It is an old issue: Sweden and the war (World War II). Why would I dredge it up now? It came up, in my correspondence. I had touched on Sweden in a column. A friend of mine wrote about Sweden’s ignominy in the war.
The Swedes stayed neutral. They did not fight. Same with Switzerland. A lot of people resent this, and I harbor the same resentments.
A couple of years ago, however, I was in Stockholm to report on Sweden’s current defense posture (especially vis-à-vis Russia). I had a meal with an eminent Swedish diplomat, retired. At some juncture of our conversation, it seemed natural to ask him, “Is there any residual guilt among Swedes at their neutrality in the war?” He asked me to consider a point of view, one I had never considered before. I offer it to any readers who may be interested.
Sweden was not invaded in the war. Norway and Denmark were (in April 1940). The Norwegians and the Danes didn’t want to fight. They were given no choice. They were invaded.
All three states had managed to stay neutral in World War I. All three were hoping to stay neutral in World War II. Why not? A world war is a nasty, murderous thing to be in.
So, Sweden was not invaded. So we say to them, “Declare war.” Fine. “Against whom?” say the Swedes. “And when?” If you’re Swedish, the great behemoth to the east is Russia, or the Soviet Union; the great behemoth to the south is Germany. Those two countries were in alliance, until June 1941. Sweden was a country of 6 million people and hardly a military power.
On whom should they have declared war? The Soviet Union? Germany? Both? At what point in time, exactly? When should they have been crushed like a bug?
The United States was not in the war until December 1941 — almost half a year after Operation Barbarossa and the end of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. We got in because we were attacked by the Japanese. Then, rather oddly, Hitler declared war on us.
Maybe Sven should have strapped on a rifle, regardless. Maybe he should have gone off to fight Uncle Joe, Adolf, or both. A lot of us would admire it. We would build monuments to Sven, to the valiant Swedes. And yet . . .
Today, many Americans, as of yore, embrace “America First.” Nationalism. The narrowest construal of self-interest. Fine. How about Sweden First? Swedish nationalism? The Swedish interest, construed as narrowly as possible? Was it really in Sweden’s interest to enter the world war? That’s what you would have counseled?
Should they have been “globalist,” “cosmopolitan” — sacrificing their sons in behalf of international Jewry (as the Lindberghers, the original America Firsters, said)?
Speaking of Jews: There were silver linings to Swedish neutrality, shameful as it may have been. Virtually all of Denmark’s Jews were saved, because they could flee to neutral Sweden. About half of Norway’s Jews were saved, for the same reason. (The other half were deported to the camps and murdered.) Raoul Wallenberg was able to do his work, saving those tens of thousands, thanks to his passport: He was Swedish.
I do not say that these things make up for Swedish neutrality. I do not say that Sweden, or other neutral countries, behaved with honor during the war. Many books have been written on this topic, and many more will be, no doubt, in the future. I’m doing a little blogpost here. I am saying there is another point of view, given to me by a kind, patient, knowledgeable, and experienced man one night, and which I pass on to those interested.
By the way, if we hadn’t been attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor — would we have gotten into the Pacific War? If Hitler hadn’t declared war on us — would we have gotten into the European War? If FDR had said, “No, thank you, we decline the invitation” — what then? What if another man, besides FDR, had been president in December 1941? Robert A. Taft? What would the U.S. have done? What would the results of the war have been?
All questions to play with, in one’s idle time.