War is rarely fought on equal terms. On the contrary, before an upcoming war, stronger actors are often predicted to be the winner against the weaker one. History offers several examples that this isn’t always the case, if the weaker actor plays their cards well. Sweden’s military-strategic doctrine (MSD 16) describes the will, in case of being attacked, to win togheter with other actors - or to avoid defeat on it’s own. These descriptions are eerily similair to the German invasion of Norway 1940 and the Winter War 1939 – 1940. Supported by the Allies, Norway didn’t win, which led to a German occupation. Finland, on it’s own, avoided defeat, rendering in a draw against the Soviet Union. The study’s aim is to test Arreguín-Toft’s Strategic Interaction theory. Furthermore, the study aims to shed light on the strategic methods that resultet in success and adversity, in relation to the weak actor’s strategic goals. The results show that the Strategic interaction theory can explain the outcome of the conflicts to a certain degree. Success and adversity are both identified in the cases and serves as empirical basis that, to a certain degree, supports the will of the Swedish military-strategic doctrine.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:fhs-9220 |
| Date | January 2020 |
| Creators | Almén, Adam |
| Publisher | Försvarshögskolan |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds