In the Defense of Swedish Neutrality

my point is that we helped more jews by not going to war.

 

I don't know if God did the summoning, more likely it was a response to external circumstances such as a realisation that US interests were under threat. I have absolutely no problem with that - no country should join a war except out of national self-interest.

As for the German blockade, seems to me that Sweden weighed everything up and decided it could live with the blockade rather than go to war with Germany. Reasonable decision I think.

 

And I have explained why you are wrong. Practical results do not matter as much as motives where morality is concerned.

I honestly believe you do not understand what morality really is. It is not objective. There is no "correct" objective morality. You cannot judge moral actions by physical results in a vacuum.

And further, I don't think you are unique. I think a lot of Swedes think as you do. Maybe even a majority.

And to someone who is moral, being steamrolled would be preferrable to acting against their morality. Idealists are loyal to their ideals first, not their practical self interests first.

For that reason, there could never have been peaceful coexistence between the US and the Nazis. We could never have done what you would have done. Freedom means more to us than it does to you.

I have already told you I am not debating that.

Even France at least attempted to resist them (at least most of them did).

The goal is to ensure freedom first. Everything follows from that. For that reason there can never be compromise with oppressive cultures. There can never be peaceful coexistence with them. They must be assimilated or destroyed.

Death is preferrable to slavery.

So much for your practicality eh? I though results are what mattered, not motives?

US actions (which, really, includes US blood) have resulted in Swedish security. Both then and now.

I am glad we agree that there was no moral equivilency. That one was clearly worse than the other.

I am glad we agree that Swedish actions were not moral. That was the argument I was making from the beginning.

It was a good move for Sweden from a practical standpoint.

I disagree. I have already given you an example. We are not neutral, even when we have nothing to gain. Witness the kosovo conflict.

Under some circumstances, yes. There are things I would never do, even to preserve my own existence. That is what morality is. Morality is not rational.

I agree. A lack of morality absolves you of a lot of responsibility. That is an advantage of being amoral.

 

How did you determine God's motives?

 

I think Sweden's nuetrality serve more of a benefit for the allies and the refuges then for Germany. I don't know all the complications for the allies.....but if it had been bad then their would be more bitterness during and after the war. They walked a thin line.....

 

Staying neutral made it harder for Jews, the blockade helped Hitler profit.

God always determines the winner of big war's, that is why good prevailed with the United States intervening in world war 2.

 

At the time of the invasion of Norway by the Germans, the Swedes had at least 300,000 combat-capable troops. Considering that the German invasion force was approximately 100,000 men, it is unlikely that they would have been able to gain a significant foothold in Scandinavia were the Norwegians, Swedes, and Allies united in defending the peninsula.

I put it to you that Swedish neutrality allowed the occupation of Norway. Were Swedish belligerent on the side of the Allies, they would have been able to push back the Germans, open a second Northern front, taking pressure off of the Soviets, and possibly saving hundreds of thousands or millions of lives on that front alone. The war would have been shorter, American and British ships would have been able to use Norway and Sweden as bases for attacks upon Germany, and it probably would have been resolved ~ 1943.

Hell, it's even possible that if Sweden and Norway had jointly resisted the invasion, that the French and British would have been able to repulse the German invasion of France.....

Instead, Sweden took the route of cowardice in the face of imperialism.

 

Morality is like a compass. It points clearly in the right direction, towards moral action. But there might as well be an impassable wall, an abyss, or minefield stopping you if you go straight towards where the compass points, but the compass won't tell you that. Our goal is to reach to where to compass points, or atleast get as close as possible, and to do that we need to open our eyes, and look where we're going and not just look at the compass and strut recklessly into the abyss. Morality in that way, is like a maze. We need to be aware of that, and realise that sometimes actions that seem contra-intuitive actually get us closer to our goal.

Our goal is to make sure that as few people as possible suffer and die, and we get much closer to that goal by not declaring war on germany. What you want to do is jump into the abyss, when all you really needed to do was walk around it. I don't think that's moral, especially not when you can clearly see that one can just walk around it. It's immoral to be so reckless when we're dealing with peoples' lives.

Please, lay off the american pretentious freedom love. Sweden is a more free country than the US, and Sweden has consistently fought (verbally) for democracy and human rights for decades while the US was busy overthrowing democratically elected leaders and installing puppet dictators. And yeah, so much for freedom when you live in a freaking police state. NSA scandal anyone?

And the US didn't go to war for any supposed moral reasons either. You stayed neutral at first, until december 1941 remember? What about the moral duty to fight the opressive axis then? Please, your view that the US acts morally is a joke. And the american position is actually worse than Sweden's if we're going by your morality, since the USA was actually a power capable of challenging the axis.

No. I'm saying that because Sweden was neutral we served as a safe haven for jews in the middle of europe. An occupied Sweden would just leave the jews with even less options to flee to.

I'm thinking the germans didn't put so much men into it because they didn't need to. Had Sweden intervened I think the germans would be wise enough to send reinforcements to the norwegian campaign. Perhaps Sweden could have prolonged the eventual occupation of scandinavia, but it would be a german victory. I really doubt your claim that Sweden's involvement would have turned the tide. Remember that the USA and USSR wasn't involved at this stage. It was just britian and france, and 300k extra troops for the allies in scandinavia isn't something I think would overwhelm the werhmacht.

Cowardice in the face of imperialism? Well yes. We didn't care at all when the USA expanded across the continent, of when france or the UK carved up the world. Oh, you meant nazi imperialism? Oh of course, who really cares about imperialism when it's done against lesser people like indians, asians, and africans?

 

If that were true, all people would agree on what is moral. And that is clearly not the case.

If you are saying one person is wrong and another is right, I would ask you how you are determining that objectively.

But this is not relevant to your comments anyway...acting only in your own practical self interest is never moral, regardless of what your morality is. That is pragmatism. That is the opposite of morality. Morality involves going against what you want or need in service to a greater ideal. Pragmatism is rational. Morality is not.

...at least when it is convenient. Apparently you will side with oppressive nations in a heartbeat if it serves your interests.

Kosovo.

Lend lease.

And we never collaborated with the Nazis in any event. There really is no way to defend that.

You were attempting to defend Swedish actions by saying it served your own self interest. Serving your own self interests is not morality.

 

That is interesting, if Hitler had won and all the Jews retreated to Sweden, would the Swedes have protected them had Hitler threatened invasion?

 

I never said there wasn't several compasses.

And I'm making two separate arguments, one is pragmatic and the other is moral. Don't confuse the two.

Kosovo? What about conflicts between 'good and evil' that the US didn't intervene in, like rwanda? What about the democratically elected leaders the US has overthrown, and the dictators it has installed and supported? The US really has a record of spreading tyranny also. Really, adress this. It's just pathetic to hide from reality.

And the US didn't act in it's self interest during the ww2? If the US only cared about morality, why didn't it declare war as soon as hitler was elected? Why didn't it strangle the commies while they were still weak? It's not like people hadn't heard of the kristallnacht, or heard hitlers rethoric. Please, you are simply embarassing yourself by trying to portray the US as a moral actor and not a rational and pragmatic one.

- - - Updated - - -

No, most likely not. I hope not. But since he didn't win, the jews were safe in sweden.

 

A few points:
At the time of the Norwegian invasion, there had been no invasion of France. The Phoney War was still on. Any reasonable observer would have concluded that the combined mights of the French and British Empires would be able to withstand Germany and Italy. Add a capable Norway and Sweden to that, and it might even have been true. Remember that the French had the largest armored forces in the world at this point in time.

Whether you think that the Swedes would have actually been able to turn the tide or not, the relevant view is that of the times. Put yourself in the shoes of a British officer in 1940. There is a belligerent nation which you have defeated previously, and which does not have as many allies as it did last time. In contrast, your nation is better developed and more powerful than it was before. Which nation would YOU think would emerge victorious? Also, how would 300,000 belligerent Swedes shooting at Germany, easy naval and air bases across the Baltic, and COMPLETE removal of Germany's source of iron ore have affected things?

As to your second point, you're trying to use a blatant red herring to shift the discussion. This isn't about imperialism in America or in Africa, it's about Nazis. Imperialism is no more ethical because it's been done before, resisting imperialism is no more laudable, and surrendering to it no more despicable.

1) According to the evidence available when I contend Sweden should have intervened (During the invasion of Norway), an intervention of Sweden would have turned the tide.
2) It is entirely possible that were Germany cut off from their only real source of plentiful iron, they would not have been able to effectively prosecute the war beyond 1941.
3) It is probable that were Germany to pull as many troops as it would take to conquer BOTH Sweden and Norway, and the Allied expeditionary forces, that the French front would have swung entirely the other way. AT THE VERY LEAST, it would have given the French and British the ability to stabilize the front and buy time to modernize their forces.

Conclusion: The Swedish neutrality gave Germany the power and ability to conquer Europe.

 

I guess we should stop mixing the retrospective and contemporary perspective.

From a contemporary view, Sweden joining the allies might have turned the tide and the allies seemed to have the advantage, as you argue. But then you're using a retrospective view to justify why we should have gone to war, because from a contemporary perspective there's nothing making germany much more evil to Sweden than the brits or french. I don't think we can mix those actually, and that leaves us with two perspectives that favour swedish neutrality:

from a wholly contemporary perspective it migth have seemed the allies would win and Sweden joinging would have ended the war early, but there's also no reasons to go to war because there wasn't a good vs evil war going on.

From a retrospective view we can see that germany easily overhwelmed the allied powers even though they supposedly had the biggest militaries. From this view, Sweden's intervention looks pointless.

Both favour neutrality, as do I. Your argument rests on very hypotethical scenarios. There's absolutely no guarantee it would have played out as you describe. My assumption that Sweden would have lost is just as valid.

Why is it a red herring? You said imperialism, I gave you examples of it.

 

What would you call the invasion of Norway, and the bullying of Sweden herself? At this point in time, the Germans were well known for being crafty bastards who didn't respect international agreements and didn't keep their word. The Swedes should have well known that they didn't respect neutrality - remember, Norway was neutral, too.

First of all, you keep bringing up this "good versus evil" stuff. I didn't say anything about that. From a contemporary perspective, Sweden did or should have known the following:
1) Hitler did not keep his international agreements.
2) Nazi rhetoric was very racist and expansionist.
3) Hitler did not respect the neutrality of other countries.
4) Nazi Germany had displayed and continued to display expansionist behavior - the invasion of Poland, Anschluss, the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Maintaining neutrality while a neutral country on your own border is invaded is foolish and absurd simply out of reasons of self interest. Even ignoring the moral aspect of opposing imperial conquest, Sweden should have acted.

It is a red herring because this is an argument about World War 2, not about the Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, or the wars of conquest in Africa and the Americas. They are all entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

harboring the Jews during the war did show some morality, but the blockade sweden submitted to did indirectly contribute to many Jewish deaths in Germany.

 

It could be understood for pragmatic reasons. It's not like the allies had a different approach to it. They allies had plans to invade Sweden for our strategic value. I can understand that, and I also understand why Germany invaded Norway. The allies were willing to do the same thing, but just didn't have to.

Good that you didn't base it off good vs evil.
1) The allies has violated treaties and obligations too. It doesn't make Germany stand out in any way.
2) So was everyone's rethoric. Racist atleast. Expansionist, no not so much for the allies at that particular time. But that's because they were currently weak. Don't come and tell me that the biggest empire ever wasn't expansionist.
3) He sure didn't. But we'd just end up sharing the fate of the other neutrals if we acted.
4) Indeed, but so did the soviets. You can't expect the neutral countries to unite and act against any injustice done by any great power. It doesn't work that way.

From a pragmatic self-interest perspective Sweden did do the right thing. Staying out of the way and being somewhat useful to the germans. It ultimately served us best, and I'm happy we made that choice.

Submitted to? As if we had a choice. Either that or go to war which wouldn't go very well I reckon.

 

At this point, the Allies had not violated any treaty obligations that I was aware of. Yes, there was a plan to invade Norway to deny Germany its only real source of iron, but it was never executed and didn't come out until after the war.

No, you cannot compare British and French rhetoric with Nazi. That's ridiculous. They are not on the same scale. It would have been very clear and apparent that the only expansionist powers concerned were the USSR and Germany.

To your third point, there would have been no way to know that. Furthermore, Sweden had a strong navy and army, and when combined with that of Norway, it would be doubtful that the Wehrmacht would have been able to take over, ESPECIALLY given appearances at the time.

To your fourth point, Sweden supported Finland through its wars with the USSR. They didn't fight, because they were led by cowards, but support was given.

If Sweden had acted, it would have cut years off of the war. If Sweden had acted, it would have been nearly impossible to conquer Scandinavia. Hitler would not have had a source of iron and would not have been able to manufacture the amount of military equipment he had. He certainly would not have been in the position to invade the USSR. Millions of lives would have been saved. The cowardice of the neutral nations, the unwillingness to stand up against a mutual threat to peace, this is what prolonged the war.

By the by, I have the same criticism of the US congress, if to a more minor degree. The US should have become involved earlier.


By staying neutral, Sweden aided and abetted the Nazis, and are accessories to all of their crimes. They helped fuel the German war machine, and share in a very large part in the success of the Wehrmacht. You have done nothing to address this point, and I would like you to.

 

Even after Sweden saw the US saving Europe in its intervention, they didn't have the military resources to stop the Nazi blockade?

 

I'm looking at a bigger time period than just ww2 isolated. Look at the actions of the allies before ww2. Clearly the US, UK, and france were expansionist. They had the world's biggest empires for heaven's sake.

Your argument is based on the assumption that Sweden would have been able to turn the tide. I don't think so. It's thought vs thought here. Other than you saying it is so, I don't find any reason to believe it's the case.

By saying cowardice you are saying that helping the allies is the obvious moral choice: and as if we were obliged. I can understand the the argument that we should have helped our nordic brothers but why should Swedish blood be spillt to pretect the empires of the brits and french? As if the fight ever was about freedom and liberty.. pff. Sweden was acting in it's self interest, and so was everyone else. Why is Sweden worse then the others?

 

Would the benefits outweigh the costs?

 

When was the last time that the UK or France invaded a country within Europe? The Napoleonic Wars??? You don't have much of an argument here, and you should know it.

With the perspective of the time, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that the tide of the war would have been turned. In retrospect, it is possible that Sweden would have fallen, but it is by no means a sure thing.

Furthermore, and you have not replied to this point of mine, Scandinavia was Germany's only real source of iron. Without iron, one cannot prosecute war. If Sweden and Norway's iron mines had been denied to the German war machine, how long do you really think they would have lasted? Especially with the industrial might of America sending loads and loads of supplies to Europe? Even assuming France did fall, what makes you think Hitler would have been able to hold out?

The fight, at its root, was about the Poles. Poland was invaded in an unprovoked fashion. The French and British declared war over that reason. It wasn't about freedom, it was about military alliances...

I'm not saying that Sweden should have invaded Germany, I'm saying that they should have reacted in a different fashion to the invasion of Norway. Imagine how well the invasion of Norway would have gone, had the British, Norwegian, and Swedish navies and air forces attacked the supply lines across the Baltic, with Swedish and Norwegian men fighting side by side for their political independence.

I'm not even saying that Sweden and Norway needed to give a crap about the mainland European nations.... but at the very least, Sweden should have reacted to an invasion of Scandinavia.....

 

The benefits would have been changing your currency from the Krona to the Euro. USA would have rebuilt Sweden as it did generous favors for Germany and the rest of Europe after the war.

 

Europe is the only place that counts? Yeah, I was kind of suspecting that. But what about the rest of the world?

Exactly, it's by no means a sure thing. Sweden's intervention might just have ended up with Sweden occupied, which'd mean the germans got direct access to the iron anyways.

Well, good of you to appeal to my sense of fraternity with my scandinavian brothers. I totally agree with that sentiment, and without knowing too much about the situation back then I think one can definitively make the case that Sweden should have helped when denmark and norway were attacked. The question is, is it better to help militarily or not? Perhaps it was better to use the military as you say, but perhaps not. We don't know. I'm just saying a strong case can be made for not intervening as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd rather go under soviet occupation than adopt the euro.. Okay, not really but anyways. Sweden recieved money from the US in the marshall plan as well despite us being probably the richest european country at the moment. Anything to stave off the red hydra!

 

Why should the rest of the world matter to this discussion? It's about geopolitics in Europe, not geopolitics in Africa.

Not if Sweden destroyed them. Worst case scenario, the Germans would occupy smoking heaps that would need years of refurbishment. Besides, how were the Swedish to know that the Germans wouldn't just invade them in turn?

I'd ask the Norwegians what they thought of the German occupation....

 

No it isnt. its about imperialism and ww2. not contai.ed to europe at all. where'd you het that from?

destroy the iron mines? what would we gain from that? it would cost money and (*)(*)(*)(*) of the germans. bad move. I guess Sweden wasnt sure whter the germans wasnt going to invadr them after thwy dealt with norway. but atleast staying neutral gave us a much better chance of avoiding war than if we had declared war.

im sure theyd preferred an unoccupied sweden to an occupied one