Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Neutral Europe in WW2

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 29th August 2008

  Hi all,
  
  In WW2 Europe we commonly think of Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, RoI and Portugal of being neutral bastions amongst the chaos of war.
  
  But when you think that Sweden effectivly allowed trade with both Axis and Allies. Further allowed Swedes of a certain political nature to join the SS.
  
  Spain I've heard was apparently an awful place to have to run to if you were an escaped POW as they were likely to lock you up (and throw away the key almost) if you weren't got by the right side.
  
  I can't say I know too much about POrtugal but given its strategic position then the opportunity for coniving is vast.
  
  Switzerland was almost a subsidary for the Reichsbank although also a target for escapee's and other "shady activity" e.g. OSS infiltration.
  
  The RoI had some sympathy for the German cause but of course RoI folk also served in the British Army (so not really neutral that is it?).
  
  So do you think that the "burden of neutrality" was something overstated by these nations and did they sought to profit (and still do to some extent) by accepting this "burden" but bypassed for profitable opportunities e.g. selling ore to Germany for Sweden.

  Link to this forum: Neutral Europe in WW2

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 29th August 2008

  I think some of your comments about individuals serving for either the Allies or the Axis powers is nothing to do with the political stance of their own government. So what if some Swedes served in the SS! Other Swedes did there best to help out the Danish and Norwegian and Finnish resistance movements. What individuals did was their business, not their government's (as long as it does not hurt their own nation in the process). After all, many Americans served in the British forces willingly and voluntarily before December 1941 - wanting to fight Naziism when their government would not.
  
  And of course Sweden traded with both Axis and Allies? What do you expect them to do - cease all trade completely, thus depriving them of overseas trade and necessities completely? The laws of neutrality do not stop countries from trading with combatant nations.

  Link to this forum: Neutral Europe in WW2

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 29th August 2008

  "...So do you think that the "burden of neutrality" was something overstated by these nations and did they sought to profit (and still do to some extent) by accepting this "burden" but bypassed for profitable opportunities e.g. selling ore to Germany for Sweden..."
  
  
  
  
  Well, no, not really.
  
  It is not that no nation (or rather its businessmen, there is a difference) did not profit from certain things. That is not really the point, I think.
  
  Nations take part in wars if it is, for some reason or other, in their interests to do so. refusal to become involved is similarly motivated.
  
  Picking 3 countries you mentioned as having different motives :
  
  Sweden : If Sweden had become involved, the almost inevitable result would be that Germany would over run them. A rather pointless exercise in showing your credentials. Likewise, refusal to trade would probably have resulted in a German assault.
  
  Spain : This country had recently come out of a deeply divisive and economically damaging civil war. For Spain taking Germany's side could well have re-opened this conflict, as well as being economically difficult. Spain's potential gain was North African possessions from France. On a reasonable risk analysis, it was not worth the trouble.
  
  Ireland : As you suggest, many Irish did serve in Britain's army. These people had a multiplicity of reasons, political or economic. However, what could Ireland as a nation possibly gain ? If the Nazis had successfully invaded the UK, I think they would not hesitate to take a weak Irish state afterwards. But the Irish could not be sure of that. In any case, Irish involvement would be of only limited direct use in the 'Battle Of The Atlantic'. Again, it would have been an enormous strain on their economy.

  Link to this forum: Neutral Europe in WW2

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 29th August 2008

  These allegiances had an impact further than the European War in that they were meant to flow to the European colonies in the Pacific War. Portuguese Timor, (now East Timor) for example, was advised by its colonial power to remain neutral, but its people fought on the side of the allies.
  Some allegiances elsewhere in the Pacific War became entangled in anti colonial struggles

  Link to this forum: Neutral Europe in WW2

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008

  Sweden and Switcherland were considerably more pro-German. So would be the Finnish. The Spanish and Portuguese run by military juntas were in fact more neutral than them.
  
  The only country in Europe that had no sympathies to either side was Greece (and Turkey if it is condiered European). To the embarassment of the "allies", Greece was declaring openly neutrality even when it was invaded by Mussolini's Italy and was downrightly refusing British intervention: the British offered help in the style "you certainly neeeeed our "help" and the Greeks responsed "Ppppppplease, anything else you want but do not "help" us". British were considered as worse than Germans (1,5 Greeks dead in Minor Asia and the "allies" British celebrating it - with such "allies" who needs enemies?). It took a (perhaps murdered) dead prime minister (or half-dictator) and the instigation by the British of a complete paralysis of politico-military leadership of the country (half of it virtually "abducted") to "convince" (i.e. force) the Greeks to "take a side".

  Link to this forum: Neutral Europe in WW2

  Report message5

Back to top