Ask questions via twitter! Message any question to @answers on twitter. We'll publish the question and send you a reply each time there's a new answer.
Next Question

Answered Question

mike mike
 
M$1 January 28, 2009 05:43 PM

Was Sweden neutral in World War II?

In a recent spat between Jessica Alba and FOX News' Bill O'Reilly/TMZ, Alba made reference to the fact that Sweden was neutral during World War 2. Was Sweden neutral during the war
Interesting Question?  Yes (1)   No (0)   
RSS
 
 

Best Answer  Chosen by Asker

dumblonde dumblonde
 
 January 28, 2009 05:53 PM
Yes they were in theory. Officially Sweden was neutral in WW2 but both the Nazis and the Allies fought very strongly for influence in Scandinavia and it's disputed if Sweden could have been indeed under Nazi influence because of the way Sweden complied with Germany in order to protect themselves.

Here's the Wikipedia article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II

I don't entirely agree with the article because its definition of neutrality is a little naive. (For example it claims Spain was neutral during WW2 and that's highly debatable seeing as it was obviously Fascist.) But it sheds light on the whole debate about Swedish neutrality.

So the official answer is yes. The historical analysis says maybe.


Helpful Answer?  (2)   (0)    Tip dumblonde for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
robbrown robbrown
 
January 28, 2009 06:07 PM
Sweden's neutrality was swayed slightly with the events that effected it. That's where the argument occurs with historical analysts. They'll try and add up all of the events logically and as reported, but often fall fail when subjection sneaks in.

Report
 
 
philipy philipy
 
January 28, 2009 06:58 PM
Sweden and Spain were both neutral in WW2, as were Ireland, Portugal and Switzerland.

Obviously neutral countries may have their sympathies with one side or another, and may even provide assistance short of outright military support, but that doesn't mean they are active participants in the war.

None of the countries mentioned above engaged in combat operations against either side in WW2, i.e. the Allies or Axis powers, and nor were they the target of military action by either side.

Take other wars as a comparison...

Britain was not a participant in the Vietnam war, though otherwise an ally of the US.

In the Falklands war, though the US was certainly not engaged in the war, and made diplomatic efforts to try to prevent the war, it seems clear that the American people were massively pro-British, and the US military provided some logistical and intelligence help.

Report
 
 
dumblonde dumblonde
 
January 28, 2009 07:18 PM
On Spain: How neutral can Spain when they offered up its military facilities, personnel and funds for Nazi use? Even Spanish soldiers fought for Nazi Germany.
It's naive and just outright wrong to say that Spain was neutral during WW2. Neutrality implies no such alignment.
Not to mention the whole Guernica incident, in which Spain allowed Germany to bomb the Basque country some years before. To say Germany and Spain were friendly is an understatement.
Lack of direct participation in a war does not imply neutrality. Under international law and basic IR theory neutrality implies NOT TAKING A SIDE, not just non-participation.
See: The Second Hague Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_World_War_II
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp

Report
 
 
philipy philipy
 
January 29, 2009 05:31 AM
This seems to have turned into a debate about semantics, i.e. how to use the word "neutral" rather than the facts of what happened.

Ireland and the US (before Pearl Harbour) helped Britain in various ways while defining their positions as neutrality. You might think that was a bad or dishonest choice of word on their part, but it is the common usage.

According to the Wikipedia article you mentioned, Spain termed its position as being a "non-belligerent", but the article also says that term is not recognised in international law.

Call it what you want, but realise that a lot of people call it something else.

The link below takes you to a Google books scan of Winston Churchill's "The Second World War" p459 where he repeatedly talks about Spain's neutrality.

http://tinyurl.com/adyfbz

You are entitled to think Churchill was not using the right word if you want. But at least recognise that it is a possible and common terminology, and people are entitled to use it that way if they want.

Report
 
 
dumblonde dumblonde
 
January 29, 2009 01:06 PM
Well it is a clear violation of Article 4 of Hague V, Chapter I to provide troops and facilities to a belligerent (something that Spain clearly did). No offense to Churchill but he might have not even known about Spain's actions at the time. A lot of what Spain did under Franco wasn't known until after Franco's death when a lot of things came pouring out into the open.
There are also diplomatic and economic motivations behind not accusing Spain of being a Nazi sympathizer. Spain is a major trader in Western Europe. And Spain did distance itself from Hitler after it became clear they were losing the war. Maybe that neutrality he refers to is post 1943 when Franco backed down.
Few things are cut and dry in history. But since I am inclined to use legal definitions I stay by my stance that Spain wasn't neutral during WW2 and that they were Nazi sympathizers and they aided them in very specific ways that violate the legal definition of neutrality.

Report
 
 

Other Answers (2)

Sort By
synfully synfully
 
January 28, 2009 05:56 PM
The policy of Sweden during World War II was to remain neutral.  Swedish neutrality had been a policy for more than a century, since the end of the Napoleonic Wars.  However, official "policy" and actions have often been at odds. Since
the time of the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden has not initiated any direct
armed combat. However, Sweden's military and government have been
involved in major "peacekeeping actions" and other military support
functions.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II


Helpful Answer?  (1)   (0)    Tip synfully for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
puya puya
 
May 24, 2009 11:11 AM
The Germany soldiers was transported through Sweden.

Helpful Answer?  (0)   (0)    Tip puya for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 

Answer this Question

How tips and payments work

This question has already been resolved. You may add an answer to it but you will not be eligible to win best answer or any associated tips.

Related Questions

View All Celebrity Gossip Questions

Ask a Question


140 characters left
Top of Page
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal

Top Members

This Week All Time
  • buddawiggi
    buddawiggi
    2nd Degree Black Belt
    26427 Points
    M$771.39 Earned
  • kty2777
    kty2777
    Purple Belt with a Brown Tip
    5138 Points
    M$193.66 Earned
  • opher
    opher
    Purple Belt
    3659 Points
    M$149.42 Earned
   See All
 

Most Popular Tags

mahalo(1552)
twitter(939)
iphone(459)
music(457)
google(346)
food(307)
internet(301)
online(286)
beer(275)
money(261)
facebook(249)
movies(247)
apple(247)
aotd(235)
answers(218)
health(215)
video(202)
free(202)
dog(200)
windows(196)
   See All
 

Categories

Welcome New Members


 
 
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.

Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.

Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More

 
 

Please log in to use this function.

Answers Home | Ask a Question | Earn Points | How Tips Work | Widget