Was Sweden Neutral in WWII?

[Jopa79]

This is a short one. I made a thread for the HOI4 Suggestion Forum stating that the actual event known as Midsommarkrisen could trigger Sweden to join the war. The Swedish manner to practice Realpolitik during the conflict was criticized after the war, as well the Swedish neutrality has been questioned for playing both sides - the Axis and the Allies.

Feel free to comment. I'll leave a link for the original thread with more info on this topic in the Suggestion Forum.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ce-whether-to-join-or-not-to-the-war.1199333/

 

[Avernite]

Playing both sides is, unfortunately, what neutrality boils down to in the kind of war WW2 (see also the Netherlands in WW1). You bend to both sides where you must, and only stand firm where you can.

If you're lucky, none of the demands will be truly unacceptable; if they are, you become a belligerent, but if they are even barely acceptable... well, it probably beats actual war.

 

[Jopa79]

The code of law defines the neutral country as follows: Is a state which is neutral towards the belligerents in a specific war, or holds itself permanently neutral in all future conflicts including avoiding entering into military alliances. Furthermore, a neutral state seeks to stay outside of any disagreements between other sovereign states or great powers.

Sweden doesn't meet the requirements in above definition regarding the conflict during WWII. Immediately after the outbreak of the war all the Nordic Countries stated their neutrality, but Sweden changed its position to non-belligerent at the start of the Winter War. The term non-belligerent is often used to describe a nation that doesn't take part militarily in a war, but may support certain belligerents in the conflict. Considering Sweden as a non-belligerent is also a limping description. In both - the Winter War and the Continuation War Swedish troops fought against the Soviet Union.

The flags of the European nations whom received the Marshall Plan

One thing what has been difficult for me to understand is the distribution of the Marshall Plan. The purpose was to help in rebuilding the economies of the European countries suffering from the aftermath of the World War II and reduce the influence of Communist parties in the same nations. For some reason Sweden received a huge amount of this aid and surely it wasn't needed in building the country's economy - Sweden was wealthy and prosperous in compering the other nations suffering badly of the outcome of the WWII. And I don't consider the Swedish Communist Party so strong that $350 millions was needed to suppress their influence. If the priority was to reduce the spreading of communism, the money should have flown into countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia and Finland - these countries suffered some of the following or the combination of all: Soviet influence, industry and economy ruined, regional losses, humanitarian catastrophe.

Finnish war children

Swedish humanitarian effort was very prominent during WWII era. This altruistic and unselfish effort deserves a great praise and respect. For instance, the Finnish Government requested the Swedish readiness to receive Finnish children suffering of war or the effects. The Swedish Government agreed and over 72 000 Finnish children was sent to Sweden during 1939-1945. After the war, Finland experienced times of economic hardship and also insecurity with regard to Soviet Union's plans for Finland - circa 20 000 of the children stayed in their foster families in Sweden. It's estimated that of the today's Swedish population of 10 000 000 some 500 000 - 1 000 000 are descendants of the Finnish war children.

 

[fr-rein]

Sweden had critical for Germany iron ore. Critical so much that it justified invasion in Norway as a whole.

And Allies were quite ruthless and realpolitik too - since they planned and considered invading Northern Norway and Sweden themselves to cut the ore supply route and secure the mines, crippling Germany.

And Allies blockaded Sweden.
Additionally, Germany would invade Sweden if it didn't cooperate economically.

Being threated by both Axis and Allies, helping actively Finland in their war against USSR and the fact of blockade does make Sweden a nonbelligerent. But it was rather forced in such situations and they stayed relatively neutral in conflict.
After all, it wasn't only Sweden maneuvering, but also Allies and Axis ready to occupy it if it did something wrong. Given that they weren't interested in joining war, aside from supporting Finland, they wouldn't join Axis normally. And much less likely Allies, due to being a super important supplier for German industry.

 

[Count Blue]

Marshall Plan. The purpose was to help in rebuilding

I noticed some documentation in TV which said that the US economy profited quite a lot from it too.
This credits had to be paid back. They were not a simple free gift.
The political goal --> vs communism was sure helping a lot to get the starting founding through congress in the U.S.

 

[fr-rein]

I noticed some documentation in TV which said that the US economy profited quite a lot from it too.
This credits had to be paid back. They were not a simple free gift.

That's because you still had to spend the earned wealth and investing in other countries, with economical and political benefits, was far better than sitting on it I suppose.

 

[Jopa79]

I noticed some documentation in TV which said that the US economy profited quite a lot from it too.
This credits had to be paid back. They were not a simple free gift.
The political goal --> vs communism was sure helping a lot to get the starting founding through congress in the U.S.

Of course the US also wanted benefits/advantages/interests of the Marshall Plan. One aspect of the American thinking was, as the European economy recovers and improves it would generate significant export markets for the US industry and the products of it.

Marshall Plan consisted of both - loans and grants. The US gave total $12 billion ($100 billion in 2018 US dollars) and only $1.2 billion was loans. For instance, the UK received total of $3.3 billion and only $0.4 billion of the total was loans, the rest $2.9 billion was a free gift for the UK.

 

[bz249]

If the priority was to reduce the spreading of communism, the money should have flown into countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia and Finland...

Would be hard because the Soviets forced those governments not to accept.

 

[Jopa79]

Would be hard because the Soviets forced those governments not to accept.

Almost correct, the Soviets didn't force Finland to refuse the Marshall Plan, but the Finnish Government denied the Plan by a self-governing decision.

The US should have tried harder to deliver the relief also for the Eastern-European countries and Finland. Giving the Marshall Plan only for the Western Europe was creating the foundation and the position for the Cold War era.

 

[Herbert West]

Almost correct, the Soviets didn't force Finland to refuse the Marshall Plan, but the Finnish Government denied the Plan by a self-governing decision.

The US should have tried harder to deliver the relief also for the Eastern-European countries and Finland. Giving the Marshall Plan only for the Western Europe was creating the foundation and the position for the Cold War era.

You were just told, rightly, that it was the USSR that top-down forbade it's vassals to accept the Marshal Plan, and then you castigate the USA for not offering it? Come on.

 

[Jopa79]

You were just told, rightly, that it was the USSR that top-down forbade it's vassals to accept the Marshal Plan, and then you castigate the USA for not offering it? Come on.

I have to repeat myself, considering Finland, it wasn't the USSR, but the Finnish Government turned down the Marshal Plan after the Soviet Union had publicly condemned the US relief. The Molotov Plan was a Soviet relief, providing aid for the Eastern-European countries politically and economically aligned to the Soviet Union, countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, East-Germany - same thing like in Marshall Plan, no Molotov money for Finland, but of course, the war reparations had to be paid.

I'm not castigating the US. Greece is an example of the Truman Doctrine led US - if desired, the Americans could prevent the spread of communism. Greece was heavily supported by the US, economically and militarily so it would not end in the Soviet influence. The other, recently listed countries were left without this US support.

 

[fr-rein]

The other, recently listed countries were left without this US support.

They had already Soviet puppet governments installed.
Only Yugoslavia out of them all agreed to receive the Marshall Plan and USA happily gave it to them. And because Tito was the only communist leader that had grassroot support and his own party and movement behind him (the Yugoslav partisans), unlike all other communist leaders who had little support in society (look for how much Hungary commies got votes in elections).

 

[Jopa79]

They had already Soviet puppet governments installed.
Only Yugoslavia out of them all agreed to receive the Marshall Plan and USA happily gave it to them. And because Tito was the only communist leader that had grassroot support and his own party and movement behind him (the Yugoslav partisans), unlike all other communist leaders who had little support in society (look for how much Hungary commies got votes in elections).

You forget, that Finland didn't have a Soviet installed government or never a communist majority in its government, nor a People's democracy. Although the war between Finland and the Soviet Union ended, the Finnish government remained the same.

It's true, that the Soviet Union influenced heavily to the Finnish internal and foreign policy, Finlandization is the term, but this happened not until the 1950's and after the termination of the Marshall Plan.

 

[Rubidium]

As noted, the various Soviet puppet regimes rejected the Marshall Plan, directly on the orders of the Soviet Union (which saw it as an American attempt to intrude into its own sphere of influence in Eastern Europe). They were offered the money, and rejected it. Czechoslovakia, in particular, was interested, but the Soviets explicitly vetoed that (summoning the Czech Foreign Minister to Moscow for Stalin to personally order him to refuse it). If the governments turned down the offered money, the US had no way of forcing them to take it.

Finland was not a Soviet puppet to the same degree as the others, but they also were well aware of the need to avoid antagonizing the Soviets, lest they end up like the others. So they turned it down as well (it's worth noting that the Czechs, not being members of the Axis, originally also had a significant level of political autonomy, which is why they considered the Marshall Plan in the first place, but the Communists seized complete control a few years later, and the aforementioned Czech Foreign Minister was found dead after falling out of a window shortly after the coup).

Greece and the Truman Doctrine was a different situation: the official Greek government was anti-Communist, so it could receive support directly and officially, in the way that e.g. anti-Communists in Poland couldn't.

 

[Arilou]

By the strict sense of neutrality as defined in various treaties? No. Sweden broke the "rules" of neutrality multiple times, and for both sides.

 

[George Parr]

You forget, that Finland didn't have a Soviet installed government or never a communist majority in its government, nor a People's democracy. Although the war between Finland and the Soviet Union ended, the Finnish government remained the same.

It's true, that the Soviet Union influenced heavily to the Finnish internal and foreign policy, Finlandization is the term, but this happened not until the 1950's and after the termination of the Marshall Plan.

You can't just constantly point at Finland as if it meant anything. You've already gotten the proper explanation, multiple times in fact, but for some reason you just ignore it. Finland behaving slightly differently doesn't have any impact on the other nations.

The nations under Soviet influence were forced to reject the plan. Finland rejected it for the same reasons why Sweden tried to stay on good terms with both Axis and Allies during the war: they didn't want to antagonize anyone at that point. Yugoslavia could afford to take it, because Tito had his own power-base and didn't rely on the Soviet Union to be propped up, and then went on his own path anyway. Greece was part of the Western sphere of interest, as Stalin and Churchill had agreed upon. It was the only nation of that sort in that area. While there ended up being a civil war in that nation, the Soviets stayed out of the matter, and the support for the communists came mostly from Yugoslavia and Albania.

The whole thing is pretty clear cut, and there is absolutely no reason to criticise the US for not trying harder to push the Marshall plan on the nations that rejected it.

 

[loup99]

The whole thing is pretty clear cut, and there is absolutely no reason to criticise the US for not trying harder to push the Marshall plan on the nations that rejected it.

No, that would be a very strange argument indeed, given that the whole raison d'être of the Marshall Plan was to amongst other reasons to prevent communism spreading, export US influence abroad by selling US products and trying countries to it economically and establish the US as a model of capitalism as opposed to the considerable attraction of the model of the Soviet Union in Western Europe, given the success of communist parties and trade unions in the resistance movements and the liberation of large parts of Europe by the Red Army.

 

[Kovax]

...and the liberation of large parts of Europe by the Red Army.

Funny how hard a lot of those people fought to avoid being "liberated".

 

[fr-rein]

I mean, there is this thing existing near you:

Karelo-Finnish SSR, one of 16 USSR republics since 1940s till 1956. Would you take Marshall Aid under these circumstances?

 

[olm]

Nobody was going to help Finland if Stalin had decided to invade again to finish the job, so Finnish rejection of Marshall Plan was simply logical self-preservation, just like whole Finlandization in general.