Talk:Sweden during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on Sweden during World War II is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Nordic military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

The discussion on this page has been somewhat unstructured, to say the least. So, in an attempt to enable people to see when what has been entered, I have rearranged the comments according to content and when they were entered. I have also, where possible, added date and source where people haven't signed their comments with the ~~~~. Could everybody from now on please enter their comments under the right headline, at the bottom of of that discussion, and sign their comments in the proper manner? And if you start a new discussion, please give it a heading and put it at the bottom. Using the "+" icon at the top is an easy way to achieve this. Thank you. Thomas Blomberg 13:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 First comments 2 Dollar conversion 3 Cleanup details from Wikipedia:Cleanup/Leftovers 4 positive spin 5 a woman I spoke to 6 Sweden during WWII - No Waffen SS mention? 7 Error 8 Sweden's Airforce 9 Sweden not pro-German 10 1945 11 Last paragraph 12 Removed sentence in German pressure section 13 Changing section headings 14 Fact check 14.1 Negative, unneutral impression of Swedes 15 Sweden and the Jewish People 16 To Fred-Chess 17 Proper Sources 18 Still POV 19 Neutral during the Winter War? 20 Thank you 21 Comments 22 "Citation needed" 23 Swedish battalions at Barbarossa 24 New book 25 To be Swedish, to be anti-Swedish; We were forced to, they made us do it... 26 Biased 27 Unsolvable issue 28 The issue is simple 29 Really weak 30 Gripsholm 31 more Swedish Air Force 32 Hilarity 33 Pre-war preparations 34 Military balance 35 Cold war 36 Fair use rationale for Image:Tiger295.jpg 37 Still Extremely Unbalanced

[edit] First comments

This is an excellent article, and I see no reason for its deletion. (Comment entered 03:56, 26 February 2004 by 24.174.201.42) in response to a vfd tag having been added to the article 00:00, 26 February 2004 by Obli

It is exceedingly well-written, especially so if (as I suspect) the person writing it is a native Swede writing in a language not his own. One question which might be nice to explore is the charge made by many Norwegians alive at the time that Sweden allowed the use of its railnet by the Germans during the invasion. I do not know whether this charge is false --- but since the matter still resonates it could be a good idea to touch upon it. (Second comment, entered 00:55, 25 July 2004 by 68.198.7.81)

It is not false. The failure to mention the transition traffic, the Midsummer crisis, and the Engelbrekt division in this article, where they should obviously be mentioned, feels abusively POV. The issues have been subject of lengthy debates in Sweden, not least during the last decade or so. If nobody else takes on the task, I will soon brush up on the matters and add a section myself ("Challenges and compromises to the neutrality" or something like that). Apart from that, the article looks really well-written. It should also be summarized at Industrialization of Sweden, I think, as that (somewhat odd-titled) is the main article on Swedish 20th century history, and presently marked as a stub. -- Jao 11:57, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dollar conversion

"Before the war, production of armaments did not exceed more than tens of millions of Swedish kronor, but during the war, production exceeded the cost of one billion Swedish kronor ($240,000,000)." Something odd here. Currently one US dollar is ~7.50 swedish kronor. (Comment entered 08:45, 24 October 2004 by 213.67.12.54)

Given the size of the numbers I assume they are WW2 era dollars, which may or may not make the numbers fit. Thue | talk 11:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup details from Wikipedia:Cleanup/Leftovers

Needs further cleanup and some sections describing the background on other topics needs to be broken out an possibly integrated elsewhere. A general article on Swedish neutrality policy (1809-present) is also lacking and segments here may be broken out and used as a backbone. (Comment entered 14:17, 17 April 2005 by Beland

[edit] positive spin

I suspect sweden was alot more pro german then this article implies, and the king of the time was pro german (and gay, go figure) also the swedish armed forces were generally pro german, at first, when the germans were thought to be winning. http://home.swipnet.se/Sverige_under_kriget/ is a swedish site but very informative. (Comment entered 20:05, 12 May 2005 by ThrBigD)

"pro german (and gay, go figure)" What is that supposed to mean?

The link above is dead at the time of writing. I would also like to point out that the king was partial to Germany, but not to the Nazis. In fact he rather famously objected in person to Hitler to his anti-semitic policies prior to the war. 20061003

[edit] a woman I spoke to

In sweden said that the german soldiers were packed onto trains and other sources estimate 2 divisions were moved across the swedish rail network. this article mentions 60 disguised as red cross workers. thats laughable. why would they have even bothered. they could have flown 60 over and avoided political controversy. this smacks of re-writing history to put a positive spin on it. hey sven nynazi, if you try to re-write history make it at least plausible. Sweden was pro nazi until around '43 when they saw germany was going to loose. Daveros2008 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden during WWII - No Waffen SS mention?

Perhaps a mention of the hundreds of Swedish volunteers who served in the Freiwilligen (Volunteer) formations of the Waffen SS. The 3rd Company of the 11th SS-Volunteer Reconnaisance Abteilung was exclusively Swedish, and incidentally also one of the last formations fighting in Berlin in 1945. See my article at 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland and this link Swedish Volunteers in the German Wehrmacht in WWII for more info.

Here's a partial list of Swedish volunteer SS Officers who were awarded German medals.

• Rune Ahlgren, SS-Obersturmführer
• Per-Sigurd Baecklund, SS-Untersturmführer
• Gösta Borg, SS-Untersturmführer
• Gunnar Eklöf, SS-Untersturmführer
• Wolfgang Eldh-Albitz, SS-Untersturmführer
• Nils Eriksson, SS-Oberscharführer
• Bengt Hassler, SS-Obersturmführer
• Yngve Hellenborg, SS-Untersturmführer
• Hans-Caspar Kreuger, SS-Untersturmführer
• Hans Lindström, SS-Untersturmführer
• Kurt Lundin, ?
• Heino Meyer, SS-Untersturmführer
• Yngve Nordborg, SS-Obersturmführer
• Hans-Gösta Pehrsson, SS-Hauptsturmführer
• Sven Rydén, SS-Obersturmführer
• Carl Svensson, SS-Untersturmführer
• Torkel Tillman, SS-Untersturmführer

--Ansbachdragoner 05:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. We seem to have a fair number of suggestions on this page, but not as much action. No need to ask permission when updating pages. Peregrine981 08:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Finishing off a couple of articles on the Battle of Narva (1944) atm, but will add section on Swedish volunteers after that.--Ansbachdragoner 06:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error

The section on pre-war militarization says: "On 6 May 1938, the government called up the entire conscript class of 1923, then at the age of 35, for short periods of training." Something is wrong here. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No error, most likely. The class of conscripts which graduated in 1923 should be about 35 years old 15 years later. The sentence claims that all of them were recalled to periods of active duty for refresher training. If you think it is unclear you might replace the word "up" with "back". Ado 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Corrected mistyped number (30000 was written as number of soldiers mobilized in February 1942 rather than the 300000 listed in the source refered to, http://home.swipnet.se/Sverige_under_kriget/sverige.htm Ado 10:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden's Airforce

I'm trying to remember the source but I remember hearing from some documentary that by 1942(or 1 not sure) Sweden had the third largest airforce in the worl( or was it just Europe). Anyway I just thought I would post this incase some one more familiar with this could correct me. Falphin 01:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This statement is probably mistaken. The Swedish airforce only reached ~600 aircraft towards the end of the war, and had far fewer in 1942. However, development and construction continued leading to a large number of planes in service during the cold war in the early fifties, and there are statements claiming that at that time the Swedish airforce was among the top in the world (after the US and Soviet). This may be where the mistake came from. Ado 10:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden not pro-German

Sweden was NOT pro-german during the war, and this needs to be pointed out clearly. it is true that some Swedes were pro-german (including the king, who was of a rather conservative, German family and not too insightful-what his homosexuality has to do with his pro-german stance, according to a previous writer, is beyond me and EXTREMELY homophobic! Need i mention that many homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazis?!) Anyway, the king had only marginal influence on foreign policiy, and his position was at odds with the majority of Swedes. Sweden did make concessions to Germany but only due to circumstances and due to geographic isolation. The Swedish foreign minister at the time, Christian Günther, who more or less controlled Swedish foreign policiy, was anti-nazi. Sweden's location put Sweden in a very precarious position, and the main goal of Swedens government at this time was to avoid invasion. The Swedish government was extremely fearful of such an attack, which was highly likely, and that led to concessions and unfortunate restrictions of press freedom. While it is true that this helped Germany prolong the war, it must be noted that Sweden did so after intense pressure from Germany, who consistently questioned Sweden's neutrality. Sweden was faced with an ethical dilemma, and chose to protect Sweden's interests rather than her neighbors. Not the most couragous choice perhaps, but it is worth questioning what other countries would have done in the same situation. Also, Sweden's choice did allow for great humanitarian aid, which is touched on only briefly in this article. Many Jews, Norwegians, Finns, Danes and also Finnish children were spared from death and the horrors of war because the were able to find refuge in Sweden, not to mention thousands of Jews in Europe protected by Sweden. Sweden did have historical ties to Germany but the ties to Norway and Finland were much closer. Unlike Switzerland and Portugal, Sweden's neutrality was severely pushed to the limits by the Nazis and the crisis necessitated certain choices. Consider how Ireland was forced to collaborate with the Allies despite their neutrality. Also, Switzerland has been criticized for financial collaboration with the Nazis. At any rate, Sweden was definitely not pro-german and i have edited slightly to make this more clear, that Sweden only made concessions due to necessity. While I personally debate in my mind the positive and negative aspects of Swedish neutrality during WWII, I know that it was not due to pro-German sentiments that Sweden made those unpopular choices, and that should definitely be made clear on this page. --Akseli 05.33, 15 Mar 2006.

Sure, and the pope is not a Roman Catholic.--Jackkalpakian 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

this is utter bullshit, we were nazi colabs during the war. to not is like saying that the goverment in france was independent during the war. swedish people can be lucky that we didn't enter the war on an active level, but to say we didnt chose side is wrong, we followed the ones that looked like the winning side. //måns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.128.21 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1945

I added a bit about the Swedish cooperation with the Allies in 1945, which I found in a book published by the Swedish Military College (Försvarshögskolan), Horizontan Klarnar (The Horizon Clears), part of a series about Sweden during WWII. The book was edited by Bo Huldt and Klaus-Richard Böhme. This part of the story is often left out and needs to be mentioned. Link: http://www.smb.nu/pos/02/06a_beredskapsserien.asp (its in Swedish but just to prove it exists) --Akseli 07.20, 15 Mar 2006

[edit] Last paragraph

The last paragraph of this article seems POV to me. It comes off as a defense of Sweden's actions in WW2, and it is not Wikipedia's aim to defend any country or any person. Furthermore, new research has shown that Sweden enforced some aspects of the Nuremberg laws from 1937, well before there was any threat of an invasion from Germany. I think that last paragraph needs to be reworked, or deleted, which I will do when I have some time. Davidm82 12:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

David, I agree completely. The last paragraph contains lines such as "The Swedes worried more about the Jewish immigration than about the Jewish suffering in German camps." That statement is by no means NPOV. I would like to see the last paragraph deleted until it can be reworked. Thedukeofno 06:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see this as an excellent article when the initial sentence is false. "In the beginning of the war, nobody knew about the German concentration camps and the treating of Jews." Germany had passed the Nuremberg laws years earlier. They were no secret. Although people did not initially know about the death camps, the fact that Jews in Germany were not allowed to be involved in any profession, vote, be in the social service, be full citizen, and a gamut of other restrictions was public knowledge. (Comment entered 21:40, 28 April 2006 by 67.121.194.150

[edit] Removed sentence in German pressure section

I removed the following sentence from the article since no references were cited to support it: However, many priests ignored the restrictions and married such couples anyway. Davidm82 12:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing section headings

Why is it that when Sweden was helping the Allies it's called collaboration, but when they helped the Nazis, they were responding to pressure? They helped the Nazis when the Nazis were winning the war and helped the Allies when the Allies were winning the war. To call one collaboration and the other just a response to pressure is POV. Davidm82 12:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We got married in Sweden in 1982. I was a UK national and my wife Hungarian. We had to satisfy the authorities that the laws of our respective countries did not stop us marrying. So the reference to "This was a result of an order from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Utrikesdepartementet), saying that a Hague Convention of 1902 required its signatories to enforce other countries' marriage laws on those countries' citizens." seems to have still then been in force.

As I understand it, from what I have learned in school and from being a Swede is that we collaborated, with both sides, to the extent that we _had_ to, to avoid invasion. From BOTH sides. Clearly there were pro-germans in Sweden, numbers I dont know, maybe they were 5 in total :P Who knows. Clearly there were "allies" in Sweden, numbers I dont know, maybe they too were 5 in total :P Who knows.

Sweden has many ties to Germany, geographical, historical etc, but if we did not stick up for our neighbours to the east and west, with whom we clearly (except maybe linguistical and somewhat cultural with Finland) have closer ties, why would we have "stuck up" for Germany except to, as I previously mentioned... To avoid invasion.

I find the explanations of actions, not excuses - excuses are not warranted, needed or given, for our actions to be sufficient on this page. Sure it theres always room for perfection but...

I also think the article paints a pretty picture to when it comes to Britains claims of coming to our defence in case of a German invasion if we would just join them. Clearly didn't go so well for France or Poland. Gives so perspective to the shitty situation.

213.141.89.53 08:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact check

Could someone please check if the last edits adhere to Wikipedias policy of neutrality and correctness? [1] Otherwise, I'll probably remove it after a while. Fred-Chess 09:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I reverted the edits. There were some facts there that could be useful to the article, but they were not backed up by sound sources. Also, the two sections read like a 5th grade homework assignment. Davidm82 12:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

They did rather. Hopefully the unknown editor will come back with some sources - like I did ;) Tamino 20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for insult. I added the source right after each article (http://www.boras.se/utbildning). If you think it's not written properly, maybe you can write it right. But you shouldn't CENSOR things, just because you don't agree with them. There are many things written on the main article that are not proven. I suggest you improve the article, not censor it. There are people in Sweden today that still says that the Holocaust did not happend and many of them are allowed to march on Swedish national days. And what do we say in Sweden? We say that they are allowed to express their point of view and so far, no one has censor them. The jewish article is a part of Swedish History and the II World War, like it or not, we must show all sides of the story of our past.(Comment entered 07:58, 12 April 2006 by 81.225.230.18)

It took me a while to find the sources, as the link provided was too general, but eventually I did: [2] and [3]. As you can see, the text is basically copied directly from some old school papers, written by high school students in Borås 1998-1999. This explains all the references to "us" and "we", which isn't exactly the way you write a neutral, international encyclopaedic article. And the lack of sources remain, as this school papers can't be regarded as proper sources. Thomas Blomberg 08:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you regard as proper source. When I start searching for sources on this article and many more, most of them just redirects you to other parts of Wiki. Anyway, I agree with you that it is written by high school students, but nevertheless, it is a point of view and it wouldn't have been published on their web site if it lacked propper sources. During Grundskola and Gymnasiumskola, we always hear one side of the story more than the other, because that other side is too dark to accept. Rewritting the article would be the propper thing, and the subjects must remain. (Comment entered 08:31, 12 April 2006 by 81.225.230.18)

As Davidm82 said earlier, there are certainly useful facts in the two sections that should remain in the article (especially the iron ore - that has not been discussed properly). However, the reason Sweden denied the Allies passage to Finland along Malmbanan (the railway from Narvik to Luleå) was that they suspected that it was only a cover for the Allies to seize control of the Swedish iron mines around Kiruna. This was indeed the Allied plan. This is not to say that it should not be mentioned, just that it should be put into perspective. However, the fact remains that the Swedish permission to allow German troops going to and from leave (and their war materiel) to use their territory was a breach of their duties as a neutral country under international law. Rewriting would indeed be the proper thing. Tamino 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. I don't like either of the bottom two paragraphs though, because they have a anti-swedish pov. For example, economics was part of the reason why Sweden kept giving ore and that should be discussed(otherwise Sweden's eco probably would of collapsed) but at the same time it is also true, that had they refused to give the ore, they would likely have been invaded, and allied assitance was pretty much impossible. How would the Allied troops even reach Sweden after the fall of Norway? The Soviet Union was blocked by the German navy, and Soviet assistance wouldn't have been welcomed anyway after the Winter War. So, there is some useful information that should be merged from those two sections to the rest. A section on Jews and Sweden could be added with a NPOV, but the section on Swedish co-operation is uncessesary as there is a section on that two paragraphs above. 12.220.94.199 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has happened yet, and so if nothing happens by tommorow, I'm going to move the sections to talk. 12.220.94.199 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this web site an encyclopedia and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform "objectivly"? I'm Swedish and your comment makes me a Swedish anti-swede, which I am not. There is a big controversy in Sweden about these two issues and nobody seems to agree on what realy happend. A few months ago, the government published a report that showed, among many things, that 1 in 5 swedes could not see a jew as prime minister. If you do your math properly, that represents 20% of the population. (is Göran Person anti-swedish?) Of course it is only an estimate but still it is one of the highest in the world. Now that for many is a great kick in the balls, after all, we think of ourselfs as being tolerant people. Come to Falun or anywhere in Dalarna and see for yourself how hospitable people from this part of Sweden is. Anyway, this is probably my point of view, just like the reasons why Sweden acted the way it, selling iron to Germany, is your point of view (or an excuse). It is not up to me nor you to decide what sort of information whe must publish of our country. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad or if we like it or not. Untill Swedish historians come to a conclusion or what realy happend during the II World War, I think, as a "Swede", that all points of view must be shown. Sweden not only co-operated with the alies, also co-operated with the Nazis. All the reasons you can give to take the article away are only excuses to censor the article. so maybe the article should be rewritten as said before, when I get the time, I'll probably do it. (Comment added on 15:21, 18 May 2006 by 81.225.230.18)

I leave this link of a book so maybe anyone interested in the subject can read it the book is Sweden's Relations With Nazism, Nazi Germany & the Holocaust the link to Bokus http://www.bokus.com/b/9122020136.html?pt=search_result This book is not anti-swedish! (Comment added on 15:27, 18 May 2006 by 81.225.230.18)

The objective of wikipedia IS NOT to show "all points of view". It is to show a neutral or no point of view to speak. Facts. Sure, a controversy paragraph could be included if there is something that cannot be substantiated but has been the subject of a prolonged discussion amongst.. urgh.. scholars? :P Like they know anything. I think you get my point tho.

We're not here not write 2 points of views. Pro and con.

And as I've said before, any Swede who makes excuses for his goverments actions during the WW2 is a fool. Is that your responsibility? In the end, Sweden did not get invaded. Considering 100% of our germanic neighbours were and 100% of our.. ugric? neighbours were I think thats a pretty good job? BUT thats just my POV. Not putting it in the article :)

213.141.89.53 08:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negative, unneutral impression of Swedes

I saw some things that were quite offensive and obviously not NPOV statements, for example that Swedes were more concerned about Jewish immigration than persecution of the Jews, and that the Sweden was just taking advantage of trade with Germany. Those statements are simplistic and seem to lack any historical backing, considering that Sweden was isolated from the Allies and our economy depended on the Germans. Yes i agree that Sweden could have done more to stand up to the Germans, though it was also true that the government was very afraid of risking Sweden's neutrality and being invaded. Besides that, the statements lack any citation, and I think that a lot of it may have just been hearsay, coming from a typical politically correct Swede who wants to put Sweden in a bad light. It is typical for many Swedes to point out anything negative about Sweden and its history, to show how politically correct they are.

I'm the political correct Swede that wants to know where is the source that sustains that "the government was very afraid of risking Sweden's neutrality and being invaded"... or is it just your point of view?--81.230.145.124 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as those who question whether Sweden was collaborating with the Allies and under duress from the Nazis, you should be aware of Sweden's general attitude at the time, and consider how much more voluntarily the Swedish government tried to help the Allies (once we knew that they would win of course, we weren't stupid, and we were really ideologically set on remaining neutral att all cost. Besides, Sweden was a much smaller country and no match for Germany) For example Sweden was willing to help with espionage and plans to enter the war on the Allies side. That would not have happened with the Nazis. Sweden's cooperation with the Nazis was regrettable, but perhaps even unavoidable considering the situation, Sweden's economy relied on letting the Nazis push us around, as well as Sweden's freedom..the alternative would have been to enter the war in the beginning, which I think they were afraid of doing. Swedes can be very timid. I don't mean to say that Sweden was just a victim, though in many regards we were bullied by the Nazis, though not so much as other countries. The government was absolutely not innately supportive of Germany's aims, but rather lacked the courage to stand up for what it believed in, democracy (or att least what we thought we believed in...controlling the press is not democratic, but it was considered necessary of the politicians at the time). Sweden had much to gain from the Allies winning the war, and only cooperated with the Nazis because there was little other choice that didn't involve putting Sweden at risk, which was the government's main objective. If that is cowardly or smart...let the readers decide, but don't give them the impression that Sweden would willingly support the Nazi cause. The government didnt support Nazism, even if it can appear that way when they allowed Germany to dictate marriage laws in Sweden. The issue was rather more about the Swedish tendency to let other people tell them us what to do, to avoid conflict at all cost. You can see that if you ever travel to Sweden, we are very good at letting othr people tell us what to do. During WWI there were quite a few Swedes who supported Germany, which doesn't bother me that much considering it was just a territorial war and they were naive. But few rational Swedes supported the Nazis. D.on't put in negative, unneutral comments about Swedes, we already have an inferiority complex and always try to persecute ourselves! The guy who is writing negative things about us has a political agenda, to prove how intolerant we are, which isn't true at all, we accept more imigrants per capita than other European countries. Compare os with the Netherlands for example. Its unfortunate that some people here want to blend in their political agenda. I sometimes am ashamed of Sweden's actions, but i try to understand them from a historical perspective and do research on Sweden's history, rather than just listen to what other people say. If he wants to restate his ideas in a more neutral tone, then he should and include references.

Where are the sources for all this?--81.230.145.124 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the study that says that 20 % of Swedes couldn't see a Jew as a prime minister. How many of those do you imagine are Muslim immigrants? (Sources please! or is this just your opinoin?--81.230.145.124 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)) I would say very many of them probably. (this is your opinion! personal opinions are irelevent, remember NPOV?--81.230.145.124 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)) Its a well established fact that much of Europe's present antisematism comes from the Muslims, and Sweden actually has more Muslims per capita than many other European countries. I am of course not against Muslims in any way, but they are not well known for being tolerant of Jews. Swedes in general tend to be very tolerant. Sure there exists som intelerant folks in some of the more isolated areas and even in the cities, but as a whole we are very tolerant...some would even say too tolerant, but not me. We take in more immigrants than most countries, and we assimilate ourselves to fit their culture, which is of course a swedish tradition :) We have a low amount of people that vote for nazi parties or identify with such things, compared with our poor neighbors Denmark have today :( They were also very tolerant before. Everything i have read about the Jews who were rescued from Denmark from the Germans shows that they were taken in by Swedes and that many of them even stayed here. There were antisemites in Sweden att the time, i won't deny it, or that antisemitism was a part of our culture just like it was a part of all european an even american cultures. But it wasn't so bad that we accepted what happened to the Jews, not as a society anyway. We are very tolerant. there was unfortunately some racism during the mid 20th century, but that existed in most countries. Not to say that it was ok, but put it in perspective of course. So anyway, don't let that other swedish guy fool you. (yeah, don't let me fool you, where are the sources?--81.230.145.124 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

About the research that says the swedish government kept Germans from marrying Swedish Jews. I think that is an important part of history, but it should be put into a historical perspective as well, so that it isn't just sensationalism. Many priests refused to follow those laws, and the whole thing was about Swedish timidity, fear of Nazi oppression. Not to deny that there were people in Sweden who didn't support it themselves, but it isn't something that society in general would support.

Another topic that needs to be discussed, but again in a neutral way that doesn't sensationalise, is the trains that carried German soldiers and weapons to Norway. Again, it was about our politicians inability to stand up for our neighbors, not that we wanted to cooperate with the Nazis. That topic i didn't see here, but it is important and someone with a neutral perspective should definitely write about it. Hopefully not a Norwegian :P

This is a good source for any Swedes who want to research Sweden's role in the war, unfortunately bara på svenska: http://www.smb.nu/index.asp It is the website of Sweden's Military Library, with several good articles about Sweden's collaberation with the Allies, among other things. Akseli 11:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Akseli

You seem to agree many thing but as you wrote many time without sensationalizing. What do you mean about that? It is not that I don't know the meaning of the word, but in some cases I don't understand in which context you say what you say. I have no political agenda, I am not a politician. I just read an article about Sweden and thought that there were many htings missing, events that I consider that foreigners must know about Sweden. What people read abroad about Sweden is all roses and good and all that, and many that travels here, and decide to live and settle, find that it is not totaly like that. Sweden is not a tolerable country, and the amount of refugees has nothing to do with Swedes being open and nice, it is just a political decission. If you ask the common people what they think about foreigners, they are not so happy about it. Foreigners are highly unemplyed in Sweden, and many say it is because the have no education. But when is come for an employer to chose between two uneducated people for a low skill job, like a factory or clening floors, a Swede and a foreigner, the employer most of the time will hire the Swede. Now you can say that this is pure sensationalism and that I am trying to give a very bad impression of this country, but this is the situation in Sweden today and specially here in Dalarna. I have had the opertunity to travel and lived in other countries for many years and that opened my eyes. I have been brain washed in schools and always hered what a great country we are and how better we are to the rest. Statistic always show we are the best, and statistic can be used to manipulate people and we swedes love statistics, because that is all we here from politicians, specialy when something is wrong. You know what sensationalism is? It's the 2 most read and sold newspappers in Sweden; Aftonbladet and Expressen. If I had time, like I said before I will change those two last articles and write them properly, take away all the Us and Them stuff. But I don't have the time and I didn't find anything shorter that sammanfattas what they say. In conclusion, it is up to the reader to make there own opinion, since we as a nation can not agree with these two complicated issues.

Got all that out of an article didya? Wich article? And if you live in Dalarna, wich you claim is a region where the ideas you hold for true are predominant, it's not so suprising you hold the ideas you do. You know why that is? Because people get affected by the conditions in the area around them. I read that in "an article". Like, if an refugee rapes and kills your girlfriend I will bet 200 bucks that you will be less in favour of refugees.

I agree with you both by the way, but please, everyone has an agenda... Dont feed me anything else. Sweden has regions with high unassimilated immigration and areas without it. The perception varies with that.

213.141.89.53 08:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden and the Jewish People

I have again disputed the neutrality of this section. Statements such as "Swedes were suspicious", "Swedes more concerned about Jewish immigration than suffering", "Swedes saw how Jews were taking their jobs" are horribly POV. I think it would be more useful if this article stuck to the facts and left conjecture if not wholesale stereotyping to other sources. Thedukeofno 10:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

= = Sweden and the Jewish people = =

{{NPOV-section}}

In the beginning of the war, nobody knew about the German death camps and the treating of Jews. But after some years of war the knowledge of these camps was spread into Sweden, and many leaders in the country knew about it, without doing anything. Sweden was the first country which got information about the concentration camps, the annihilation of the Jews, and about "Die Endlösung" the final solution. The reason to why Sweden didn´t intervene was that it wasn´t very good to make trouble with the Germans, and Sweden was also afraid of an invasion from Germany.

The Swedes worried more about the Jewish immigration than about the Jewish suffering in German camps. Swedish newspapers wrote about how poorly the Jewish were treated in Europe, but the Swedes were often suspicious and thought of it as overstatement propaganda. People in Sweden saw how the Jews "stole" their jobs, and many thought of preserving the Aryan race. German tourists had no problem getting into Sweden, but Jews on the other hand needed two passports to enter Sweden. It was a Swedish proposal to mark the Jews´ passports with a big "J" so they could be identified as Jews and stopped. Other countries also started with the same method, and later on there came laws which forbade Jews to travel through Sweden. But, Sweden didn´t act that execrable all the time. It received a large number of refugees both from Norway and Denmark, and when the persecution of Jews started in Denmark, many Jews went over to Sweden to find asylum there. The greatest rescue operation during the war was carried out by the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who succeeded in saving thousands of Jews before he himself was brought to an unknown fate by the Russians. Sweden also sent the well-known White Buses, organized by Folke Bernadotte, to rescue Jews from the concentration camps. Many of the Jews who survived live in Sweden today.

• This is written in a very unspecific and unencyclopedic manner, and in addition doesn't contain any sources or references. It should not be reinserted without proper sources, and a brush up of the tone. / Fred-Chess 13:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are stating is only your opinion and that of some Swedes. Other Swedes as myself think different, including hitorians, journalist and many intelectuals. If you don't like the way the article is written you can change it but the content in my opinion must remain. As I wrote before, there is still no "One Truth" about what "Really" happend during the II World War in Sweden, specialy the treatment of jews. So untill the Swedish government decides to really investigate, it is not up to you nor me to decide who says the truth. About the sources, this article was published on the Boras University web page. I don't know if you are swedish or not, Boras University is in Sweden, and I think that is source eneough for me. By the way, you contradicted me, where are your sources? If you live in Sweden, if you grew up in Sweden and went to grundskola and gymnasium like I did, you know very well that the argument about these events is still on. Unless you are one of those that think that the holocaust never happend, one of those that march on Sveriges national day holding the Swedish flag like the members of "Sverigedemokraterna" party (For those who don't know, the Swedish Nazi Party), let the people decide what is true or not. Not liking what the article says does not give you any right to censor it. If it is not written properly, re-write it. And this has nothing to do with neutrality, it is not anti-swede to say somthing bad about Sweden. I am a Swede and I want the truth to be said about Sweden.

You have been asked to provide reliable sources -- the article on the Borås Website looked like someone's schoolwork and wasn't referenced itself.

Please mention which historians, journalists and intellectuals agree with you, and what it is they are saying, and where they say so. There are actually articles about many Swedish intellectuals, such as Jan Guillou, Mikael Wiehe, Zeth Höglund, Per T. Ohlsson, Jan Scherman, etc, so they are not unknown on Wikipedia in case you want to quote them.

And personally, I did go to school in Sweden, but have since come to realize that many things I learnt there were twisted, simplified, or simply wrong. / Fred-Chess 09:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First I think you are right about the sources, that the article does not contain any source. But it is also true that an encyclopedia is not a collection of esseys. I've read through this article and the discussion page and found no sources to sustain any of what has been published. I also read through other articles in Wiki and found the same thing: no sources. I also read articles in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia and found nothing, only contributions. In my opinion, it is not that you are concerned that these two article have no sources, in particular the one concerning jews, but that you don't agree with its content. There is a book I quoted before which is a good source. I read some of it, unfortunatly I had to return it, but it gave me an idea of some things that happend, of course, it is simply the point of view of some historians. If we have to start deleting articles because they have no sources, Wiki would be almost empty.

For many years, people like Jan Guillou have taken into the light dark things about Swedens past. For many years people that have denounced such thing have been dicredited. Until the 80's in Sweden, the events of the holocoust were not taught in schools. Sweden is the only country where the Nazi's have there political party, they have been somehow legalized. They don't use the svastica or call themselfs Nazi's, but we all know who they are. Do you need sources for this?

Jan Guillou is not only an extremist, but also not a reliable witness. His books are frequently marred with incorrect facts.

A bit off topic BUT... While that might be true, witnesses are seriously overvalued anyway. We take anecdotes with a grain of salt, why dont we do it with testemonies too?

213.141.89.53 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We know that things happened in our past, for some reason or the other, bad things that many people feel shame about. And in order to avoid that guilt, we have excuses. We always have a good reason for whatever bad our past leaders did.

Many articles aren't references, but they should be, and there have been made efforts to encourage people reference their articles. This is explained in the policies Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. In practice, sources are less important for uncontroversial topics, but if you look at some controversial topics, I'm sure you find they are well referenced.

You are welcome to quote the book you mentioned above, or to quote Jan Guilluo, if you provide the source, so that others can check up on it.

Fred-Chess 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I will, as soon as I finish my exams. But I still think that your concern has more to do with you disagreement and disaproval of the content of the articles. I haven't read in this discussion page anybody concern with the sources of other articles. What I think you can do, since I see you take a great deal of time to contribute in this encyclopedia (which I think is good), to also ask others for their sources. Many things that are added in this article and others, are accepted because somehow they are, for Swedes, like common knoledge. Common knolegde can not be taken serious for these type of scientific or academic writtings. Not that we are all scientist or intelectuals, but it must contain facts. For example, a link to a web page cannot be considered a serious source. It doesn't matter which web site it is, most of the time you don't know who wrote it. It is also true that these two last articles are written a bit subjective, but so are many others concerning Sweden and World War II, in this page and on others pages in Wiki. After commenting about some event, like that Sweden traded with Germany during the war, follows an excuse, like "We were force to". That is irrelevent. A lot of people today seem to be excusing the mistakes of our past leaders. No one forced anybody to do anything, the decisions were made and today many see that they were the wrong decisions. Britain was not forces to go to war with Germany, after Germany invaded Poland. But they saw it as a moral issue to keep their word with Poland, so they Declared war to Germany. There were no treaties or anything signed that foreced Britain. Concerning Swedens trade agreements with Germany, if that war happends today, with the international laws that exsist today, Swedens trade with Germany would be considered as like Sweden would be taking part with Germany, and therefore would have been invaded.

This is factually incorrect, Britain had guaranteed Poland. So Britain legally forced to declare war on Germany. The discussion about trading with warring countries is also incorrect, at the time cancelling trade was considered a non-neutral act and thus a Casus Belli.

No not forced. Obliged. They could of course have ignored the law. Im sure there is a precedent in history where a country has ignored a garantee of independence - I will go find one if you insist. But yes, he is incorrect. When Poland was clearly being threatened considering Memel and Danzig, Britain garanteed their independence. HOWEVER this does not invalidate all the good points the man wrote. Like people keep making/using excuses for Swedens actions during world war 2.

If we had shot all the jews in Sweden and ate their flesh and then made a huge bonfire out of them, then yes, that might have been something to excuse for. We didnt. Some actions were questionable some werent, thats about it.

213.141.89.53 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now the reasons are all just opinions that only those who lived at the time took to their graves. So I would really like to see a real neutral article about Sweden, specialy this part of Swedens history, no irrelevent excuses about why something happend, about why Sweden traded with Germany or why Sweden implemented Nazi marriege law, and many other things that we don't know, that we only hear as a rummor from some relative or old person that lived at the time. Many events and their reasons will never be known. And it is not up to you, me nor the Swedish government to decide. I think that is wise to write things objectivly, the good and the bad, without giving reasons and excuses and let time decide. If you ever read Ortega y Gaset, a famous Spanish philosofer from the begining of the 20th century, he says that the masses decide the course history and how it will be written.

Sweden during World War II is a very delicate issue for many Swedes, many things happend durring that time specialy concerning the jews. Some people helped the jews and others didn't. At the time it was almost imposible for a jew to find work, many were fired from factories, because they were jews. You want sources? Do you know any Swedish jew? If you do, ask them. Do you excpect to find it written on a history book? So as a conclusion, what are we going to do with all this article. Just censor what we don't like, specialy if it's a NEGATIVE view of Sweden, even though it's true. Give excuses of all the bad thing that happened? Like for example, that "20% of Swedes could not see a jew as a prime minister" and have someone say: "Yeah, but how many of them were muslims?". This is absurd! I don't think this is the proper way to hold a discussion. A conclussion must come out of any discussion and so far I've seen non. Just excuses and insults like "Anti-Swedish" and so on.

Jewish muslims? You guys are confusing me here. Although if they were arab jews I think that might be relevant to why people would percieve them diffrently. Either way, it defenitely could be mention, if true... Something like this. 20% of Swedes could not see a jew as a prime minister. Swedish Jews at the time were 80% Arabs. BY THE WAY I just took arabs as an example because I had no idea what the fuck you guys were talking about. Jewish muslims? Isn't that an impossibility?

213.141.89.53 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Sweden is and was no more anti-semitic than other countries, and in fact I think modern Swedes are generally more accepting of Jewish people than many other populations, simply because in Sweden religion is not a major issue, and most racial issues in today's Sweden have to do with immigration, which does not generally involve Jewish people. That isn't to say that anti-semitism isn't a problem in Sweden, because its a problem everywhere, but the writer above is blowing it out of proportion. Sweden does have a history of tolerance, which is evidenced by the comparatively low participation in neo-nazi groups. Also, I think it isn't entirely irrelevant to point out that many of those Swedes who are anti-semetic MAY be muslims, as anti-semetism does tend to be higher in the Muslim community, but obviously this is an unknown factor. Another group of people who might oppose a Jewish prime minister would be those who are very opposed to the policies of Israel as a country and unfortunately don't discriminate between Israel and the Jews; this is a phenomenon which is common in most countries, certainly not specific to Sweden, and while it is arguably a form of anti-semitism, it is distinct from the racial anti-semitism practiced by nazis. Some confused people might equate electing a jewish prime minister with accepting Israeli policies; while i don't condone this viewpoint, I think it is a more complex issue than the anti-semitism based on race and religion, though it can certainly be interelated. At any rate, the point is that Sweden is not a particularly anti-semitic country. The fact that Sweden accepted the law that Germans couldn't marry Swedish Jews is remarkable, but I believe it has more to do with diplomacy (with Germany) than ideology. I have never seen any legitimate source arguing that Swedes were particularly anti-semitic during WWII, at least not any more than in other countries. Hbhiggens 21:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I personally dislike the goverment of Israel and their policies tremendously. EXTREMELY even. But I dont know a Jew I havent liked. Not that I have met any that I know of. Hey I could be of jewish descent for all I know :)

213.141.89.53 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Fred-Chess

I have taken my time to go through the entire article and there are no quotes nor sources in any way. If you wish to play by the rules of Wiki, the whole article must be deleted, not only the part about the jews you don't seem to like. So, the rules are for everyone, of for nobody. Lets stop with the hipocracy typical of us Swedes, "Rule apply for you but not for me". As I wrote here and on your page, I have proposed something. I guess it's up to you, you seem to be the only one DELETING what you don't like and talking about Wiki's rules.

Your material is the only disputed. As you see from reading this discussion page, I'm not the only one complaining!

I'll continue to remove it until you provide references.

Fred-Chess 11:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'l continue to add it until you come into terms with things. Many people agreed with the article and saw it necessary to rewrite it. If you continue with this atitude, I will review all you entries and demand you to provide the proper sources. I will review all this article and demand the same. AS I SAID TO YOU BEFORE, THIS IS A MATTER OF AGREING OR NOT WITH THe CONTENT and that should not be.

you are not Wikipedia's Police! I am starting to doubt your intelectual capacity, if you read through the discussion page you'll find personal opinions, which contridicts Wiki's policy of NEUTRLITY!

Your personal opinion and for that matter mine or anynoes is irrelevent to an Enyclopedia.

Now, do you want to have a proper discussion or just act like a fascist?

Considering that Sven65 has a good point, I will create a user and move the neutrality sing al the top of the page, so maybe you (Fred) want to colaborate and make the entire page a reliable source.

[edit] Proper Sources

I just changed some things in the article "Sweden and the Jewish People" so it doesn't sound so "offensive". I just read through the entire article "Sweden during World War II" and it lacks proper sources. I suggest that if anyone is willing, to start re-writting the different parts and add proper citations, sources and all. Also, to keep the excusses and reasons of some events because they are irrelevent to the whole ides of an encyclopedia. Negetive views nor positive view of a country does not make neutral or non-neutral. An encyclopedia must contain fact, goob or bad without anyone trying to justifie them. So if it is in the interest of everyone to inform properly, untill Swedish historians and the Swedish people agrees with what really happend, all sides of the tale must be published. If we Swedes consider ourself to be democratic people, lets show it and start to do things in that way.

You still don't undestand that the sections you are promoting are the only sections that are disputed, and therefor require proper sources. But as it is futile to discuss with you, I'll await the opinions of other.

And I don't see how other people can add references to your text

Fred-Chess 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has only recently started to get tough on sourcing. A lot of old content is lacking in that regard, but that should not be taken as an excuse. I actually think the entire article needs to be rewritten with proper sourcing (as do many other articles), but there is certainly no reason to add new content without good sources, considering that this new content presumably comes from some publication that the contributor currently has access to. As I pointed out aready in early April on Talk:Sweden, a lot has been written on the topic of Sweden before and during WWII, and its foreign, economic and immigration policy. Just check some recent volumes of Historisk tidskrift or Scandia. Writing a few well-referenced NPOV paragraphs and adding them here will be more useful for Wikipedia and its users, more fun for yourself and much less annoying to other contributors than writing long-winded rants on talkpages. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 17:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a neutrality issue here. I do see that these two articles lack proper sources, but also the other articles lack its source. The article titled "Sweden and the Jewish People", though written in a questionable manner, states two sides of how Sweden dealt with the jews. For example, at the begining there is a sentence that goes "Many leaders in the country knew about it without doing anything", this sentence should be removed because it does not reflect a fact, only a point of view. This article in general gives two aspects of the attitude of Sweden during the war, which both are true: that the govenrment did not remain totaly neutral and tried to please both sides. At the end of the article it mentions how jews were help and given asylum in Sweden. So I think neutrality is not a major issue in this article, just some sentences should be removed or written in a different way. I think this anonimous user should take the time to provide the sources. And so should all the other users that added content in this article "Sweden during World War II" should come up with the proper source. If any article should be removed because of the lack of sources, the whole page should be, and written in a proper manner. I'll remove the disputed neutrality signs and encorage the anonimous user and Fred-Chess to lower the tone and try to collaborate to make the article better. In my opinion, both of you are right in what you say. Sven65

I will like to invite the anonymous user 81.230.145.124 to sign in Wikipedia. It will be much easy to know who adds comments in this discussion page, not that your identity will be revealed, but it is much easy to know who we talk to. --Sven65 10:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be unfare to demand sources for one article and not the others. I read through this section and found no proper sourcing. The whole section "Sweden during World War II " has no source. So why not just delete everything and star all over again!--Xsander 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still POV

The sections are still POV, and the reasons have been described above. In case you don't want to read it, I can give you my opinion on why it is POV -- it's probably of importance that I list my argument in detail, because some people find the text neutral and accurate.

Here is the first section, with my comments in brackets.

Many people say that Sweden's worst treachery during the Second World War was the extensive export of iron ore to the German weapon industry. [Who is "Many people"? ] When the world, during the Winter War period, understood how Hitler prepared for war and the danger for a new war became obvious, the Swedish iron ore became a big interest. The ore was regarded to be Hitler's Achilles heel, since he was so dependent on it. [Source please] Sweden had the power to reduce the export, which would reduce Hitler's armament industry as well. Calculations say that the Swedish iron ore export lengthened the war by two years. [By whose calculations?] In a message from Ralph Glynn, a member of the English parliament, he let us know just how dependent Germany was of Sweden. If we stopped our export it would lead to an end of the war within six months, and if German troops would attack Sweden, the English would come to our rescue. [Who is "we"?] But the Swedish government had other plans in mind, since the iron ore financed much of the Swedish life during the war. We received coal in exchange, and what the iron ore was used for was not Sweden's problem, the main thing was that the Swedish people lived a good life. [Who is "we" ? And is this a quote? the statement "the main thing was that the Swedish people lived a good life" sounds like the writer's own opinions.] The Allies tried to get Sweden to reduce the export, and finally the country came to an agreement about a yearly iron export to Germany. The Germans were still co-operative, because Sweden had found a good way to cheat the Allies. [Is really the word "cheat" appropriate/neutral ? It is a one-sided argument that doesn't take account of the full events. Source please. ] Sweden did not keep any record of the export to Germany. When the war became worse for the Germans, Sweden turned its interest towards the Allies. Another thing the Germans had need of was ball bearings and Sweden had the best. Sweden evaded the trade agreement and smuggled goods to both Germany and England. [This is, again, a one-sided statement that doesn't take account of all events. Source please. ] In 1944, Sweden promised the Allies to reduce the ball bearing export as well, but found a loophole in the agreement and started to export ball bearing steel and ball bearing machines. Sweden was prepared to do everything, and made money off the war even though it condemned it. [One-sided anti-Swedish POV. Source please. ] Swedes warmed themselves with coal from occupied parts of Poland, while the Polish people suffered. [Was it really that simple ? ] Many people were against what was happening, but the risk of losing their jobs if they said anything was too big so they just pretended to not know anything about it. [Is this hearsay or speculations? Who were "many people"? Source please. ]

Second section, again with my comments in brackets:

In the beginning of the war, nobody knew about the German concentration camps and the treating of Jews. [What has this got to do with Sweden? But OK.] But after some years of war the knowledge of these camps was spread into Sweden. Many leaders in the country knew about it without doing anything. [Unspecific statement since the full extent of the camps were only known after the war] Sweden was the first country which got information about the concentration camps, the annihilation of the Jews, and about "Die Endlösung" the final solution. [Source please]. The reason to why Sweden didn´t intervene was that it wasn´t in the best interest of the country, and Sweden was also afraid of an invasion from Germany. [Agree] Some Swedes worried more about the Jewish immigration than about the jews in German camps. [Who were "some" Swedes? Source needed] Swedish newspapers wrote about how poorly the Jewish were treated in Europe, but the Swedes were often suspicious and thought of it as overstatement propaganda. [Did all Swedes think this? Source needed] People in Sweden saw how the Jews "stole" their jobs, and many thought of preserving the Aryan race. [Anti-Swedish propaganda. Source needed.] German tourists had no problem getting into Sweden, but Jews on the other hand needed two passports to enter Sweden. It was a Swedeish proposal to mark the Jews passports with a big "J" so they could be identified as Jews and stopped. Other countries also started with the same method, and later on there came laws which forbade Jews to travel through Sweden. But, Sweden didn´t act that execrable all the time. [execrable = POV word -- it is obvious which side this article is taking, but articles shouldn't take sides. read WP:NPOV ] It received a large number of refugees both from Norway and Denmark, and when the persecution of Jews started in Denmark, many Jews went over to Sweden to find asylum there. The greatest rescue operation during the war was carried out by the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who succeeded in saving thousands of Jews before he himself was brought to an unknown fate by the Russians. Sweden also sent the well-known White Buses, organized by Folke Bernadotte, to rescue Jews from the concentration camps. Many of the Jews who survived live in Sweden today. [No arguments on the last sentences]

Fred-Chess 10:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I agree in many of the comments you made to both articles and specialy the "we" and "us". But many of the information are facts, and don't have the proper sources. (And I am not trying to put an excuse) but the other articles also lack the proper sources. And in my opinion and acording to point 3 POV, Bias, it is aiming at one single point of view. Like I said before, there are no negative or positive points of view in a proper encyclopedia, just express what has happened. For example, The Falklands and the Malvinas, they are two names to refer to the same island in South America. British call it The Falklands and Argintines the Malvinas. Argintina has been claiming those islands for more than 100 years. Who is right and who is wrong? Since niether of them seem to come to an agreement, when you look at an atlas or any encyclopedia (except for British or Argentine encyclopedias and maps) it is written Falkland Islands (Claimed by Argentina). This would be neutral, stating that it belongs to one or the other wouldn't be.

Same goes, I think in this subject. It is not neutral to say "Sweden allowed the Germans to use theire railways because the were forces to". forceed by who? how? Where is the source? there isn't any.

And as I said before, the articles must be re-written, not deleted.

[edit] Neutral during the Winter War?

From my understanding, Sweden was not neutral during the Winter War but rather nonbelligerent. Shall we somehow go ahead and change that? --Warfvinge 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea sure, go ahead. / Fred-Chess 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for such a well-written article. Sweden, unfortunately, has gotten a bad rap for its actions during WW2 but what we did, we had to do because otherwise, it would have meant the destruction of the country and of its people. This has been a problem for several centuries now. Stuck between Russia and Germany(Prussia, etc) we had to find a way to survive. And during WW2, we made hard decisions but they were the right ones. Thank you for telling the world about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DM123 (talk • contribs)

Interesting comments, but where exactly does Sweden border with Russia? That statement sounds more appropriate regarding Finland. Thedukeofno 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweden had a border with Russia for a very long time, if that is what you mean. It's a historical fact. We never had a de facto border with Soviet Union as far as I know but we are still pretty clamped in here. Considering Norway was gone during WW2 and Finland had already been attacked once by USSR and everything to the south was German... Yeah I'd call that clamped in between a red place and a german tank.

213.141.89.53 08:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I just read this article, and I'm not sure whether it has big problems with POV or not. It is fairly well written, but it certainly has a big problem with referencing. I found some sentences, which I removed, which were pretty egregiously POV. Also, the comment above seems to indicate that POV problems remain – after all, if Sweden has such a bad rap, this viewpoint ought to be included more visibly. –Joke 15:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden does not have a "bad rap" over ww2. Or, I guess that depends on your defenition. It's mostly Swedes who feel ashamed of doing what was necessary to avoid invasion, and others who felt/feel we were cowards for not being willing to die for their war. We declared neutrality before the war, clearly. To then come and throw things at Sweden is sorta.. well.. What part of neutrality did you not get? Of course the counter argument would be that, Yes Sweden did collaborate to the extent - as I said before... - it had to, to stay "neutral". Lets just replace neutral with out of the war.

213.141.89.53 08:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

== From what I have read on the subject previously this article seems to be more or less accurate, though not perhaps not infallable, and unfortunately lacks references in many places. I think it would certainly benefit if someone with a broad knowledge of the subject could give their input and cite references. Its important with a controversial subject like this to have a neutral point of view, so as not to offend anyone unneccessarily. According to what i have read on the subject, the Swedish government and people had good intentions but due to the complexity of the situation had to make choices which some people would not condone. These issues should be reported with accuracy and placed within the proper context. It certainly isn't fair to implicate Sweden for a war they did not cause and tried to avoid, or to make broad and scathing generalizations about Swedish people (for example that they are "intolerant" as someone claimed above, especially considering that Sweden accepts many refugees yet Swedish right-wing extremist political parties receive very few votes in national elections.) The article should simply be an accurate portrayal of Sweden's history during WWII. It is fine to write that not everyone agrees with Sweden's position of neutrality, as this is certainly true, but at the same time examine the historical evidence, as well as why other people disagree with this idea. Consider that Sweden was not a volatile force in Europe at the time, and thus was probably not in the position to take a side, but at the same time could not remain entirely uninvolved and without criticism from both sides. This criticism has unfortunately caused some Swedes to feel a collective guilt, and it should not be the intention of this article to perpetuate that guilt. It is my opinion that Sweden would have chosen to side with the Allies because most Swedes simply opposed the Nazi ideology and practices, but at the same time did not feel confident enough to take a side, and by remaining passive missed the opportunity to make a strong protest. On the other hand, there was a definite attempt to protest Germany's policies through diplomacy. I think that Swedish politicians and business people felt pressed to maintain diplomatic and business ties to Germany for the practical reasons of maintaining peace and a liveable economy. In other words, pragmatism won out over idealism, as it often does in the real world of business and politics. Hbhiggens 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So very well written Hbhiggens. Thank you. That pretty much sums that up.

213.141.89.53 08:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Citation needed"

The photograph of the the prince Gustaf Adolph has a notation that a citation is needed for the statement that he and Goering didn't get along. A citation is in the main article regarding the prince.

[edit] Swedish battalions at Barbarossa

I deleted the mendacious statement that battalions of Swedish volunteers participated in Barabarossa. The largest formation consisting of Swedes was a company and was recruited much later. References can be gotten from any standard work on the SS or Pipes' site. From the web page:

"In total between 130 and 300 Swedes are thought to have served in the German Wehrmacht. David Littlejohn lists the number of Swedish volunteers at 130 in volume 3 of "Foreign Legions of the Third Reich", 150 volunteers are listed according to Swiss Dr. Franz Riedweg - the head of Germanic Volunteer recruiting, 175 volunteers are listed by H. Picker in "Hitler's Table Talk", and 315 volunteers are listed by Gottlob Berger in an unpublished biography. 300 is the generally accepted number of volunteers in the German Wehrmacht, but approximately 30 to 45 Swedes were killed in WWII under Axis control with 130 Swedish volunteers surviving the war, according to Lennert Westberg, which would therefore place the actual number of volunteers at about 175."

http://www.feldgrau.com/sweden.html

[edit] New book

A new book in this issue has been released in Sweden under the title Mein lieber Reichskansler. The title is from a letter from King Gustav V to Hitler. This article in Swedish from Expressen gives a short insight to what the book adresses. It states that the image of Sweden being vehemently anti-german but forced to cooperate by necesity has been crumbling in the last 15 years. It gives a few examples of prominent Swedes expressing pro-german views right up to the German defeat. This has also been an issue in Norway (where I'm from). There is not much motivation for critisising Sweden in Norway as the help the Norwegian refugees and Police forces received during the war is much apreciated and emphasised. However the issue of the treatment of Crown Princess Märtha and the "idea" that prince Harald should be sent back to be a puppet king under the Germans have surfaced in media here as new books on the history of the Royal familiy has been published. There is of course the troop transport issue as well so Norwegians I think are curious to know what really motivated the decitions of the Swedish government. Our article seems to me to have the general feel of leaning towards the POV that Sweden was just doing what they had to do in cooperating with Germany, while nobody really liked the Germans. Here and there information pointing the other way has been inserted, but are mostly followed by frases like "However, although Sweden did cooperate with Germany, it was out of coercion rather than preference". I do not want the article to imply that Swedes in general were pro-German, that would be tipping the article the other wrong way. I feel the article could do with a reworking to include some of the new publications in this area of history research to better reflect all aspects of this issue.Inge 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a black-or-white issue. The king was indeed very pro-German and anti-socialist and with those views it was natural for them to support Germany. The liberals was more for siding with the UK and the communist for siding with the Soviet Union. // Liftarn

[edit] To be Swedish, to be anti-Swedish; We were forced to, they made us do it...

Whats the difference? I've been reading this article and the only thing I agree with is that it does not state it´s sources. As it´s been for the last 50 years, this subject continues to be a matter of debate in this country (Sweden). I´ve been reading Wikipedia for some time now and just now I decided to get a bit involved. This article is realy bad and it would be a good idea if those who write in it be a bit more objective. "We were forced to.." is not a proper expression to put on an essey. "We were fored to..." is an opinion, it does not state a fact. The idea of any encyclopedia is to state facts. The opinions of those facts should be left for a forum, or this discusion page. To say that Sweden collaborated with Nazi Germany is not anti-Swedish, historical facts says that Sweden did in fact collaborated, to some extent. To say that we were forced to is just an opinion. There are many books an esseys that state these facts. For example: Sweden's Relations With Nazism, Nazi Germany & the Holocaust, ISBN 9122020136, link: http://www.bokus.com/b/9122020136.html?pt=search_result It is very neutral and it is a collection of essays written by Swedish historians. This work was orginized by the Swedish Government (Social Democrats). A recent essay: "Feghet och brist på moral finns kvar i kyrkans led", link: http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=572&a=610670 I advised those who realy want to make this page more neutral, to read this book and the article. Whats the difference if we were forced to allow the Nazis cross over Swedish territory to Norway? It happend and we allowed it to happend. It was moraly and ethicly wrong and that is all that maters. Yeah! I know! We are giving a bad image of ourselfs! As a proud Swede, I refuse to lie to myself, and I refuse to lie to others. It is not about how bad our image is, because of our past; it is about what do we do whit it, what do we do to change the present and the future. Åknius

I sorta call bullshit on the last sentences. Wether it was morally and ethically wrong, well lets not debate that but it sorta implies that Sweden made the wrong descision. While I have no sympathy for nazis and scum like that I refuse to take some sort of implied blame because Sweden didnt go to war on the allied side. The general consensus I get on the subject is that Sweden was a devided country politically, as it still is today, and that we did only what we had to, to keep the maximum amount of neutrality possible in an extremely shitty position. That might sound very POV to someone critical of Swedish action during the time, but to me it simple is the explanation.

I remember I had a ANGRY discussion with my dad when I was like, 15? about WHY!! didnt Sweden join Norway and the allies and just fight the germans to the death! That was before I grew up, realized what the stakes were and why...

We also think it would be intresting just to think about the possiblity of a german overlord and what that would have meant to a clearly nordic/germanic country, considering the bastard in Berlin and his theories. I do not think many Swedens feared that much for their own life even in a invasion scenario from Germany. Just a thought... anyway... I dont know, I wasnt alive then.

You made tons of good points and I agreed completely up until that shame and blame part.

213.141.89.53 09:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

Technacly isn't sweeden an axis force because they aided the nazi's effort against the allies?

And giving supplies is technacly aiding isn't it?

Neutrality means not helping either side so sweeden was an axis country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.20.17 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Sweden didnt give supplies to Germany as far as I know, not on any worthwile measurable scale anyway. Source? We traded with both sides, yes. If you consider trade to be implication of guilt.. well then maybe you should take a long hard look at the UK/US trade during the last 100 years and especially arms trade. Get real *censored*

213.141.89.53 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You know...I seriously thought someone just tagged this article as biased just as a joke. Just so this article about neutrality would say "the neutrality of this article is in dispute"...come on, that was hilarious when i first saw it

-BDH, 6/22/07

[edit] Unsolvable issue

The matter of how Sweden involvement in WWII really were will never be solved. I for one (i am swedish) feel ashamed over our "participation", but i belive many Swedes sincerely belive that our decisions in WWII was in the best interest of Sweden at that very moment but that Swedens neutrality indeed could be questionised. History shows Sweden as both pro and con Germany as with the relationship with the allies, therefore we will never be able to determine a particular Swedish stance during WWII, in someways we were cowards yes, in some ways we were not in the aspect of what was best for the country.

So disussion about Swedens actual role in WWII is utterly useless in my opinion and this article should just try to state unbiased facts and let the readers for their own opinion // Wingis 83.248.66.87 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hell is for heroes.

Also, stop being so ashamed of something you clearly wasnt alive during. We had, and actually still do, have close ties to germany. Historically, genetically, linguistically, to some people ideologically. I do believe Sweden as a whole did not agree with the nazi ideals, especially since I've spoken with my grandparents who WERE alive during that time. Even from the "you are cowards" standpoint we did exactly what was best for the country, we let others fight it out and stayed independend. I dont believe in that theory since we declared neutrality before the war.

I find it funny how Sweden gets declared "cowards" but switzerland only gets the "nazi gold" and not the coward bit. :: Mmmmmm... Oh and did Belgium and the netherlands declare war on germany or the other way around? Yeah I thought so.

213.141.89.53 09:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The issue is simple

In this sort of "International Encyclopedia", it would be appropriate, in my opinion, to state facts. We can leave our points of view and opinions for the discussion page. If we can´t face our own demon's and we constantly hide in the closet everything we feel ashame of, why not let other people come with a conclusion? Why not hear a second opinion, from someone who is not Swedish?

In order for this to happen it would be wise and appropriate to state facts. Why not maybe split the page in two sections and present both points of view? And please, I beg anyone who decides to contribute to omit statements like "We were forced to". It is irrelevant if We were forced to or not. Just plain old fact will suffice.

I personally don´t feel ashame of my country's collaboration with Nazi Germany. I simply don´t feel that way because I wasn´t there. Those who had a double stand, those who were too coward to make a bold decision, instead of playing it safe while Europe was being destroyed, they should be shameful. And those who today are also too coward to accept that our neutrality was not really very neutral should feel shame. After all, that how we are raised in Sweden. We are made to believe that Sweden is the best country in the world. That because we are neutral and have not gotten involved in a war for 200 years we think that we can look down on everyone else. Lets cut the crap, Sweden is a small country, in every sense of the word, and like some say in Swedish, "Sverige, ankdammen av lättmjölk". (Åknius 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Smallminded maybe. Going to war with a country that destroyed our neighbour to the west, counquered poland in days? france in weeks? the lower countries I dont know I dont think it was long. Im finding it hard to be non offensive here...

And I REPEAT AGAIN, where is the shame of Netherlands not declaring war on Germany? In fact, did any country besides UK and France (and their dominions) declare on Germany? The US didnt. They were declared on, so was Netherlands and Belgium, or Im not sure about that, but at least they were invaded before they counterdeclared. Why didnt the UK stand up for the Checz & Slovaks? Dividing up their country seemed like a good idea at the time?

Stop with the shame part. If I ever see some implied shame in this article, since it is POV, I will remove it.'

Also considering that germany wanted IRON ORE, no matter if they actually had stockpiles or not, Sweden would have been inclined to think that germany would go to war over protecting that influx of resources from Sweden.

213.141.89.53 09:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really weak

This article is quite long, yet contains only four references, two of which I added in my small paragraph about forced repatriation. If people can't provide a source for their long rambling paragraphs, perhaps they should be deleted. --Praguestepcihld 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gripsholm

The Swedish passenger liner was famous for humanitarian repatriation missions during the war. It was involved in POW exchanges and returning civilians to their home countries after they got stranded when the war started. This hasn't been mentioned in the article. Vasa2 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more Swedish Air Force

I heard at one time that the Swedish Air Force was an active participant in the Russo-Finnish War. Vasa2 04:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hilarity

It is pretty awesome that an article about neutrality isn't neutral, non?

[edit] Pre-war preparations

First paragraph of this section contains a lot of $ signs. Are they US dollars? What purchasing power? Reference? 155.198.148.134 12:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military balance

has removed following unsourced statement:

However, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (AGNA) of 1935 seriously jeopardized both Sweden's independence and its long-standing policy of peaceful neutrality. Signed on June 18, 1935, the agreement was a great shock to many Swedes. AGNA allowed Germany to increase the size of its navy to one-third the size of the British Royal Navy, despite the provisions agreed in the Treaty of Versailles. At the same time, Britain agreed to withdraw its navy from the Baltic Sea, leaving the Kriegsmarine the dominant power in that sea. This became a potential threat to Sweden and other countries in Scandinavia.

This analysis seems far-fetched. The German Navy was far stronger during the first World War, but this was not a threat to Scandinavia. Britain had no Naval Forces or Bases in the Baltic between the wars. Repaced with official Swedish view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.218.3.94 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold war

The article claims: " During the Cold War Sweden's neutrality was the subject of Soviet propaganda against Sweden, implying that since Sweden was a former German ally, her independence was not legitimate. The supply of steel undoubtedly prolonged the tank-dependent war in the East, and would have led to the deaths of million of Soviet citizens, and so their anger against Sweden is understandable. "

Does anyone have sources for this as it's new to me. I would say the Soviets distrust for Sweden come from the (correct) perception that Sweden was very much in favor of the western democracies and also had intelligence and other cooperation with the west. As well as the long historical background.

I say, remove this claim (or prove it). Don't replace it with my ramblings as they have nothing to do with WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jf1966 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tiger295.jpg

Image:Tiger295.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still Extremely Unbalanced

I appreciate that I am late to this discussion thread and am totally new to discussion threads in general. But I have just read the article and am afraid to say that I am horrified by the (to my mind obvious) lack of balance. It would appear that most of the comment (both pro and anti the article) has come from Swedes (impressed by the English language skills!) … naturally enough perhaps …. but please spare a thought as to how the article reads from a non-Swedish perspective: The paragraphs dealing with Sweden’s decisive assistance to the German move to secure Norway are particularly offensive. The implication appears to be that Germany ‘saved’ Norway (and Sweden) from unprovoked invasion and occupation by the UK and France. I would love to hear from any Norwegians who share that view! The Norwegian campaign was finely balanced, despite virtually no time for allied planning and preparation. German paratroopers held Norway south, but could not dislodge allied forces holding the North. Naval exchanges were roughly even, though Germany’s smaller navy was severely weakened by the losses, particularly of destroyers, and was forced to withdraw. The Swedish government, in flagrant violation of the Geneva convention on neutrality, allowed substantial German troop plus ammunition and equipment movement to Norway via Swedish railways to tip the balance and force allied withdrawal from Norway. (The mechanism was, as I believe is well documented, that the individual carriages to be inspected by Swedish authorities were pre-notified to German forces allowing them to hide equipment in other train carriages).

Generally speaking I take the view that most wars are morally ambiguous, (in that neither side has a claim to being ‘in the right’), and consequently default to being on the side of neutrals, mediators and conscientious objectors. Unfortunately, WW2 was NOT a morally ambiguous conflict, and an offensive undertone to the whole article is the implication that the allies and the axis were on a broadly equal moral footing. This is dangerous territory for both the author and Wikipedia.

Sweden was significantly different to the other ‘neutrals’ and Axis occupied territories in WW2 because of the control over supply of a resource (Iron Ore) that was critical to the Axis war machine. No other country had the ability to shorten the war to such a degree. Indeed only German ally Romania with its oil fields had anything like the same supply importance to the Axis (and factory produced synthetic fuels were a workable substitute).

No-one can say with certainty what would have happened if Swedish authorities had taken a different course in WW2, or indeed what the German reaction might have been. But even the most ardent apologists for the actions of the Swedish authorities in WW2 acknowledge that Sweden was unable or unwilling to adhere to a neutral path. Consequently, despite not being a direct combatant, Sweden must be viewed as a de facto member of the Axis during most of WW2; and given the country’s importance as a supplier of critical resources (and indeed as a manufacturer of war-critical supplies), viewed as one of the most important members of the Axis.

I am not sure why this should be a big issue for present day Swedes, who after all would need to be aged over 87 to have been a voting adult throughout WW2, and considerably older to have had any direct decision making influence. Plenty of European countries joined or collaborated with the Axis, particularly before 1943. Many occupied countries and ‘neutrals’ supplied literally thousands of enthusiastic volunteer SS troops. This was a few years of history that most continental Europeans would prefer to forget. It is fine, indeed admirable, to be patriotic and to seek to portray your country’s history in the best light, but there must be some balance on a much used resource like Wikipedia. I hope the author and other pro-article discussion contributors don’t take this personally, but the article should be (extensively) rebalanced or removed. Tideturner2 (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are very wrong in your analysis of this article. As regards the Norwegian campaign, please review this source. British troops were practically already boarding the troop carriers for Norway when the Germans launched their attack on Norway. The Allies were infact far better prepared than the Germans, who had had to rush their invasion plan into existence, using tourist guides etc.

As regards your claim for Swedish assistance to Germany in its invasion of Norway, that was non-existent. If you are thinking of Troop transports between Finland and Norway, these did not happen until 1941, well after Norway had already surrendered.

Swedish iron ore was very important to Germany early in the war, but much less so after the fall of France led to the old German mines[4] in Elsaß-Lothringen being accessible to the Ruhr industry again.

As to your claim of a "moral issue", and placing Sweden on the Axis side. You should cite very reliable sources to insert such a highly inflammatory claim in the article. In 1939-40 Allies seriously planned to occupy parts of Norway and Sweden.[5], and when that failed they tried to provoke a German invasion of Norway. (see same source). In 1939 a future member of the Allies invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Finland.

The Wannsee Conference, where Germany decided on the Holocaust was not until 1942, and I presume it was not until late in 1942 that Sweden knew what was going on, well after Sweden had lost any strategic importance and room to maneuver.

As to being a belligerent simply because Sweden traded with the Allies and With Germany, sigh.... Please check the article Neutral country, or the rules for what defines a belligerent and neutral.

To sum it up, you make many claims about the non-neutrality of Sweden and of this article: provide some sources for them if you want them to be taken seriously.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some further thinking, and feel that perhaps your post merits an even stronger response. You seem offended by seeing things stated as they really were, by the article pointing to some minor blemishes in UK behavior. For example you very strongly push that "WW2 was NOT a morally ambiguous conflict". You see no moral ambiguity at all, not even a little bit? Let me point to a few ambiguities that I see, feel free not to see them yourself.

• The Allies had serious plans to occupy parts of Sweden and Norway.
• Another of the Allies invaded country was Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. Then they had the gall to do "it" again, see 1953 Iranian coup d'état
• The Allies kept 4 millions of Germans as slave labor for many years, in France, the UK, and Russia see for example Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union
• The Allies were even so cold that they haggled over the slaves. From Winston Churchill's cabinet meetings, courtesy of the National Archives:
  • May 18th, 1945: Churchill discusses the amount of German slave labor they will request for use in the British agriculture.
  • June 11th, 1945: They discuss the provisions made for Slave Labour in the Yalta conference, and how many slaves the Russians should get.

Ch. a) Only reparations worth having are the German export markets. Directive takes account of that, but should state it specifically. b) Also would like to omit last sentence in paragraph 15. If we count against Russias claim the labour they take, we could get the total figure up to $20 billion. $16.000 million value could be assigned for 4 million slave labor.

P.M. At Yalta Russia made it clear that their claim was exclusive of labour.

• The Allies kept and annexed the part of Poland that one of them had conquered in 1939. They also kept the Estonian, Latvia, Lithuania, and 25% of pre-Hitler Germany. If someone was to take 25% of the UK, that wold pretty much be all of Scotland?
• They conducted one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history, 12 - 15 million people, leaving perhaps as many as 2 million dead, mainly women and children since the men were in POW camps or in forced labor. (see Expulsion of Germans after World War II)
• The statisctics of how many hundred thousand died as forced labor is rather cold and dull. Much more interesting is reading human stories, such as the one by Martha Kent, a little 5 year old German girl who had to spend 4 years in the Polish slave labor camps. I especially find the attitude of her American "friends" interesting, when she as an adult finally had a breakdown: "They assumed that the people who instigated the war and made National Socialism possible--the Germans--did not have the right, due to collective guilt, to speak of their own suffering"

• Anglo-American Responsibility for the Expulsion of the Germans, 1944-48 (Pittsburg lecture, published in Vardy/Tooley "Ethnic Cleansing in 20th Century Europe pp. 239-254)
• They made sure there would be no German surrender attempt, by letting them know what horrors awaited them after the demanded unconditional surrender.
  • The Policy of Hate
  • The Battle for Peace Terms
• In 1947, after 2 years of occupation former President Herbert Hoover had to plea for some sense:

"There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it."[6]

• How was life under the new regimes?
  • How three million Germans died after VE Day
  • Victor Gollancz, "Germany Revisited", London Victor Gollancz LTD, 1947
  • "The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II"
  • How T-Force abducted Germany's best brains for Britain Secret papers reveal post-war campaign to loot military and commercial assets.

• But so far I've only talked about Europe, surely the "good war" was true in the Pacific?
• A good introduction to that war is The May 1944 Life Magazine picture of the week
• Another is American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'
• Or why not peek at Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Pacific_War

Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[46] According to Aldrich it was common practice for US troops not to take prisoners.[47] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Fergusson,[48] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[49]

U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two important factors, a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were "animals" or "subhuman'" and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs.[54] The latter reason is supported by Fergusson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians [sic] — as Untermenschen."[55]

• How about some rape?

According to Peter Schrijvers, rape was "a general practice against Japanese women". An estimated 10,000 Japanese women were raped by American troops during the Okinawa campaign.H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II

In 1998 the remains of three US Marines stationed on Okinawa were discovered outside of a local village. The men had made frequent trips to the village to rape the women that lived there but were ambushed and killed by men from the village on one of their return trips. According to the same article, published in 2000,: "rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 either know or have heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war.""3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa" New York Times, June 1, 2000

Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes based on several years of research:

Soon after the US marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight and those who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II By Yuki Tanaka, Toshiyuki Tanaka, page 111

• An ethical blank cheque: British and US mythology about the second world war ignores our own crimes and legitimises Anglo-American warmaking

• Personally I think the following quote sums it up.

WE Americans have the dangerous tendency in our international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world. What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass slaughter. One War Is Enough by Edgar L. Jones

Still, as I said, please feel free not to see even a teeniest bit of any moral ambiguity. I'm sorry to have taken up so much talk space, but I think your claim merited a verbose and thoroughly sourced reply. Cheers--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the first feedback item: Thank you for reading and taking the time to comment on my discussion notes. I read the references provided with interest and an open mind.

You clearly attach considerable personal importance to this subject, and have a lot to add (and a lot more spare time than I have!).

I have the following observations pertaining to the original discussion thread and article:

Leaving aside Norway for the moment (though it is worth noting that few Norwegians regarded the German wartime invasion and occupation as either welcome, benign or beneficial in any way, and the implication that responsibility for the German invasion lies squarely with Britain and France is not a widely held view in Norway!) the central issue leading to my conclusion is the supply of military critical raw materials and manufactures from Sweden to the axis during WW2.

I agree with your point that the relative importance of Swedish Iron ore supplies to the axis declined as the war progressed (though would note that the very high grade/quality of Swedish Iron ore made it particularly valuable for military purposes.

As British, and latterly US, air raids on German and German allied industrial targets increased in frequency and effectiveness during the European war, what the axis desperately needed was a source of critical military supplies and manufactures not subject to repeated supply disruption.

Apart from the Romanian oil fields, the next priority for British and US bombing was the manufacture of ball-bearings, extensively used in, and essential to the manufacture of aircraft, tanks, naval vessels and all manner of military transport and ancillary products, and identified by the allies as a potential supply weakness for the axis war machine.

US raids on ball bearing plants in Schweinfurt, Germany alone cost the lives of 600 US airmen and 60 flying fortress aircraft. There were repeated intensive daytime (USAF) and nighttime (RAF) bombing raids on ball bearing factories throughout axis occupied Europe designed to cause maximum supply disruption to axis ball bearing production. In theory this would lead to axis military hardware supply shortages on the eastern front, therefore shortening the European war.

Allied military strategists were mystified as to how axis military hardware supply continued, despite the incredibly intensive and expensive (in allied and civilian lives and aircraft) raids on axis ball bearing plants. It became clear that replacement supplies of ball bearings in large quantities were reaching the axis from Sweden.

SKF, a major Swedish manufacturer of ball bearings then came under intense allied pressure to disclose both quantities and qualities of ball bearings being exported. SKF (Sweden) responded that in 1944 exports to Germany of USD7m, representing approximately 10% of Germany’s requirements. US foreign Economics Administrator Leo Crowley sent highly regarded negotiator Stanton Griffis to Stockholm who offered SKF USD30m cash to SKF to buy all their Swedish production of ball bearings destined for the axis. His offer was refused. Allied intelligence then discovered to the horror of allied strategists and airforces that actual SKF (Sweden) supplies of ball bearings to the axis were more likely 70% of German demand for the most quality-critical ball bearings.

Ball bearings are just one small example of military critical supplies flowing from Sweden to Germany and her allies during WW2, effectively plugging critical axis supply gaps created by the US and British strategic bombing campaign targeting axis industrial targets.

As allied bombing intensified during WW2, the Swedish and German business communities had an obvious mutual interest in shifting production of key supplies from Germany and occupied Europe to ‘neutral’ Sweden. The benefit to the axis was security and continuity of supply. The benefits to Sweden were inwards technology transfer, show-how and know-how, and of course large quantities of convertible currency and gold. Indeed it would have been surprising if the business co-operation had not happened, and would probably have taken concerted Swedish government intervention to stop it happening.

Whether these arrangements were the result of a deliberate off the record centrally negotiated deal with the axis, or came about piecemeal as a result of market forces for example, is not relevant to the central point that Swedish exports (by design or accident) of military critical supplies and manufactures were essential to keeping the axis war machine rolling (quite literally in the case of Sweden’s ball-bearing exports!). The same simply cannot be said for axis trade with the other European ‘neutrals’, or between axis partners and occupied territories (with the notable exception of Romanian oil supplies).

Therefore the central conclusion remains that Sweden was a de facto, and important member of the axis during most of WW2. Indeed Sweden was arguably much more useful to the axis as a ‘bombing free’ critical supply partner than as just another axis combatant or occupied territory.

This is the central essence of the controversy and debate over Sweden’s role in WW2.

Whether we agree or not, the view should be prominent in any balanced article on the subject, and then disputed or counter evidence presented as appropriate. Tideturner2 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have the time you seem to think I have to deal with this, I reply only so spurious readers will not be missled.

1 Norwegian feelings about the German occupation.

This resembles a red herring argument on your side. This article deals with the plans for UK and German invasions of Scandinavia, their motives, and the consequences for Sweden, nothing else. If you would prefer that Plan R 4 and Winter_War#Franco-British_plans_for_a_Scandinavian_theatre not have existed, or not be mentioned, then I'm sorry but... If you are refering to the "Hitler quote" then you'll notice that there is a citation request attached to it, so if no-one manages to dig up a source for it within a reasonable time it will eventually dissapear.

2 Ball bearings

It did a litle checking, and although it is true that the Allies were unhappy with Swedish exports, even seriously threatening to bomb the SKF factory in Goteborg, the ball bearings never were as important as some make them out to be. After the Schweinfurth bombings the Germans reorganised, started using more slide bearings instead of ball bearings, discovered that they had huge stock piles, and generally realised that ball-bearings were not that important. It turns out that the Allied bombing campaign was far less effective than the U.S./UK though. See for example THE UNDEFEATED. And perhaps a part cause of this was that their hart was not really into bombing industry, they prefered to bomb civilians. As Winston Churchill stated in a secret telegram in 1945:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."[7]

3 Sweden as a de-facto member of the Axis.

It is an intresting thesis you present, that Sweden was part of the Axis. And you say "the view should be prominent in any balanced article on the subject, and then disputed or counter evidence presented as appropriate."

There are many problems with your ideas. One is that it represents original research, which is not allowed here. Please review the wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:OR. To have the article claim that Sweden was a "de-facto" Axis member you need to be able to source that conclusion to reliable sources, preferably scholars in peer reviewed papers. It is certainly not enough that you feel that the evidence supports such a conclusion: a published scholar has to have reached it for us for it to be admissible. Second, I dont like your implication that the thesis has a natural place in the article " and then disputed or counter evidence presented as appropriate.". It is clearly the other way around, start by finding evidence for your thesis, find someone who actually labels sweden a "member of the Axis", then, and only then, can you include his/her thesis (but not your thesis).

4 My recomedations to you:

I suggest you start by reviewing wiki policy and then since "You clearly attach considerable personal importance to this subject", start writing an article on the topic of Swedish trade during World War II, and/or Effectivenes of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany during World War II. There you can amass all the relevant published data and scholarly conclusions you want, and thoroughly attribute them to their sources. If a majority or significant minority of sources turn out to have concluded that Swedish trade "de-facto" made Sweden a German co-beligerent, then we will in this article naturally have to state that there exists such a viewpoint, mention how widespread it is, and link it to the detailed overview in the new article(s) you've created. Happy editing.

Cheers--Stor stark7 ^Speak 16:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide further feedback, and for the tips on wikipedia editing and process.

The friction of a 2 way exchange of views always sheds more light (as well as a little heat perhaps!) on a subject area than a single unopposed posting.

I am flattered that you think the thesis is Original Research! but of course that is far from the case ... it is mainstream in the english speaking world and indeed (by implication, though not explicitly) among many previous posters to this discussion forum (most of them presumably Swedish).

You mentioned in your feedback item 3 that you were quickly able to find background information on the wartime controversy surrounding SKF. Indeed there is a very large volume of material available on the wartime impact of the activities of this single Swedish company alone. Remember the USD30m (in 1944 dollars) they were offered by the US (to export ball-bearings destined for Germany to the US instead) is the equivalent of approximately USD 4 billion in 2008 (if invested at a conservative 8% investment return rate for 64 years). These are not trivial numbers, nor was it a trivial issue for either Germany, the allies, SKF or Sweden in general. When you stated that the allies were 'unhappy' with Swedish (ballbearing) exports, I think you have a candidate for understatement of the century!!).

The decision not to bomb SKFs Gothenburg factories by the allies was a result of the calculation that such an action would likely be ultimately counter-productive for the allied war effort, since the pace of other Swedish/axis industrial co-operation could have been stepped up, the trickle of Swedish SS volunteers could have turned into a flood, and the position of the many wartime Swedes opposed to any active Swedish assistance to the axis (industrial co-operation, intelligence or other) would have been compromised. Let us not forget that many Swedes provided valuable assistance to both the Norwegian resistance and allied intelligence gathering during the war, as well as admirable humanitarian assistance in general, not to mention mediation (including most notably an intervention that may have saved Paris from destruction by the retreating German army). Nb I think that these issues should also be more prominent in the article for balance.

The nature of trade and industrial co-operation between Sweden and the axis during WW2 should not be just another wikipedia article loosely related to Swedens role in WW2, it should be prominent in the article to which this discussion group pertains.

The quotes from Churchill and the British member of parliament included currently have no context whatsoever. Casual readers of the article might be forgiven for assuming that they (Churchill and the MP) were referring to Swedens decision not to be a combatant in the war (on the allied side). This is utter nonsense. No sensible observer or strategist expected a pacifist (for centuries) nation with no modern military tradition, a total population less than a single city in the US, France or Britain and a large (by European standards) territory to defend within sight of occupied Denmark to suddenly take up arms against anyone, let alone the might of the wehrmacht.

The context for the quotes was the nature of trade and industrial co-operation between Sweden and the axis. No more, no less. That is why the article must contain a discussion of this subject to have any semblance of balance. Indeed without such a discussion the casual reader will be mystified by not just the British quotes, but why the US blacklisted so many Swedish companies (38 in one week of 1944 alone) operating in neutral territories worldwide during the latter part of WW2 (this concerted economic allied squeeze on Swedish business operations and interests worldwide during the latter part of WW2 is a subject area I haven't touched on yet but large volumes of information are available should a reader be interested in investigating further).

If Sweden had been exporting benign products (no matter how large the quantity or profit margin) throughout WW2 there would be no controversy, no meaningful Swedish impact on the duration (or any other aspect) of WW2 and no heated discussion postings! Indeed Sweden would have been little more than a footnote in the history of the conflict.

The view in London and Washington at the time, rightly or wrongly, was that the impact of their (hugely expensive in scarce resources and the loss of civilian and allied lives) bombing campaigns against axis industrial targets was being at best mitigated, and at worst negated, by Swedish/axis industrial and trade co-operation.

Maybe this view was unfair, maybe Sweden was being used as a scapegoat by USAF and RAF bomber command for shortcomings in their own effectiveness (relative to expectations). This is the sort of intelligent content that should be in the article to give it balance and make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (and indeed worthy of the intellectual rigour and thoroughness for which the Swedish people are (quite rightly) admired and respected worldwide). Tideturner2 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, having lived most of my life in Sweden I've never heard of this "mainstream" theory of yours, and I consider myself rather well versed in history. Of course, it could be the effect of cultural bias that some things are hidden by national media and that you need to move out of your home nation to gain a new perspective. I do know that Swedish bankers had strong ties with Nazi Germany, as explained in a rather amusing chapter in the book by James Stewart Martin. "All Honorable Men" from 1950. I can recomend it if you are interested in Swedish pre-war activities and your local library happens to have a copy. Martin is one of the "Morgenthau boys", but he has some interesting info on Sweden if you keep in mind his strong bias. But then Swedish bankers were not the only ones with ties to Germany. I don't know if the allegations in Fahrenheit 9/11 regarding the connections between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are accurate, but it would not be the first time they made odd friends: How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power. Lets not waste more talk space, you have made a number of allegations about Sweden, but have presented no book citations or other sources what so ever to back them up with. If the theory you champion is so "mainstream" as you allege, then it should be no problem for you to insert it into the article proper, whilst following Wikipedia rules on citation. Find a book where the author explicitly calls Sweden a member of the Axis powers, and cite him. No need to endlessly discuss it at the talk page, just do it! Want to add a new section on Swedish trade during World War II to this article? Then just do it! Making lots of un-sourced claims here at the talk page doesn't improve this article, editing it while thoroughly providing proper references does!--Stor stark7 ^Speak 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)