Swedish Neutrality During World War II

The policy of neutrality relies on the idea of refraining from making judgments, and not acting upon them, creating enemies or alliances. Investigating WWII Swedish neutrality, and to what extent it was successful depends on the definition of neutrality. Whether neutrality only is absence of military warfare, and whether a nation can contribute economically, and remain neutral. There is also conflict concerning if neutrality is remained when there is bias in foreign relations. During WWII, Swedish neutrality was supported by the Swedish population, and post-war it was perceived as successful, as Sweden had not officially been at war . Sweden and its population survived WWII with minimum harm and financial problems, and Swedish neutrality was

The letter; ‘Mein Lieber Reickanzler’, is one evidence used to denounce Swedish neutrality. The letter describes the Bolshevik people as a pest that Gustav V is glad Hitler will get rid of. Further he wrote his congratulations on his already accomplished advances. He also asks Hitler to keep the letter hidden from the public, as he describes it would weaken his position . Perhaps the position as a monarch of a country trying to maintain neutrality in armed conflict. He finishes by expressing that he will do everything in his power to maintain a good relationship with Hitler and Germany. Gustav V’s opinions are interpreted to be a breach of neutrality. It is important to consider Gustav V’s significance in terms of remaining neutrality, as the monarch’s own political stance appears to be on Germany’s side, not openly supporting, but with a positive attitude towards this party’s advances in the war. Gustav V does not hold political power in the same way as the government, and the prime minister at the time, Per Hansson, had advised him to not send this letter. Even though these are opinions of a monarch, Staffan Thorsell points out “The monarchy’s role as the unifying national symbol raised above the party-politics’ constant tumbles gives it, together with many decades of ingratiatingly newspaper-reports, a media-

At the end of the 1930s Sweden was Germany’s most important trade partner. One fifth of total Swedish import was with Germany, which included iron ore, steel and wood. In April 1939, pre-war, government sources stated “Sweden in the happening of war had its intentions to lead a neutrality policy even at the area of trade.” A statement which is hard to see as truth looking at the numbers related to trade between Sweden and Germany, compared to the Allied. Iron ore was important for Germany before and during the war, in addition the iron ore was wanted by opposing countries. German industrialist Fritz Thyssen stated that the country in control over the Swedish iron ore mines would win the conflict , due to iron ore’s importance in weaponry industry and quality of Swedish product. In the later 30s, Germany was mobilising, with crucial help from the Swedish iron ore trade. Germany stood ready for war in 1939, made possible by iron ore amongst other factors. The Swedish attitude was that as they were neutral they were in the position of no restrictions and were to do business with everybody. Through the trade there weren’t actions made by Sweden which would breach the neutrality, in terms of military warfare. Nevertheless, economic warfare is something Sweden can be accused of. During the period of 1933-44 Sweden supplied Germany with 30.4 million