2 ms·

I didn't mean it as hostile - it is just a statement of fact. To the original point, if they were "neutral", then what secrets did they have to hold? What doe

I didn't mean it as hostile - it is just a statement of fact. To the original point, if they were "neutral", then what secrets did they have to hold? What does "off duty" even mean in a world war? Not destroying Sweden but allowing them to bring ammunition through to pound Norway? And if they were "neutral", why were they helping the Allies? All in all, your comment does not add up.

detaro 7y ago
Could you explain why you think a neutral country would not have secrets? E.g. currently being neutral doesn't mean you don't have preparations on what to do if you get attacked (indeed, both sides in WW2 considered an invasion of Sweden) and would like to keep those secret. You want to keep your diplomatic strategies secret to avoid them being exploited against you. Being neutral does neither necessarily mean "you allow everyone to do whatever they want in your country" nor "you do not interact with the warring parties at all".
mstade 7y ago
It's not a statement of fact that Sweden "rolled over" since Germany didn't invade Norway via Sweden, they came by sea and air: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Weserübung https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Weserübung Whether or not Sweden could be considered neutral is a different matter, but there's certainly no "rolling over" if you're never part of the operation in the first place.
boomlinde 7y ago
Okay, so you run a country that’s useful to more than one side of the conflict in terms of geography and resources. You want to maintain neutrality, sovereignty and trade. Do you a) let everyone know where your production happens, your military strength, your points of defense, where your most critical infrastructure is and how it works, your general opinion of the combatants, what trade is important to you etc. or b) urge anyone with strategically useful information to keep quiet about it to keep any interested party ignorant and wary? No one answered the question as you thought they would because they frankly assumed a more favorable interpretation. Neutrality is not a state of indefinite peace. It has to be maintained actively.

detaro 7y ago

Could you explain why you think a neutral country would not have secrets? E.g. currently being neutral doesn't mean you don't have preparations on what to do if you get attacked (indeed, both sides in WW2 considered an invasion of Sweden) and would like to keep those secret. You want to keep your diplomatic strategies secret to avoid them being exploited against you. Being neutral does neither necessarily mean "you allow everyone to do whatever they want in your country" nor "you do not interact with the warring parties at all".

mstade 7y ago

It's not a statement of fact that Sweden "rolled over" since Germany didn't invade Norway via Sweden, they came by sea and air: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Weserübung https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Weserübung Whether or not Sweden could be considered neutral is a different matter, but there's certainly no "rolling over" if you're never part of the operation in the first place.

boomlinde 7y ago

Okay, so you run a country that’s useful to more than one side of the conflict in terms of geography and resources. You want to maintain neutrality, sovereignty and trade. Do you a) let everyone know where your production happens, your military strength, your points of defense, where your most critical infrastructure is and how it works, your general opinion of the combatants, what trade is important to you etc. or b) urge anyone with strategically useful information to keep quiet about it to keep any interested party ignorant and wary? No one answered the question as you thought they would because they frankly assumed a more favorable interpretation. Neutrality is not a state of indefinite peace. It has to be maintained actively.