Countries that maintained neutrality in World War II. Which countries remained neutral during World War II? Sweden's economic miracle
US neutrality in World War II
Roosevelt's attempts to carry out economic reforms in the United States
The foreign policy of any state is determined by the influence of a wide variety of factors. It is greatly influenced by internal events and the balance of political forces in the country. Undoubtedly, its geographical location, level of economic development, national and historical characteristics, traditions and precedents are important. The government usually faces public pressure. As in other countries, these parameters influenced the formation of the main directions of US foreign policy, which was clearly manifested in the turbulent year 1935, which was marked for the United States by major events in both domestic and foreign policy. Opponents of the New Deal launched a widespread campaign. They stated that he did not justify himself. Republicans predicted his bankruptcy, while supporters of reform actively defended him. The midterm congressional elections in the fall of 1934 brought the Democrats victory, indicating a vote of confidence among voters. Republicans lost 10 Senate seats and 14 House seats. Roosevelt's reformist course led to a regrouping of forces in political parties. There was a struggle in the Democratic Party over the New Deal. On the one hand, doubts were expressed about the advisability of deepening reforms and concessions to leftist forces, on the other, voices were heard in defense of the interests of big business so that the administration would not lose the support of business circles. The left complained that Roosevelt was slow to meet their demands. On February 3, 1935, the New York Times published an article entitled “Labor Unions Break with New Deal.” This was explained by the fact that significant changes from reforms had not yet occurred in the country. In 1934, industrial output was 68% of the level in 1929. There were 11,340 thousand unemployed people, and in 1935 - 10,600 thousand people. Government spending on unemployment assistance and public works proved insufficient. Workers began to organize into trade unions. The strike movement grew. Under these conditions, representatives of big capital intensified their criticism of the New Deal as unacceptable. As a result, negative views and attitudes toward Roosevelt’s reforms became more pronounced. Americans were looking forward to the next session of Congress and the annual presidential address. In his message “On the State of the Country,” the head of state preferred maneuvering tactics, a middle path; he did not support either the extreme right or the extreme left. The debates that unfolded in Congress led to a further division of forces in the country and to the polarization of currents in the parties. The right wing of the Republican Party became especially active, the offensiveness of the “old guard” and its criticism of the New Deal intensified. Regional conferences were held across the country, with growing calls for a ban on government interference in business affairs. In May 1935, the Springfield Conference adopted a declaration that represented the Republican creed. It read: “We believe in individualism as an ideology opposed to communism, socialism, fascism, collectivism or the New Deal.”4 That same month, the Chamber of Commerce approved a program of action to speedily repeal legislation related to the New Deal. According to the American researcher E. Ladd, “no president of the United States has ever been subjected to such a furious attack from business as Roosevelt.” Created at the end of 1934, the American Freedom League, which united representatives of large financial, industrial capital and corporations, focused its main criticism against the principles of state regulation of socio-economic life in the country. Observing the political life of the United States, Plenipotentiary Representative to the United States A.A. On February 7, 1935, Troyanovsky informed Moscow that a struggle had developed around the New Deal. The influential forces of big business oppose the reforms and President Roosevelt6. On March 28, Advisor to the Embassy B.E. Skvirsky wrote in his diary: “Roosevelt’s position is becoming more and more difficult. The bankers have come to their senses and are taking everything into their own hands in the old way.” Conservative forces were advancing. On May 27, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the rights Roosevelt received from Congress to carry out emergency measures aimed at improving industry. The Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional and repealed. It should be recognized that during the implementation of reforms, serious miscalculations were made in the activities of the national administration to improve industry, which were taken advantage of by opponents of the New Deal, and it was liquidated. The Supreme Court's decision was a major blow to President Roosevelt's prestige, his policies, and his hopes of easing and improving the country's economic situation through government intervention in business affairs. On May 30, the dissatisfied president gathered 200 correspondents at the White House and gave a big speech to them in the presence of the leaders of the Democratic factions of the House of Representatives. He spoke emotionally, excitedly, with enthusiasm, without a break for an hour and a half. It was a dramatic address by the president, as the newspapers wrote, to the public of the country, in which he sharply criticized the decision of the Supreme Court. He said that the country must make a choice between central regulation of the economic activities of the state, or an amateurish interpretation of the problems of individual states and the relations between them. He drew attention to the imperfections of some articles of the constitution, adopted back in the days of the “horse and wagon” and in need of improvement.
Internal economic reforms in the USA
Since then, much has changed in the country, in particular its economic structure. The United States needs centralized government, expanding the powers of the federal government to solve economic and social problems8. Roosevelt faced a dilemma: either give in to the pressure of big business or meet the demands of the masses. He chose the latter, given that a break with the labor movement and a shift to the right could lead to his political defeat in the 1936 elections. In June, the president came up with a new reform program, proposing extraordinary measures: increasing allocations for public works, providing assistance to low-income groups of the rural population . He supported Wagner's bill to introduce collective bargaining in industry. Entrepreneurs were prohibited from refusing to conclude collective agreements. The adoption of the National Labor Relations Act marked an important stage in the social life of the country. In mid-August, social insurance legislation was approved and the Public Works Administration was created, headed by Harry Hopkins. Everywhere there was a movement to the left of the masses and the growth of radicalism. The second stage of the New Deal began in the country, which took place in the context of a clash of interests and struggle among various sectors of American society. These days, Plenipotentiary Troyanovsky, informing People's Commissar M.M. Litvinov on the Supreme Court's repeal of industrial legislation noted the White House's great concern. The President is primarily occupied with solving domestic political problems and pays less attention to international issues. They temporarily faded into the background for him. Therefore, he refrains from receiving State Department employees, in particular Assistant Secretary of State W. Moore for Soviet-American Relations. The plenipotentiary representative was probably not right in everything, because at that time in the United States foreign policy issues were intensively discussed in Congress, the press and among the public. And Roosevelt took a direct and active part in this, because it was about global politics and the role of the United States of America in it as a great power. Taking advantage of the instability of the situation, Japan embarked on the path of territorial redistribution of the world in the Far East, revision of the Washington system, violation of international treaty obligations, and Germany and Italy announced a revision of the Versailles Peace Treaty. The United States was faced with the question of what position it should take in the event of a world war, and how to treat those who unleashed it. Is it in America's interests to continue to remain neutral, as it was during the all-European war, although ultimately the United States was drawn into it. During the discussion of these complex international issues and US foreign policy, two approaches, two currents emerged - isolationist and internationalist10. The discussion between them became tense. In 1935 it gained national momentum. All levels of society took part in it. Isolationist sentiments were based on the idea of America’s geographic remoteness from possible theaters of military operations and its protection by two oceans, which ensured its national security11. Based on this, the first US President George Washington bequeathed the nation to “avoid permanent alliances with any part of the outside world” and to adhere to neutrality, but he did not exclude the possibility of “concluding temporary alliances in emergency circumstances” in the interests of national defense. President John Adams, in a message to Congress in 1797, advised to stay away from Europe, maintain strict neutrality, and not bind oneself to any international obligations. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 called for “the protection of the entire Western Hemisphere and non-interference in the affairs of Europe.” American politicians in the last century constantly argued: we must stay apart from the political squabbles of Europe.
The impact of the First World War on the situation of the United States
The entire 19th century passed under the sign of America's neutrality from the outside world, and this policy reflected its national interests. The US had a small army and small military expenditures. Quickly overcoming the economic gap, the Americans captured a capacious domestic market. At the beginning of the 20th century. The USA has become a world power. Their economic interests imperatively demanded participation in international affairs. They needed markets for goods, raw materials, and areas for investment. During the years of the general European war, US President Woodrow Wilson first declared neutrality, then violated the covenants of the founding fathers and sent American troops across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe under the slogan of “the battle for freedom and democracy.” He hid from the people the real reasons and goals of entering the war. The First World War was a great event in the history of the 20th century, its prologue. It changed the political map of Europe: three empires perished in the fire of war, and many new states emerged. The balance of power has changed. The world split, a new world order was established. England and France expanded their colonial possessions. The United States emerged from the war richer and more powerful. They have an increased need to participate in world affairs. The US President put forward the idea of creating a League of Nations designed to maintain world peace. But Wilson was defeated at the Paris Peace Conference. His ideas were questioned and then rejected by American isolationists. The United States refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations. The isolationists were triumphant. Meanwhile, after the end of the World War, the United States, being a debtor before it, turned into a giant creditor. In 1919-1929 American capital invested abroad amounted to about $12 billion, which exceeded the contributions of any other state. These were mainly loans, a significant part of which were long-term loans to European debtor countries. The Republican administrations of W. Harding, C. Coolidge, and G. Hoover expanded financial and economic cooperation between America and Europe. The United States faced the question: what should its foreign policy be? Many advocated neutrality and non-interference in world affairs. Others believed that this was contrary to the interests of the country, which needed foreign markets for goods and areas for investment of capital. Without this, normal economic development and prosperity are impossible. Wide global trade and economic ties, interest in markets for goods and investments came into conflict with the theory and practice of isolationism and the position of the United States as a major industrial and financial power. Supporters of isolationism did not meet the aspirations of large American companies and international cartels. Suffice it to say that from 1919 to 1930, US foreign investments increased from 7 billion to 17.2 billion dollars, i.e. 2.5 times. Many have talked about the benefits of dollar expansion. At the same time, a trend was emerging in US foreign policy, whose supporters advocated active action in the world. In 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations was created. His publication, Foreign Affairs, sought to maintain interest in world politics and counter isolationist ideas. There has been increased attention to diplomatic history in universities. Clubs for the study of international relations were created in the country. In 1923 there were 79 of them. In 1928, the Brookings Institute of World Economics and International Affairs was created. There has been a noticeable increase in the trend toward increased US participation in global affairs. Ten years later, Paris and Washington took the initiative in formalizing an international treaty known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which proclaimed the settlement of conflicts only by peaceful political means, excluding military action. This corresponded to the sentiments of peace-loving peoples, including the American one. But soon the era of pacifism came to an end. In 1931, Japan captured Manchuria. However, the League of Nations did not protect China's territorial integrity and independence. The parties to the treaty - 9 powers - also did not support the preservation of China's sovereignty. The non-recognition of the occupation of Manchuria by Japanese troops by the United States was not supported by either England or France, who also refused to pay war debts to Washington. International relations were overshadowed by endless talk about disarmament, but in reality there was an increase in the production of weapons and the size of armies, and there were calls for a territorial redivision of the world. Arriving at the White House, President Roosevelt, as an active statesman and realist politician, at a meeting in April 1935 with the heads of government of England and France Ramsay MacDonald and Edouard Herriot, expressed the idea of collective security. These views were shared by Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Norman Davis, the US representative to international disarmament conferences. A corresponding resolution was submitted to Congress, which provided for sanctions against the aggressor countries - not to supply them with weapons. This followed from the content, spirit and letter of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which did not offer any mechanism for preventing war and ensuring peace. However, in May 1933, the resolution met strong opposition in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In general, the country expressed arguments both for and against participation in collective actions against peacemakers. The State Department was discussing various options for arms export legislation at this time. Isolationists, led by Senator H. Johnson, opposed the ban on the supply of weapons only to aggressor countries and proposed extending it to both warring parties. Roosevelt agreed to such fundamentally important changes without informing Secretary of State Hull about it. The latter, as well as Norman Davis, were very unhappy with the president's action. In 1934, a Senate committee banned the sale of weapons and military materials to Paraguay and Colombia in connection with the armed conflict in the Chaco. Roosevelt did this because he did not want to strain relations with the isolationist members of the Senate committee when the emergency session of Congress was busy with unprecedented rapid approval of numerous bills related to the New Deal. This was more important to him. Meanwhile, events in Europe and Asia were developing alarmingly. They attracted the attention of American politicians and diplomats who discussed the prospects for US foreign policy. Many were interested in the history of the policy of neutrality. They recalled that this policy pursued by President Wilson ended with the country's entry into the war, the sending of an expeditionary force to Europe, the loss of American soldiers on the battlefield, the ingratitude of England and France, the refusal to sign the Versailles Peace Treaty and the refusal to participate in the creation of the League of Nations. Most Americans believed that they had been deceived, that the United States' entry into the European War in 1917 had been a fatal mistake. The Versailles system, in their opinion, met only Anglo-French interests. This cannot be allowed to happen in the future, the isolationists argued, insistently demanding the creation of a special committee headed by Senator Gerald Nye to study the reasons that prompted the United States to enter the European war, and, above all, to identify those responsible for supplying weapons to England and France. A large number of anti-war works appeared in literature. Pacifists demanded that war be outlawed. The anti-war movement gained strength and expanded, finding an increasing number of supporters among the population. Everyone who at one time spoke out for America’s participation in the war was sharply criticized, even to the point of demanding that they be brought to justice12. On October 1, 1934, the Second All-American Congress against War and Fascism opened in Chicago. It was attended by 3,332 delegates representing organizations of about 2 million people. Congress condemned the actions of the Nazis in Germany and approved the idea of uniting all peace-loving forces against the threat of war. At the same time, articles began to appear in the press about a conspiracy of economic extremists, about a small group of corporations and bankers associated with Great Britain and France. In February 1934, a well-known Republican, isolationist Senator Gerald Nye (from North Carolina) introduced a resolution in the Senate to create a commission to study the production and sale of weapons and war materials during the First World War. Under public pressure, in April Congress approved such a commission headed by Senator D. Nye. It included Democratic Senators R. Barbour, H. Bone, W. George, B. Clark, J. Pope and Republican Senator A. Vandenberg. On May 18, President Roosevelt, in a message to the Senate, expressed satisfaction with the creation of the commission and recommended that all government departments support it by providing the necessary information14. The commission set out to investigate who produced and supplied weapons to the Allies, how they were delivered, on whose ships, what profits the arms suppliers received, what secret agreements were concluded and by whom. The commission worked for 18 months, interrogated 200 witnesses and documented who was interested in dragging the United States into the war, who provided loans and credits to Great Britain and France, and sold them weapons and uniforms. The published documentary materials (39 volumes) and 43 monographs were a sensation. They shocked and deeply agitated the country's public and influenced the growth of anti-war sentiment15. The people were outraged and demanded the adoption of laws prohibiting profit from the war and the nationalization of the military industry. Subsequently, Secretary of State K. Hull wrote with dissatisfaction in his memoirs: “The commission found the country thirsty for revelations directed against big bankers and arms manufacturers”16. According to the American researcher W. Cole, “without the Nye Commission, the laws on neutrality might not have been adopted by Congress”17. Two books by the famous historian Charles Beard, published in 1934, played a major role in the surge of isolationist sentiments, in which he substantiated the need to protect the country’s national interests, the policy of isolationism, and non-interference in European affairs18. The author argued that the salvation of the country lies in carrying out reforms, improving the economy, financial system and agriculture, and concentrating efforts on solving internal problems through the New Deal. It is important to protect the country from war. The impact of Beard's books on public consciousness was great. They were read and talked about19. Agriculture Minister G. Wallace said that Beard showed truly “enlightened patriotism.” Beard's exposure of those who in 1917 deliberately dragged the United States into the European war for the sake of obtaining excess profits had a great influence on the anti-war movement in the country. The basis of the policy of isolationism in the era of Roosevelt, emphasized the American historian M. Jonas, was protest against war20. A former assistant attorney general during the First World War, lawyer Charles Warren, in the spring of 1933, read a paper at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law on the problem of neutrality, which aroused considerable interest. In January 1934, the Council on Foreign Relations organized a round table on the same issue with the participation of well-known specialists and experts in international relations. Warren made a presentation there: how to keep the country from war. Two months later, his article on this topic was published in the journal International Affairs21. Although he himself advocated cooperation with other countries against aggressive states, most Americans chose to remain neutral, despite the fact that it is very difficult to be in such a state. Warren supported supporters of strict neutrality, which could inevitably lead the United States to isolation from trade and financial contacts with warring countries. He proposed an impartial arms embargo with all parties to wars, a ban on loans, and warned American citizens that they could trade at their own risk. In the next issue, the magazine published an article by A. Dulles, assistant to Norman Davis at the Geneva Conference23. Dulles agreed with Warren's opinion that the traditional American neutrality pursued during the First World War was unacceptable, since it would inevitably drag America into a major war. However, he did not agree that trade restrictions would be effective. In his opinion, only a complete rejection of foreign trade and investment can isolate the United States from a major war, but the American people will never agree with this. The most sensible thing for the United States to do is to act jointly with other nations on the issue of a trade embargo against the aggressor. Such a policy will serve to keep the country out of war24. The State Department expressed interest in Warren's article. On April 17, 1934, Hull instructed his deputies P. Moffat, W. Phillips, assistant W. Moore and legal adviser G. Hackworth to begin studying and developing possible neutrality legislation. But they were reluctant to accept this proposal, citing excessive busyness, and asked Warren to prepare a project for them, which was presented to them in early August. It was a 210-page memorandum on neutrality issues25. In it, Warren recommended adhering to an impartial, unbiased arms embargo in the event of a war between foreign countries, prohibiting ships from warring countries from using American ports, aircraft from airfields and US citizens from traveling on ships of warring countries, and limiting trade with them to pre-war levels, establishing a certain system quotas Consequently, Warren proposed radical changes in the policy of American neutrality. It was an isolationist program that aimed to spare the country from entering the war and reflected the mood of the public.
At the end of August, the State Department sent a memorandum to the president. He made a positive impression on him, and Roosevelt instructed Hull to prepare a neutrality bill for consideration in Congress. By November such a bill was ready. It was compiled by Green Hackworth. It was not much different from Warren’s proposals, but the articles were presented more gently, not categorically. The State Department Commission, having omitted the proposal to establish a quota for the trade in contraband materials, sent the bill for coordination and approval to the departments of justice, military and naval. The first two approved it, but Navy officials objected, fearing that such legislation would provide grounds for other countries to refuse to export strategic materials to the United States in wartime. This put the State Department and the administration in a difficult position. Roosevelt asked the press to support the bill and refrain from premature criticism. Nevertheless, the Washington Post published a critical article. On December 16, a publication appeared in the New York Times. They stated that the administration intended to ask Congress to pass legislation to restrict US trade during wars between other states. The widespread criticism prompted the cabinet to refrain for now from sending the bill to Congress. However, in January 1935, Senator King (R-Bet) introduced a resolution calling for an arms embargo in the event of war. The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, K. Pittman, transferred it to the State Department. He was told: the problem of neutrality is being carefully studied, but there is no consensus yet. This was true. Norman Davis sharply criticized Hackworth's project for applying an arms embargo against warring countries without distinguishing between the aggressor and his victim, noting that this would be very beneficial to the aggressor. He proposed giving the president the right to decide how and against whom to apply the arms embargo. His arguments impressed the authors of the bill, and they became more inclined to his opinion. It was decided to temporarily postpone work on the neutrality bill. The Secretary of State himself was not inclined to show haste26. At this time, the Nye Commission, with unprecedented scope, zeal and energy, was studying the history of the policy of neutrality during the First World War, clarifying the activities of arms manufacturers and their transfer to their allies - England and France, the conditions for providing them with loans, conducting trade with them and obtaining high profits. This led to an increase in anti-war sentiment, an increase in supporters of the policy of isolationism, non-interference in European affairs, and dissatisfaction with the behavior of the allies - England and France, who refused to pay war debts to America. London and Paris reacted negatively to numerous publications of a sensational nature, showing American, British and French diplomacy in an excessively negative light. America was gripped by nationwide, unprecedented excitement. On March 15, Secretary of State Hull advised President Roosevelt to meet with members of the Nye Commission and explain to them that their excessive and irrepressible activity could put the United States in a difficult position in the world and cause a negative reaction from European countries, primarily England and France. The President supported this idea and willingly agreed to a meeting with senators to discuss the situation in the world and the US position. It was impossible not to take into account that the press at the end of 1934 and at the beginning of 1935 persistently asked: “Where is America going?” In his New Year's message, Roosevelt assured Americans that they could live in peace; if there are changes in the country's foreign policy, they will only be aimed at maintaining peace, and there is no reason to worry. But such general declarations by the president did not satisfy many. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kay Pittman, asked Roosevelt for clarification on February 19. He asked whether the United States intended to participate in European affairs? In March he defended isolationism. And on March 16, Hitler challenged Europe by announcing the introduction of conscription and the creation of an army of 500 thousand people and the construction of a navy. Alarming news came from Rome. Mussolini threatened to start a war against Ethiopia. On March 19, a meeting was held at the White House with members of the Nye Commission. The President, speaking approvingly of her activities, spoke a lot about the alarming developments in world events. It is therefore desirable, given the mood of the public, to think about the formulation of legislation that could ensure that the country is kept from being drawn into war. The interlocutors liked the wish. For them it may have been somewhat unexpected. They immediately began to implement it. The President was pleased, since with this step he managed to somewhat calm the public of the country and, to a certain extent, the Capitol. The development of US neutrality legislation is in full swing27. D. Nye notified Hull of the President's instructions. The latter took these words with bewilderment, because the State Department had been preparing such a bill for many months and only some issues had not been agreed upon. He was at a loss, believing that he had been excessively cautious and slow. This assumption was close to the truth. But Roosevelt probably did this also because he wanted the neutrality initiative to come not from the State Department, but from the senators, from the Nye Commission, whose activities had so widely excited the country's public. There was no time to hesitate. The passage of such a bill prepared by senators could pass faster in the Senate. Perhaps this was one of the reasons for the president's favor towards the activities of the Nye Commission. However, Hull was still in no hurry to present the draft neutrality legislation to the president, counting on its completion and the elimination of differences of views on certain issues between State Department employees. Senators, on the contrary, were interested in implementing the president’s wishes as quickly as possible. On March 30, Nye said in a speech in Lexington that the president was determined to prevent the United States from being drawn into war or armed conflict; he defended the use of a mandatory arms embargo and supported bans on loans to warring countries and travel by American citizens on their ships28.
US declaration of neutrality in World War II
On March 31, 1935, the editor of the foreign department of the Scripps-Howard Newspaper Trust published the text of a statement conveyed to him by a high-ranking official. It said that the goal of US policy was to refrain from any acts that would involve the country in a European conflict, and Washington was busy developing a law on neutrality, refusing to provide loans to both the aggressor and his victim. On April 1, 1935, the Nye Commission submitted a report to Congress advocating the need to regulate arms exports. On April 9, Senators D. Nye and B. Clark introduced two resolutions on neutrality to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. They spoke of prohibiting Americans from traveling on the ships of warring countries and providing loans and credits to them to purchase contraband goods. The President could declare a state of war and automatically put these provisions into effect29. Pittman expressed dissatisfaction with the excessive activity of senators, seeing them as exceeding their powers and infringing on the prerogatives of his committee, although he himself shared the views of isolationists. In connection with Hitler's violation of the articles of the Versailles Peace Treaty, he openly declared the United States' disinterest in European affairs, spoke with indignation about those who were concerned about the events taking place in Europe, arguing that the United States should not interfere in conflicts: "... We must remain neutral "30. Upon learning of the senators' resolutions, Hull reacted immediately. On April 11, he presented a memorandum to the president. It said that the State Department had been developing a neutrality bill for a long time, but it had not yet been completed. It was also reported that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Pittman, was dissatisfied with the excessive initiative of the senators, since the prerogatives of legislation belong to his committee, which is obliged to deal with it. The memorandum drew attention to the protests of the British and French ambassadors regarding the Nye Commission's disclosure of secret agreements concluded by American banks with the Allied governments during the First World War31. Trying to get out of an unfavorable situation for him, Hull intended to send the president his draft bill, prepared by lawyer G. Hackworth, which fixed the application of an arms embargo without distinction as to whether it was the aggressor or his victims, a ban on Americans traveling on ships of warring countries, and a ban on submarines entering American ports. But Hackworth objected, saying the project was not yet ready and needed work. Agreeing with his arguments, the Secretary of State informed the President and also announced this at a press conference. Hull continued to believe that the problem of neutrality was very complex and that one should not be hasty; it needed a comprehensive study. In the spring of 1935, he no longer fully shared isolationist views. As historian R. Divine notes, he wanted to delay the adoption of neutrality legislation in Congress for some time.
More than ten states managed to avoid participation in the main meat grinder of humanity. Moreover, these are not “some kind of” overseas countries, but European ones. One of them, Switzerland, found itself completely surrounded by Nazis. And Türkiye, although it joined the alliance against Hitler, did so at the very end of the war, when there was no point in it anymore. True, some historians believe that the Ottomans were thirsty for blood and wanted to join the Germans. But the Battle of Stalingrad stopped them.
German officers during the French campaign of 1940 repeatedly said that “let's take Switzerland, that little porcupine, on the way back.” But this “way back” turned out different from their expectations. Therefore, the “porcupine” was not touched.
Everyone knows that the Swiss Guard is one of the oldest military units in the world. Its brilliant history begins at the beginning of the 16th century, when Swiss soldiers were entrusted with the most precious and honorable thing in Europe - to guard the Pope.
Switzerland found itself surrounded by Nazi bloc countries
During the Second World War, the geographical position of Switzerland turned out to be completely unfavorable - the country found itself surrounded by states of the Nazi bloc. Therefore, there was not a single opportunity to completely disown the conflict. Therefore, some concessions had to be made. For example, provide a transport corridor through the Alps or “throw some money” at the needs of the Wehrmacht. But, as they say, the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe. At the very least, neutrality was maintained.
Therefore, the pilots of the Swiss Air Force continually entered into battle with either German or American aircraft. They did not care which representative of the warring parties violated their airspace.
Historically, Türkiye has had sympathy for Germany. But during the Second World War, the former Ottoman Empire decided to declare neutrality. The fact is that the country decided to follow Ataturk’s behests to the end and once again abandon imperial ambitions.
There was another reason. Turkey understood that in the event of hostilities they would be left alone with the troops of the allied countries. Germany will not come to the rescue.
The Turks understood that they would have to fight without German help
Therefore, a strategically correct and beneficial decision for the country was made - to simply make money from the global conflict. Therefore, both sides of the conflict began to sell chromium, necessary for the production of tank armor.
Only at the end of February 1945, under pressure from the allies, did Türkiye declare war on Germany. This was done, of course, for show. In fact, Turkish soldiers did not participate in real hostilities.
It is interesting that some historians (mostly back in Soviet times) believed that Türkiye was, as they say, “at a low start.” The Turks were waiting for the advantage to definitely be on Germany's side. And if the USSR had lost the Battle of Stalingrad, then Türkiye was ready to attack the USSR, joining the Axis Powers in 1942.
The Portuguese, like their neighbors on the peninsula, decided that if there was even the slightest opportunity to avoid participation in the Second World War, then they needed to take advantage of it. Life in the state during the conflict was well described by Erich Maria Remarque in the novel “Night in Lisbon”: “In 1942, the coast of Portugal became the last refuge of fugitives for whom justice, freedom and tolerance meant more than their homeland and life.”
Thanks to its rich colonial possessions in Africa, Portugal had access to one very strategically important metal - tungsten. It was the enterprising Portuguese who sold it. And, interestingly, to both sides of the conflict.
The Portuguese feared losing income from their African colonies
Actually, fears for the colonies were another reason why Portugal did not want to intervene in the conflict. After all, then their ships would come under attack, which any of the enemy countries would happily sink.
And so, thanks to neutrality, Portugal managed to maintain power over the African colonies until the 70s.
After numerous brutal defeats in the wars of the 18th century, Sweden abruptly changed the course of its development. The country embarked on the path of modernization, which led it to prosperity. It is no coincidence that in 1938, Sweden, according to Life magazine, became one of the countries with the highest standard of living.
Accordingly, the Swedes did not want to destroy what had been created for more than a century. And they declared neutrality. No, some “sympathizers” fought on the side of Finland against the USSR, others served in SS units. But their total number did not exceed a thousand fighters.
About a thousand Swedish Nazis fought on the side of Germany
According to one version, Hitler himself did not want to fight with Sweden. He was allegedly sure that the Swedes were purebred Aryans, and their blood should not be shed. Behind the scenes, Sweden made reciprocal curtsies towards Germany. For example, it supplied it with iron ore. And also, until 1943, it did not host Danish Jews who were trying to escape the Holocaust. This ban was lifted after Germany's defeat in the Battle of Kursk, when the scales began to tip towards the USSR.
No matter how cruel and cynical dictator Franco was, he understood that a terrible war would not bring anything good to his state. Moreover, regardless of the winner. Hitler asked him to join, gave guarantees (the British did the same), but both warring parties were refused.
But it seemed that Franco, who won the civil war with powerful support from the Axis, would definitely not remain on the sidelines. Accordingly, the Germans waited for the debt to be returned. They thought that Franco would personally want to eliminate the shameful stain on the Iberian Peninsula - the British military base of Gibraltar. But the Spanish dictator turned out to be more far-sighted. He decided to get serious about restoring his country, which was in a sad state after the civil war.
Franco decided not to fight, but to restore the country
The Spaniards only sent the volunteer Blue Division to the Eastern Front. And her “swan song” soon ended. On October 20, 1943, Franco ordered the “division” to be withdrawn from the front and disbanded.
"...In the very first days of the war, a German division was passed through the territory of Sweden for operations in Northern Finland. However, the Prime Minister of Sweden, Social Democrat P. A. Hansson, immediately promised the Swedish people that no more troops would be allowed through the territory of Sweden. one German division and that the country would in no way enter into a war against the USSR. And yet, the transit of German soldiers and military materials to Finland and Norway began through Sweden; German transport ships transported troops there, taking refuge in the territorial waters of Sweden, and until the winter of 1942/ In 1943 they were accompanied by a convoy of Swedish naval forces. The Nazis secured the supply of Swedish goods on credit and their transportation mainly on Swedish ships..."
"...It was Swedish iron ore that was the best raw material for Hitler. After all, this ore contained 60 percent pure iron, while the ore received by the German military machine from other places contained only 30 percent iron. It is clear that the production of military equipment made of metal smelted from Swedish ore, it cost the treasury of the Third Reich much less.
In 1939, the same year when Nazi Germany unleashed World War II, it was supplied with 10.6 million tons of Swedish ore. After April 9, that is, when Germany had already conquered Denmark and Norway, ore supplies increased significantly. In 1941, 45 thousand tons of Swedish ore were supplied daily by sea for the needs of the German military industry. Little by little Sweden's trade with Nazi Germany grew and eventually accounted for 90 percent of all Swedish foreign trade. From 1940 to 1944, the Swedes sold more than 45 million tons of iron ore to the Nazis.
The Swedish port of Luleå was specially converted to supply iron ore to Germany through the Baltic waters. (And only Soviet submarines after June 22, 1941, at times caused great inconvenience to the Swedes, torpedoing Swedish transports in whose holds this ore was transported). Supplies of ore to Germany continued almost until the moment when the Third Reich had already begun, figuratively speaking, to give up the ghost. Suffice it to say that in 1944, when the outcome of the Second World War was no longer in doubt, the Germans received 7.5 million tons of iron ore from Sweden. Until August 1944, Sweden received Nazi gold through the banks of the same neutral Switzerland.
In other words, wrote Norschensflamman, “Swedish iron ore ensured the Germans’ success in the war. And this was a bitter fact for all Swedish anti-fascists.”
However, Swedish iron ore came to the Germans not only in the form of raw materials.
The world-famous SKF concern, which produced ball bearings, supplied these, not so, at first glance, tricky technical mechanisms to Germany. Ten percent of the ball bearings received by Germany came from Sweden, according to Norschensflamman. Anyone, even someone completely inexperienced in military affairs, understands what ball bearings mean for the production of military equipment. But without them, not a single tank will move, not a single submarine will go to sea! Note that Sweden, as Norschensflamman noted, produced bearings of “special quality and technical characteristics” that Germany could not obtain from anywhere else. In 1945, economist and economic advisor Per Jakobsson provided information that helped disrupt the supply of Swedish bearings to Japan.
Let's think: how many lives were cut short because formally neutral Sweden provided Nazi Germany with strategic and military products, without which the flywheel of the Nazi war mechanism would, of course, continue to spin, but certainly not at such a high speed as it was? The issue of “infringed” Swedish neutrality during the Second World War is not new; Russian Scandinavian historians and diplomats, who by their nature worked in the USSR Foreign Ministry in the Scandinavian direction, are well aware of this. But not even many of them are aware that in the autumn of 1941, that very cruel autumn, when the existence of the entire Soviet state was at stake (and therefore, as a consequence, the fate of the peoples inhabiting it), King Gustav V Adolf of Sweden sent Hitler a letter in which he wished “dear Reich Chancellor further success in the fight against Bolshevism”..."
Hermann Goering and Gustav V Adolf
1939-1940
8,260 Swedes took part in the Soviet-Finnish War.
1941-1944
900 Swedish Nazis participated in the occupation of the USSR as part of the Finnish army.
Wallenberg family
With great reluctance and awkwardness, the Wallenberg family remembers that during the war years the Wallenbergs took part in the financing and supply of iron ore to Hitler's Germany from Sweden (from 1940 to 1944 the Nazis received more than 45 million tons of ore), steel, ball bearings, electrical equipment, tools , pulp and other goods that were used in military production.
Many in Sweden still remember this and reproach the Wallenbergs for collaborating with the Nazis.
The Wallenberg family, through banking and industrial empires from major corporations and stakes in other large companies, controls a third of Sweden's GDP.
The family controls more than 130 companies.
The largest: ABB, Atlas Copco, AstraZeneca, Bergvik Skog, Electrolux, Ericsson, Husqvarna, Investor, Saab, SEB, SAS, SKF, Stora Enso. 36% of shares listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange belong to the Wallenbergs.
The Wallenberg-owned bank SEB received more than $4.5 million from the German Central Bank between May 1940 and June 1941 and acted as a purchasing agent (through intermediaries) for the German government in the purchase of bonds and securities in New York. .
In April 1941, Finance Minister Ernst Wigforss and SEB Bank President Jacob Wallenberg agreed to issue a loan to Germany for the construction of ships in Swedish shipyards, the Nazis received a very significant amount for those times - 40 million crowns, which corresponds to today's 830 millions of crowns.
Swedish historian and ambassador Christer Wahl Brooks, together with archivist Bo Hammarlund, proved the duality of the Swedish Ministry of Finance's policies during the Second World War. The head of this department, Ernst Wigforst, went down in history as an opponent of the passage of Nazi troops through Sweden during the attack on Norway. Val Brooks found out that Wigforst actively helped Nazi Germany with money, although he did it in Swedish interests.
As part of a routine check in the archives of the Ministry of Finance, Hammarlund found a document in the form of a letter dating from April 1941, reports the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter. This letter was written by the director of the Swedish bank Skandinaviska Banken, Ernst Herslov, but was never officially registered.
The letter provides a summary of the conversation between the Minister of Finance and Herslov. Wigforst argued for the need to send Germany loans that would allow the Nazis to pay for the work of Swedish shipbuilders. “The minister made it clear that it would be desirable to provide loans,” Herslov wrote. In reality, the money was supposed to help Sweden increase exports to Nazi Germany. According to historians, the existence of such secret deals is a much more serious indication of assistance to the Nazis than the opening of borders for the free movement of Nazi troops.
The researcher was shocked that such important conversations from a state point of view were conducted one-on-one between the minister and the banker. By law, a decision to provide loans to a foreign country would have to be approved by the Swedish government. “One can understand why Wigforst avoided publicity in this matter,” writes Dagens Nyheter.
The text of the letter indicates that Wigforst managed to secure the allocation of loans.
Historians found confirmation of their hypothesis in the diaries of the head of the Swedish central bank, Ivar Rooh. He mentioned that his company allocated significant sums to ensure that Germany supplied Sweden with fewer products in response to iron ore and other raw materials exported from Scandinavia for the war industry.
According to Val Brooks and Hammarlund, the amount of bribes reached 40 million crowns.
The letter also indicates that in the spring of 1941 Germany continued to actively build ships in Sweden, although Stockholm officially declared its neutrality. A similar policy was pursued by Madrid, which helped with the basing of Nazi submarines and the placement of Berlin spies, but did not officially consider itself a belligerent.
Ingvar Feodor Kamprad(Swedish: Ingvar Feodor Kamprad) (born March 30, 1926) is an entrepreneur from Sweden. One of the richest people in the world, founder of IKEA, a chain of stores selling household goods.
In 1994, the personal letters of Swedish fascist activist Per Engdahl were published. From them it became known that Kamprad joined his pro-Nazi group in 1942. At least until September 1945, he was actively raising money for the group and attracting new members. The timing of Kamprad's departure from the group is unknown, but he and Per Endahl remained friends until the early 1950s. After these facts became known, Kamprad said that he bitterly regretted this part of his life and considered it one of his biggest mistakes. After this, he wrote a letter of apology to all Jewish IKEA employees.
The founder of the Swedish furniture concern IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad, was much more closely associated with the Nazi movement than was previously known. Thus, Kamprad was not only a member of the fascist movement “New Swedish Movement” / Nysvenska rörelsen, but also in the Nazi Lindholm Association / Lindholmsrörelse. This became known from a book by an employee of the Swedish television SVT - Elisabeth Åsbrink.
This book also publishes for the first time information that a case was opened against the 17-year-old Kamprad, already in 1943, by the Swedish Security Police Säpo, where he was held under the heading “Nazi.”
After the war, in the 50s, Kamprad continued to be friends with one of the leaders of the Swedish fascists, Per Engdahl. And just a year ago, in a conversation with Elisabeth Osbrink, he called Engdahl a “great man.”
Ingvar Kamprad's involvement in the Nazi movement in Sweden was known earlier, but this information had not been published before.
Ingvar Kamprad's spokesman, Per Heggenes, said that Kamprad had already repeatedly apologized and asked for forgiveness for his past Nazi views. He has repeatedly said that today he has no sympathy for the Nazis or Nazism.
“This whole story is 70 years old,” said Pär Heggenes, noting that Kamprad himself knew nothing about the fact that he was being monitored by the Security Police.
Historians question Sweden's neutrality during World War II
A number of studies commissioned by the Swedish government confirm assumptions that Sweden, which officially remained neutral during the Second World War, was ready to meet Nazi Germany halfway in many ways.
The revelation may add fuel to debate over the country's immigration policies and Sweden's decision not to join NATO.
Once powerful and warlike, Sweden last went to war 200 years ago. The Second World War was a serious test of Swedish neutrality. The prospect of an invasion by both fascist troops and allies seemed quite realistic at that time.
Until now, Sweden seemed to be quite pleased with itself. Yes, it supplied a significant amount of iron ore to Germany, allowed Nazi troops to pass unhindered through its territory and did not allow in Jews who had fled from the Germans.
However, at the same time, they allowed the Allies to develop an intelligence network on their territory, and at the end of the war they provided refuge to Jews from neighboring countries occupied by the Germans. They also developed an emergency plan to participate in the liberation of Denmark.
Thus, Swedes who married Germans had to provide evidence that their parents, as well as grandparents, did not have Jewish roots. Marriages between Germans and Swedish Jews were annulled.
By order of their German partners, German companies fired Jewish employees. Newspapers were ordered not to criticize Hitler and not to publish articles about the concentration camps or the occupation of Norway.
Cultural ties between Sweden and Nazi Germany remained very close.
Meanwhile, the Nazis' attitude towards the Swedes remains very vague. On the one hand, they were respected as "an exceptionally pure example of the Nordic race." On the other hand, the German leadership complained that modern Swedes had become too peace-loving and non-conflict, that is, they bore little resemblance to the ideal of the Aryan warrior.
Neighboring countries often accuse Sweden of taking an overly preachy tone when it comes to moral and ethical debates. Some attribute this to the country's Protestant heritage. Some see this as a throwback to Sweden's once "dominant" position. Still others believe that complacency is explained by the fact that Sweden has not been at war for a long time.
Whatever the real reason, it is likely that Swedes will now be more willing to moderate their tone and become more self-critical, and recognize that their past may not seem so blameless to other countries. An example of this is the recent controversy over Sweden's controversial human sterilization program.
According to the 1935 "racial hygiene" law, because they did not have a sufficiently "Nordic" appearance, were born from parents of different races or showed "signs of degeneration."
In the 1920s, 30s and 40s. The idea of “racial hygiene” was extremely popular not only in Germany. Denmark, Norway, Canada, and 30 American states have implemented sterilization programs.
Marie Stopes, a pioneer of family planning in Britain, was a strong advocate of this idea: she argued that by encouraging working-class people to have fewer children and upper-class people to have more children, the gene pool of the Anglo-Saxon nation could be improved.
However, most European countries abandoned this idea after the war. The Swedish Institute of Racial Biology continued to operate until 1976.
It is also interesting that sterilization was advocated not only by far-right nationalists, but also by governments formed by Social Democrats.
Sweden received even more military orders after the outbreak of World War II. And mostly these were orders for Nazi Germany. Neutral Sweden became one of the main economic pillars of the national Reich. Suffice it to say that in 1943 alone, of the 10.8 million tons of iron ore mined, 10.3 million tons were sent to Germany from Sweden. Until now, few people know that one of the main tasks of the ships of the Soviet Navy that fought in the Baltic was There was not only a fight against fascist ships, but also the destruction of ships of neutral Sweden transporting cargo for the Nazis.
Well, how did the Nazis and the Swedes pay for the goods they received from them? Only by what they plundered in the territories they occupied and most of all - in Soviet occupied territories. The Germans had almost no other resources for settlements with Sweden. So, when they once again tell you about “Swedish happiness,” remember who paid for it for the Swedes and at whose expense.
The policy of neutrality was a consequence of the pre-war policy aimed at increasing sovereignty and entailing an increase in nationalism, which was associated with non-participation in hostilities on the side of the British. In addition, Ireland did not have a defense system developed enough to participate in the war - the country's army was small (19,783 people, of which 7,223 were volunteers) and poorly armed (2 light tanks, 21 armored vehicles, 24 military aircraft).
However, Ireland provided indirect assistance to the Allies - it interacted with US and British intelligence, provided air corridors for flights across the Atlantic, interned German prisoners of war, supplied the Allies with meteorological reports, and served as a food base for Great Britain. In addition, Irish volunteers fought in the British army and worked in British factories (it is believed that 200 thousand people went to work in the UK during the war). However, the policy of neutrality largely determined the isolation of Ireland in the first years after the war.
Write a review of the article "Irish neutrality in the Second World War"
Literature
- Polyakova Elena Yurievna. Ireland in the 20th century. training manual. - M.: "KDU", 2009. - P. 101-118. - 170 s. - ISBN 978-5-98227-159-4.
Excerpt describing Irish neutrality in World War II
“On the contrary,” said the prince, apparently out of sorts. – Je serais tres content si vous me debarrassez de ce jeune homme... [I would be very glad if you saved me from this young man...] Sits here. The Count never asked about him.He shrugged. The waiter led the young man down and up another staircase to Pyotr Kirillovich.
Pierre never had time to choose a career for himself in St. Petersburg and, indeed, was exiled to Moscow for rioting. The story told by Count Rostov was true. Pierre participated in tying up the policeman with the bear. He arrived a few days ago and stayed, as always, at his father's house. Although he assumed that his story was already known in Moscow, and that the ladies surrounding his father, always unkind to him, would take advantage of this opportunity to irritate the count, he still went after his father’s half on the day of his arrival. Entering the drawing room, the usual abode of the princesses, he greeted the ladies who were sitting at the embroidery frame and behind a book, which one of them was reading aloud. There were three of them. The eldest, clean, long-waisted, stern girl, the same one who came out to Anna Mikhailovna, was reading; the younger ones, both ruddy and pretty, differing from each other only in that one had a mole above her lip, which made her very beautiful, were sewing in a hoop. Pierre was greeted as if he were dead or plagued. The eldest princess interrupted her reading and silently looked at him with frightened eyes; the youngest, without a mole, assumed exactly the same expression; the smallest one, with a mole, of a cheerful and giggling character, bent over the embroidery frame to hide a smile, probably caused by the upcoming scene, the funnyness of which she foresaw. She pulled the hair down and bent down, as if she was sorting out the patterns and could hardly restrain herself from laughing.
“Bonjour, ma cousine,” said Pierre. – Vous ne me hesonnaissez pas? [Hello, cousin. Don't you recognize me?]
“I recognize you too well, too well.”
– How is the count’s health? Can I see him? – Pierre asked awkwardly, as always, but not embarrassed.
– The Count is suffering both physically and morally, and it seems that you took care to cause him more moral suffering.
-Can I see the count? - Pierre repeated.
- Hm!.. If you want to kill him, completely kill him, then you can see. Olga, go and see if the broth is ready for uncle, it’s time soon,” she added, showing Pierre that they were busy and busy calming his father down, while he was obviously busy only upsetting him.
Olga left. Pierre stood, looked at the sisters and, bowing, said:
- So I’ll go to my place. When it is possible, you tell me.
He went out, and the ringing but quiet laughter of the sister with the mole was heard behind him.
The next day, Prince Vasily arrived and settled in the count's house. He called Pierre to him and told him:
– Mon cher, si vous vous conduisez ici, comme a Petersbourg, vous finirez tres mal; c"est tout ce que je vous dis. [My dear, if you behave here as in St. Petersburg, you will end very badly; I have nothing more to tell you.] The Count is very, very sick: you don’t need to see him at all.
Since then, Pierre was not disturbed, and he spent the whole day alone upstairs in his room.
While Boris entered his room, Pierre was walking around his room, occasionally stopping in the corners, making threatening gestures towards the wall, as if piercing an invisible enemy with a sword, and looking sternly over his glasses and then starting his walk again, uttering unclear words, shaking shoulders and arms outstretched.
- L "Angleterre a vecu, [England is finished," he said, frowning and pointing his finger at someone. - M. Pitt comme traitre a la nation et au droit des gens est condamiene a... [Pitt, as a traitor to the nation and people rightly, he is sentenced to ...] - He did not have time to finish his sentence on Pitt, imagining himself at that moment as Napoleon himself and, together with his hero, having already made a dangerous crossing through the Pas de Calais and conquered London - when he saw a young, slender and handsome officer entering him He stopped. Pierre left Boris as a fourteen-year-old boy and definitely did not remember him; but, despite this, in his characteristic quick and welcoming manner, he took him by the hand and smiled friendly.
– Do you remember me? – Boris said calmly, with a pleasant smile. “I came with my mother to the count, but he seems to be not entirely healthy.
- Yes, he seems unwell. “Everyone worries him,” Pierre answered, trying to remember who this young man was.
Boris felt that Pierre did not recognize him, but did not consider it necessary to identify himself and, without experiencing the slightest embarrassment, looked him straight in the eyes.
“Count Rostov asked you to come to dinner with him today,” he said after a rather long and awkward silence for Pierre.
- A! Count Rostov! – Pierre spoke joyfully. - So you are his son, Ilya. As you can imagine, I didn’t recognize you at first. Remember how we went to Vorobyovy Gory with m me Jacquot... [Madame Jacquot...] a long time ago.
“You’re mistaken,” Boris said slowly, with a bold and somewhat mocking smile. – I am Boris, the son of Princess Anna Mikhailovna Drubetskaya. Rostov’s father’s name is Ilya, and his son’s name is Nikolai. And I didn’t know any m me Jacquot.
In Russian educational institutions, teachers together with students are busy preparing a lesson on peace. And if a few years ago, let’s be honest, even in the teaching community the peace lesson held on September 1 was perceived as something more “on duty” than truly relevant, now the situation has changed radically. It has changed, since the very concept of “peace” has been updated against the background of well-known events.
And it’s difficult to stay outside of this actualization when very close by exactly the same people are experiencing all the nightmare that war brings with it: they are losing loved ones and relatives, they are losing their homes, they are faced with the reincarnation of ideas of misanthropy.
Along with the realization that a peace lesson in absolutely any educational institution in the country ceases to be a “passing” event, but by definition must carry a very deep meaning, the increased interest of the younger generation (and not only the young) of Russians in history is noteworthy . The reasons are basically the same - events in a neighboring state, where distortion of history is becoming one of the main drivers of the fratricidal war.
During a conversation with students, teachers involved in preparing a lesson on peace, we touched upon a very interesting topic. The topic concerns how, in the conditions of world wars, some states resist aggressive campaigns, while others, without hesitation, declare their neutrality and quite calmly turn enormous human grief into a more than profitable business. The topic seemed relevant also due to the fact that for a considerable number of representatives of modern students with whom they have the opportunity to work, information about the presence of “neutrals” in World War II who escaped the Nazi occupation and the need for armed resistance was a real revelation. And I will quote one of the questions voiced verbatim, especially since it, as they say, hits the nail on the head: “Was it possible?” It’s not that the young man who asked such a question wanted to say that the USSR also had to declare neutrality, it’s just that we are talking about a completely understandable surprise, which the very fact of the possibility of declaring neutrality in a WORLD WAR can cause.
Historiography tells us that one of the European states that declared neutrality in World War II was Sweden. This state and its “neutrality” will be discussed in the material. In order for the subject of discussion to be, as they say, illustrated, it is worth immediately presenting this entertaining photograph.
The photographer reports that the photo shows the diplomatic mission of the Third Reich in May 1945 in the Swedish capital. On the flagpole crowning the diplomatic mission, you can see the flag of Nazi Germany at half-mast in connection with (attention!) the death of Adolf Hitler... It would seem that this is some kind of phantasmagoria, a theater of the absurd: the victory of the Allies, May 1945, neutral Sweden and suddenly - mourning death the main ideologist of a monstrous campaign that claimed the lives of tens of millions of people around the world. Just one question: How is this possible?..
But this question is actually easy to answer. By and large, Sweden during the Second World War, declaring its neutrality, did not intend to be neutral at all. Quite definite sympathies for Nazi Germany and its leader showed themselves in the mid-30s. To be honest, at that time not only German citizens applauded Hitler’s speeches and raised their hands in a Nazi salute...
Even the occupation of Sweden's neighbor Norway by the Nazis, which began in 1940, did not cause a negative reaction from neutral Stockholm. After several meetings between the “neutral” Swedish king Gustav V and representatives of the top of the Third Reich, “independent” Swedish newspapers and magazines, as if by the wave of a conductor’s baton, suddenly stopped publishing articles that contained at least some hint of criticism of the actions of the Nazis in Europe. All this was called "temporary censorship due to the military situation in Europe."
A Swedish newspaper calls the war unleashed by Hitler "European liberation" --
And a few years before this, the Swedish church begins to speak out in the spirit that the National Socialists of Hitler’s Germany “are on the right path, since they are fighting for the purity of the Aryan race.” At the same time, the Swedish Church from about 1937-1938. officially distributes a circular in which local priests were prohibited from blessing marriages between ethnic Swedes and representatives of the so-called “Untermensch” - Jews, Slavs, etc. Such information became public knowledge after the end of World War II thanks to research conducted at one of the oldest universities in Sweden - Lund University.
From more ancient history: Sweden declared itself a non-aligned state in peacetime and a neutral state in wartime at the beginning of the 19th century. This happened in 1814 immediately after the signing of the truce agreement with Norway. The Declaration of Swedish Neutrality was officially proclaimed in 1834 by King Charles XIV Johan (the founder of the Bernadotte dynasty still ruling in Sweden). A remarkable fact can be considered that the non-aligned status of Sweden and its sovereignty in the event of a major war was announced by a man born as Jean-Baptiste Jules Bernadotte, who at the beginning of the 19th century received the rank of Marshal of the Empire in the Napoleonic army. Jean-Baptiste Jules Bernadotte took part in the Battle of Austerlitz. In 1810, Bernadotte was dismissed from service in France and, according to historians, was officially invited to the post of Swedish and Norwegian monarch "in connection with his humane treatment of Swedish prisoners." After ascending to the Swedish throne, the newly-crowned Charles XIV Johann formed an alliance with Russia and began to fight on the side of the anti-Napoleonic coalition... After all these tossing and turning, the king-marshal was reportedly drawn to proclaiming the neutral status of the Kingdom of Sweden, which Sweden skillfully used.
Returning to the events of the Second World War, it should be noted that the “testaments” of Charles XIV Johan were applied exclusively from a pragmatic point of view. Thus, the grandson of King Gustav V, who ruled Sweden from 1907 to 1950, Gustav Adolf (Duke of Västerbotten) is known for the fact that before and during WWII, he conducted active “diplomatic” work with representatives of the Third Reich.
Among those with whom the Duke met were such people as, for example, Hermann Goering and Adolf Hitler. These meetings, it should be noted, predetermined the very strange (to say the least) neutrality of the Swedish crown. The first “neutral” agreement that attracts attention is the contract for the supply of Swedish iron ore to the Reich, which was not terminated at all after the start of Hitler’s expansion on the European continent.
Gustav V - on the right, Goering - in the middle, Gustav Adolf - on the left--
It is also noteworthy that Sweden’s neighbor, Norway, also declared its neutrality. And if during the First World War the Norwegians managed to “go” to a declaration of neutral status, then WWII did not allow the Norwegians to do the same. Hitler stepped over Norwegian “neutrality” quite calmly - declaring that Norway needed protection from “probable aggression of Great Britain and France.” Operation Weserübung-Nord began, during which official Oslo Berlin, of course, did not ask whether Norway really needed “protection from the probable aggression of the British and French.”
But Berlin did not step over the “neutrality” of Sweden... Well, just as it did not... More on that below. Most Swedish historians declare that Sweden’s neutrality in WWII is “understandable,” because only about 6 million people lived in Sweden, and therefore the country could not afford to compete with the powerful Third Reich, making all concessions to Berlin. An interesting statement... Interesting, especially considering that the population of Norway at that time was even smaller, but at the same time, firstly, the neutrality of the Norwegians quickly, excuse me, wiped out the authorities of the Third Reich, and, secondly, themselves The Norwegians organized a more or less “comprehensible” resistance movement against Nazi occupation.
So about the “neutrality” of Sweden... In fact, it was a typical fact of opportunism, in which Sweden was de facto occupied, but not in a military, but in a political sense. And the country’s authorities were quite pleased with this Hitlerite occupation. After all, for them, growing Germany was an excellent market for what was produced or created by Swedish companies. They sold at a reasonable price not only raw materials - the same iron and copper ore, but also goods created by Swedish companies. Swedish bearings were used to equip German equipment. Ships carrying rolled metal, weapons, machine tools, and lumber went to the Reich. At the same time, Sweden, through a whole network of financial agents, lent to the economy of Nazi Germany, having previously blocked the issuance of loans to its neighbors in Norway. In other words, economically, Sweden did everything in order to make dividends from the military successes of Nazi Germany and its commodity-money demands.
From Swedish official sources on the volume of supplies of goods to Nazi Germany (1938-1945):
Iron ore: 58 million tons,
cellulose – 7 million tons,
bearings – 60 thousand tons,
lumber – 13-14 million cubic meters,
vehicles and anti-aircraft guns - more than 2 thousand units.
Cargoes were delivered to the Reich under the protection of German and Swedish warships. Several Swedish ships (Ada Gorthon, Luleå, etc.) loaded with iron ore destined for Germany were sunk by Soviet submarines. After this, Swedish patrol ships dropped about 26 “neutral” depth charges into the sea with the aim of damaging Soviet submarines. Apparently, ever since then Sweden has had a special passion for searching for Soviet (Russian) submarines...
Further - more. Sweden's "neutrality" was transformed into the creation in the country of so-called volunteer battalions, which sided with the Nazis. The Swedish armed formation Svenska frivilligbataljonen began to take shape into a real force operating as part of the forces of the Hitlerite coalition immediately after Germany's attack on the Soviet Union. The Swedish “volunteers” underwent training on Finnish territory - in Turku.
At the beginning of October 1941, the Swedish Nazi battalion was visited by Gustav V and Gustav Adolf (Duke of Västerbotten), highly appreciating its “neutral” actions on the side of the Nazi allies in the Hanko area... And about a month later, the Swedish monarch sent a congratulatory telegram to Hitler, expressing admiration actions of the German army to “defeat Bolshevism.”
But after the defeat of the Nazis at Stalingrad and Kursk, “neutral” Sweden suddenly changes course... Stockholm informs its German friends that it is forced to block the sea routes along which German warships and transport vessels had previously passed through Swedish territorial waters. As they say, Stockholm felt the wind of change, and like a weather vane, it reacted almost instantly. In October 1943, a circular banning marriages with “Untermensch” was lifted in Sweden, and Jews who left the kingdom were allowed to return. At the same time, they did not close the embassy of the Third Reich (just in case...), suddenly the Reich would rise up...
An important fact of Sweden’s “neutrality” can be considered that, at the request of the USSR in 1944-1945. Stockholm extradited about 370 German and Baltic military personnel of Hitler's troops, who, as Moscow reported, were involved in war crimes in the North-West of the USSR, including the Baltic republics. As you can see, the Swedish weather vane reacted here too...
During the war, the Swedish economy not only was not seriously tested, but even gained a lot. At the same time, the average earnings of Swedish workers fell, but the reduction in real terms amounted to only about 12% over 6 years, while the economies of most European countries, like the countries themselves, lay in ruins. The Swedish banking sector grew along with large industrial companies that supplied goods to Germany.
It can be stated that Sweden’s current non-aligned status is another declarative “parable”, behind which the real interests and sympathies of Stockholm are clearly visible... Such a story...
Author Volodin Alexey
