[ptr]

"It seems that wasnt the case for most subs", according to whom? The book you're referencing? Read the abstract: "After a Soviet Whiskey submarine was stranded in 1981 in the Swedish archipelago ... Today, all evidence for Soviet intrusions appears to have been manipulated, or simply invented. " so NATO would steal a Soviet sub, fill it with Soviet navy guys, and bash it against the Swedish shoreline? Seems reasonable.

I'm going to use Occam's razor here; the SU had extensive plans to invade Sweden (as it had against the rest of [central] Europe). I'm pretty sure they practiced those plans.

[cf141q5325]

The Swedish government back then attributed only two of these submarines to the soviets, one of them being the stranded Whiskey sub. The second case was also later disputed.

I think you understand that the author isnt talking about the Whiskey sub being invented or staged.

To "most", the sentences after your quote is the interesting one.

> Classified documents point to covert US and UK activity. Former US secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger stated that Western submarines operated ‘regularly’ and ‘frequently’ in Swedish waters in order to ‘test’ the Swedish coastal defences, and former British navy minister Sir Keith Speed confirms the existence of such operations. Royal Navy submarine captains admit having carried out top-secret operations in Swedish waters, and that a member of Cabinet signed approval for every single operation

Here is a different source if you prefer that.

https://www.apnews.com/f0a9cfd83c430978e6545b902f1160d2

[ptr]

The Swedish government is and was very cautious to not point fingers without having proof. Getting proof is often hard when it comes to submarines. Unless they get beached on your islands...

According to the article you're linking: "'NATO subs never entered Swedish waters without being given approval beforehand,' Weinberger said."

Sweden dropped depth charges on these submarines. You think the Swedish government would invite NATO subs just to drop bombs on them?

[cf141q5325]

The swedish government didnt tell their population which saw dozens of submarines and went in to a panic expecting a soviet invasion.

Again, the whole quote:

>Many military officials and politicians said they had never heard of the NATO exercises.

>``You need some sort of agreement to do a thing like this. But I know nothing of such an agreement,″ said Admiral Per Rudberg, head of the navy from 1978 to 1984.

>Current Defense Minister Bjoern von Sydow said he was surprised, but added, ``I have no reason to question what a former U.S. defense secretary is saying.″

The head of the navy didnt know.

[ptr]

Sweden was already expecting a soviet invasion.

OK, so you're arguing that the government invited NATO without letting the navy know? That sounds incredibly risky. Again, Occam's razor.

[cf141q5325]

It doesnt really matter what I claim, what we know is sufficient and we have that already quoted here.

> Classified documents point to covert US and UK activity. Former US secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger stated that Western submarines operated ‘regularly’ and ‘frequently’ in Swedish waters in order to ‘test’ the Swedish coastal defences, and former British navy minister Sir Keith Speed confirms the existence of such operations. Royal Navy submarine captains admit having carried out top-secret operations in Swedish waters, and that a member of Cabinet signed approval for every single operation

as well as

>Many military officials and politicians said they had never heard of the NATO exercises.

>``You need some sort of agreement to do a thing like this. But I know nothing of such an agreement,″ said Admiral Per Rudberg, head of the navy from 1978 to 1984.

>Current Defense Minister Bjoern von Sydow said he was surprised, but added, ``I have no reason to question what a former U.S. defense secretary is saying.″

To summarize, we know that both the US and the UK have carried out submarine incursions into swedish waters, the US on a "frequent and regular base". We also know, that the head of the Swedish Navy did not know these operations, "to test Swedish costal defenses" took place.

So unless you are arguing the source (which source, AP?) is doctored, I really dont understand what you are trying to do with Occam's razor.

On the implications of these informations: If we are arguing about the effect on the Swedish population as well as on the government, I think it would be fair to summarize the period as Sweden getting more and more nervous with one sub sighting after another. Which at the time was assumed to be soviet subs by the public, leading to an increased fear of a soviet invasion and a more positive view on becoming a NATO member. Sweden is a democracy, the populations view is rather important.

[ptr]

That means that you are in fact arguing that the government invited Nato to invade Sweden without letting the armed forces know. This is incredibly reckless due to the decentralized nature of the command structure -- why would Nato put their crews in harm's way just to test the Swedish reaction? If exposed, the government officials could actually face charges of treason. Would they accept that personal risk, just to test Sweden's readiness...?

Doing these kind of reckless stunts just to get Sweden to side with Nato was definitely not needed. Sweden was already on Nato's side, and everyone knew that.

I can imagine Sweden's friends in Nato were invited from time to time to practice together. But that doesn't exclude a presence from the Soviet union, and we have actual proof (not just people saying things) that the Soviets were in fact in Swedish waters. Deep within a military protection area in a hard-to-navigate archipelago on top of it, and possibly with nuclear warhead torpedos!

Also when you refer to things such as

> Current Defense Minister Bjoern von Sydow said he was surprised, but added, ``I have no reason to question what a former U.S. defense secretary is saying.″

That just means that he can neither refute nor affirm whatever has been said. Ie, he either knows nothing, or can't say anything. The statement gives no information, except that he was personally surprised. A lot of statements from politicians are like this.

I'm signing off on this now. I don't understand your interest in this topic nor why it's so important for you to show that it wasn't the Soviet union. The Soviet union is gone, but they were a real threat back then.

[jacobush]

Whatever was behind it, it didn't matter to local commanders. I know of one incident where a local officer ordered the detonation of a full line of moored mines across a strait. So if it was something there, it was a bad day for them, NATO or Soviet.