Uncover the nuances of Sweden’s neutrality and the ethical dilemmas it faced during this global conflict. In “What Side Was Sweden on During World War 2?” we delve into the complexities of Sweden’s strategic choices, from navigating blockades to undercover intelligence operations.
Join us on a journey through history to understand how Sweden’s actions, while officially neutral, influenced the broader dynamics of the war.
- 1. Background of Sweden's Neutrality
- 2. Sweden's Response to Germany's Invasions
- 3. Sweden's Intelligence Gathering
- 4. Economic Challenges and Controversial Collaboration
- 5. Transit of German Troops through Sweden
- 6. Sweden's Humanitarian Acts and Refugee Support
- 7. Balancing Act: Sweden's War-Time Legacy
- Further Reading
1. Background of Sweden’s Neutrality
Sweden had a long commitment to neutrality.
The shedding of Finland in 1809 marked a pivotal moment in Sweden’s history. Sweden faced the dual task of coming to terms with territorial loss and charting a course of neutrality that would endure through the years.
The challenges inherent in adjusting to a new geopolitical reality were met with a determination to build a nation defined by peace, free from the shackles of external conflicts.
However, the journey towards maintaining peace was not without its trials, as experienced in World War 2.
Sweden’s Prime Minister, Per Albin Hansson declared neutrality in World War 2 on September 1, 1939, shortly after the outbreak of war. This was a strategic decision made by the Swedish government to avoid being drawn into the conflict and to protect its national interests.
The reasons for neutrality were two fold:
- The country’s geographical location made it vulnerable to invasion from both Germany and the Soviet Union.
- Sweden’s economy was heavily dependent on trade, and neutrality allowed it to maintain economic ties with both sides of the conflict.
2. Sweden’s Response to Germany’s Invasions
In 1940, during the German invasions of Denmark and Norway, Sweden found itself in a precarious position.
With fears of potential German aggression, Sweden had mobilized its forces, which were stationed on the border with Finland in case of decisive Soviet action. However, faced with the German demand that Sweden should not officially mobilize its forces to avoid provoking an invasion, Sweden devised a clever strategy.
Rather than initiating an official mobilization, Sweden opted for an unconventional approach. Instead of a formal call to arms, individual letters were sent to Swedish homes, instructing them on where to assemble for mobilization.
This method allowed Sweden to rapidly raise an army of around 320,000 men without violating the specific demands of the Germans.
By doing so, Sweden managed to navigate the delicate situation and prepare its defenses along the border with Norway without directly challenging the German stipulations against formal mobilization.
3. Sweden’s Intelligence Gathering
One notable aspect of Sweden’s wartime activities was its intelligence-gathering operations.
Faced with the Allied and Axis blockades, Sweden sought ways to maintain its autonomy and protect its interests.
In a remarkable move, the Swedish government allowed the Germans access to its telephone and telegraph lines passing through the country, to facilitate German communication with forces deployed in Norway.
However, Sweden turned this seemingly cooperative gesture into a covert intelligence operation.
While permitting the Germans to use the communication lines, Swedish authorities simultaneously tapped into these lines, intercepting and deciphering German military messages.
This espionage effort was spearheaded by individuals like Arne Beurling, a Swedish code-breaker and intelligence officer.
The decoded messages provided Sweden with critical insights into German military intentions and activities. The Swedish government, recognizing the strategic importance of this intelligence, passed the information on to the Allies.
Thanks to this Swedish code-breaking initiative, the Allies were able to track the movements of German naval assets, such as the battleship Bismarck, in Northern Norway. The information obtained through these covert means significantly contributed to the Allies’ situational awareness and strategic decision-making.
This dual-role of providing essential information to the Allies while maintaining an outward appearance of cooperation with the Germans exemplified Sweden’s nuanced and pragmatic approach to navigate the complex geopolitics of World War 2.
4. Economic Challenges and Controversial Collaboration
Impact of the Blockades on Sweden
During World War 2, Sweden faced the challenging predicament of being blockaded by both the Allied and Axis powers. The dual blockades had profound implications for Sweden’s trade as its access to crucial sea routes were restricted.
The British Royal Navy, initiated a naval blockade to restrict the flow of goods, including vital resources, to Axis-controlled territories.
Sweden found itself caught in the crossfire of this maritime blockade.
The blockade by the Allies limited Sweden’s ability to engage in international trade, affecting its economy. Key exports, such as iron ore and other raw materials, faced challenges in reaching global markets.
Controversial German Collaboration: Swedish Iron Ore Supply
Central to Sweden’s economic role during World War 2 was the controversial collaboration concerning the supply of iron ore.
Sweden possessed vast and vital iron ore deposits.
Iron ore, a crucial resource for steel production, was in high demand during the war, and Sweden was a major supplier to Germany. The Swedish-German iron ore trade became a focal point of ethical debate, especially considering the Allied efforts to curb German access to essential resources.
Iron ore exports from neutral Sweden became a crucial strategic supply line for Nazi steel production. Swedish iron ore accounted for nearly a third of Germany’s wartime iron inputs, and was not substantially reduced until late 1944 under threat of Allied retaliation.
Sweden’s decisions were often rooted in a pragmatic approach to safeguard its economic interests and national security. The country, surrounded by conflicting forces, aimed to avoid direct confrontation while maintaining a semblance of neutrality.
Economic necessities and geographic vulnerabilities prevented Sweden from leveraging its vital iron trade to curb expansionist aggression until the tide had turned against a besieged Germany near defeat in 1945. This trade-off remains controversial.
5. Transit of German Troops through Sweden
As Germany expanded its military operations, it sought cooperation from neutral Sweden to facilitate the transit of German troops through Swedish territory.
The Swedish government, apprehensive about potential German aggression, acceded to these requests under certain conditions.
The decision to permit the movement of German soldiers through Sweden raised eyebrows among the Allies, who viewed it as a form of collaboration.
Despite assurances that these troops were medical personnel, evidence later revealed a discrepancy, fueling accusations of tacit support for the German war effort.
6. Sweden’s Humanitarian Acts and Refugee Support
Sweden as a Safe Haven
During World War 2, Sweden embraced a humanitarian role by providing shelter to refugees, notably aiding Norwegians and Jewish individuals:
As the war unfolded, Sweden became a refuge for around 50,000 Norwegians who sought safety from the German occupation.
The treacherous terrain along the Swedish-Norwegian border became a route for escape.
Sweden not only offered sanctuary but also played a pivotal role in aiding Norwegians in their resistance efforts. Approximately 15,000 Norwegians who found refuge in Sweden were trained to form a police force, preparing for the liberation of Norway from German control.
While officially termed a police force to avoid antagonizing the Germans, these trained individuals were, in essence, a military force prepared to contribute to the liberation of their homeland.
Support for Jewish Refugees
Before 1942, Sweden had a policy of turning away most Jewish refugees, signaling a reluctance to accept individuals fleeing persecution. This stance was evident in the case of Jewish refugees seeking asylum from German-occupied territories.
In a significant shift in policy in 1942, Sweden opened its doors to Jewish refugees, allowing Jews from Norway to find asylum. This decision contrasted with Sweden’s earlier refusal to admit most Jewish refugees.
By offering a safe haven, Sweden played a crucial role in protecting persecuted individuals during a dark chapter in history.
King Gustaf V of Sweden used his position to advocate for a more humane treatment of Jews. Although his efforts may not have altered the broader course of events, they demonstrated a commitment to humanitarian principles.
Despite its commitment to avoiding confrontation, Sweden’s refugee assistance programs brought some redeeming humanitarian credit to its controversial neutrality policy.
Although, it remains controversial whether more Jews and dissidents could have been offered asylum if neutrality was less absolute.
7. Balancing Act: Sweden’s War-Time Legacy
World War 2 put Sweden’s official neutrality policy to the test in unprecedented ways.
In the aftermath of World War 2, Sweden faced harsh criticisms from the Allied powers for its economic and material collaboration with Nazi Germany throughout the war.
As a nation seeking to avoid violent confrontation with expansionist Nazi Germany, Sweden walked a delicate line between maintaining its sovereignty through limited economic and transport collaborations while still upholding its humanitarian principles through asylum and relief efforts.
Sweden emerged from the war physically unscathed but faced with a morally complex legacy.
Enabling German military transports to occupy Norway and exporting vital war materials to the Nazi regime well into the war brought harsh criticism from Allied powers and questions about the appropriate limits of neutrality.
While Sweden’s flexible neutral policies secured its independence, critics believed its interests aligned too closely with Germany. The debates polarized the public for decades on the appropriate sacrifices neutrality should entail during a just war.
Further Reading
If you enjoyed this article, you may be interested to read about other countries who were neutral during World War 2, or the WW2 roles of countries such as Brazil, Iceland or Portugal.
For more articles about World War 2, follow the links below:
