democracies. Even if the incumbent governments accede to this strong-arming, come the next elections..... The US isn't an occupying power in the 1970s, it is there at it's hosts' behest. At least the USAFE squadrons will finally get better weather to fly in.
Does Europe need the US forces deployed there? Yes. Right up to the moment they pull a stunt like this. Rupture is a very good word for it.
Last edited:
Western Europe in aggregate has the potential to form a third superpower, and this might do it.
For all we know, if the Soviets play their cards well they could get some sort of a grand bargain.
Again, the Soviets even a few years after the crushing of the Prague Spring would look reasonable compared to the US.