Sweden, the Swastika and Stalin: The Swedish Experience in the Second World War

by John Scott Lennox Gilmour

This book fills a gap in the existing literature on the Second World War by covering the range of challenges, threats, issues, dilemmas, and changes faced and dealt with by Sweden during the conflict.Interest in Sweden's wartime experiences has increased due to its post-war profile as a neutral that both allowed German troops to transit through its territory and also carried on trading with the Nazi regime during the holocaust years. Many misconceptions and false impressions have arisen and persisted as a result of deliberate misinformation and concealment by all sides during that time. Readers of this book will gain a fresh, broad view of the period, personalities and problems from a Swedish orientation.

Genres: History, Sweden

336 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2009

About the author

John Scott Lennox Gilmour VMH FLS was a British botanist, curator of the Cambridge University Herbarium, and later director of Cambridge University Botanic Garden and Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge.

Reviews

[Kristi · Rating 2 out of 5]

I feel I must preface my review of this book with my own bias. I was adopted into a Norwegian family. My father's parents and one of my mother's emigrated. My father was first generation American. One of my uncles' favorite sayings was 10,000 Swedes ran through the weeds, chased by one Norwegian. If I was not sufficiently indoctrinated at home I ended up teaching at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. The heritage is Norwegian Lutheran and the school was founded by immigrants. Renowned as the King who defied Hitler, Haakon VII and his son, Crown Prince Olav, had to flee from Nazi troops and paratroopers when they invaded Norway by sea and air in April 1940. In 1968 Norway’s King Olav V concluded his three-day Minnesota visit with a stop at St. Olaf College in Northfield. The king received the St. Olaf Centennial Medal in the Boe Memorial Chapel before a crowd of some 1,700 students and faculty. ( I graduated in 1970. ) King Olav visited the college again in 1987 ( I was teaching by then and met him briefly ) and King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway visited in 2011. Queen Sonja visited the college's campus again in 2022 as part of a tour to celebrate the connections between Norway and Minnesota's Norwegian-American community. After WWII the college provided free scholarships to young Norwegians...... I think you can safely say I am partial to Norwegians............ Norway also declared neutrality during WWII. Instead the country was betrayed by Vidkun Quisling who was part of the military establishment and assisted the Nazis in their invasion of the country. I read the amazing history "Quisling: A Study in Treason by Oddvar K. Hoidal" At 914 pages I do not think you miss any factor in WWII Norway. Quisling is a term used in Scandinavian languages and in English to mean a citizen or politician of an occupied country who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor or collaborator. Relatives died during the war and suffered from starvation. The Nazis wanted shipping lanes for iron ore from Sweden, Norway's heavy water plus the armed occupation to prevent access to Northern Europe by the British / Allies. I you ar interested in WWII Norway, I highly recommend the film The King's Choice, Original title: Kongens Nei, 2016, Director Erik Poppe. April 1940. Norway has been invaded by Germany and the royal family and government have fled into the interior. The German envoy to Norway tries to negotiate a peace. Ultimately, the decision on Norway's future will rest with the king. ************* Contrast Sweden which remained "neutral" and suffered little by comparison during the war. I understand that very little in this world is black and white. I had a colleague who was in the Norwegian resistance as a teenager and ended up in a concentration camp. He told me examples of Swedes helping Norwegians escape the Nazis into the neighboring country. In contrast the Nazis had free passage anywhere in the country. German troops were transported by Swedish railways. Products for war materiel were sold for great profit. Jews and others fleeing the Nazis were not exactly welcomed. As a purist I believe a country should not benefit from neutrality other than by escaping occupation and self-governance. As a realist I know that nothing or next to nothing is black and white. As I begin reading this book the Swedish government has resolved not to suffer the hunger and deprivation that resulted from a more "pure" neutrality during WWI. They wanted to make certain the Swedes ate well and "prospered" through a "different form of neutrality". I am skeptical about this "neutrality". I also understand that only the "declaration" of neutrality "prevented" a Nazi invasion. Why invade when all that is valuable can be obtained thru money and co-operation???? It requires troops which are needed elsewhere to occupy a country. In short, little in WWII is simple and straightforward. ( Wouldn't you know that the book I am reading came from the St. Olaf Library. Through a program called MNLink a reader can borrow books from virtually every library in Minnesota. It is a wonderful perk. ) I am curious to find what I believe after reading this book........ I was largely enjoying this book, but I was startled by entities that were never mentioned!!! One was the Swedish churches and their leaders. The other was National Socialist parties in the country and the Swedish men who voluntarily joined the Waffen SS. Then I arrived at the final chapter: Looking Back in Anger? The Assault on "Small State Realism". The title should have included the alternative a MORAL INTERPRETATION I realized that the entire book had been an argument that regarded Swedish actions during WWII as based upon small state realism and all should be excused. I became very angry!!!!!! I HAD NOT READ TRUE HISTORY, BUT A BIASED EXCUSE FOR SWEDEN'S ACTIONS DURING WWII. WRITING WITH AN AGENDA IS NOT HISTORY. "...the Swedish government was forced (????) to concede the demand (for transit) but on conditions that were thought to prevent these transits leading to risks for our country's security or to harm the Norwegian people... In this case a deviation from strict neutrality." (YOU THINK??) What conditions were going to prevent harm to the Norwegian people??? Nazi soldiers were transported through Sweden to Norway and other destinations in the luxury train cars. They were reinforcing the occupation force of Norway where the total number of Norwegian deaths due to the war is estimated to be around 10,000. Additionally, more than 2,000 Norwegians who fought in the Resistance movement against the Nazis died in action, by execution, or in concentration camps. During the "Winter War" of Finland vs Russia, Sweden declared itself "non-belligerent" rather than neutral during the conflict and as many as 8,000 Swedes voluntarily went to Finland to fight. The war began when the Soviet Union attacked Finland on 30 November 1939 and it ended 13 March 1940. The Swedish government would do nothing or little to offend Hitler, but fought against the Nazi partner??? The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, officially the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and also known as the Hitler–Stalin Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, with a secret protocol establishing Soviet and German spheres of influence across Eastern Europe. The pact was signed in Moscow on 24 August 1939 (backdated 23 August 1939 - this change of date is confusing, but was pre-arranged and had to do with Ribbentrop's arrival in Moscow. ). Per the agreement when the Nazis invaded Poland on 0-1-1939, the Soviets promptly moved into Eastern Poland. So Swedish men fought against the treaty partner of Germany, but the government was not concerned about how Hitler would feel about this action of "non-belligerent" rather than neutral behavior. Me thinks Sweden changed the definition of "neutral" arbitrarily... Small State Realism justifications and beliefs: national independence is everything, keeping Swedish people safe is paramount, Germany was more powerful, concessions were limited and only given when essential, neutrality was bent, but not broken, the neutral right to trade with Germany was legitimate. **** Taken from a Swedish college textbook teaching young people what to believe about Swedish actions during the war. Notably absent - any mention of Norway, Denmark, National Socialism parties in Sweden, the joining of the Waffen SS , or THE HOLOCAUST. Another excuse for "neutrality" was the Prytz telegram and "British Defeatism". The Prytz telegram was a message sent by Björn Prytz to the Swedish government on June 17, 1940. The telegram detailed a meeting between Prytz and British Foreign Office Minister Rab Butler, where the possibility of a compromise peace with Nazi Germany was discussed. DID THEY CONSULT CHURCHILL ABOUT THIS POSSIBLE PEACE DEAL AND BRITISH DEFEATISM???? Efforts by authors to research government WWII policy were blocked. The alternative to SMALL STATE REALISM IS MORAL INTERPRETATION!! The publication in 1991 of the book Honour and Conscience by Maria-Pia Boëthius "exploded like a grenade in the heavily defended... "small state realism" and caused extensive injuries to the reputation and standing of post-war Swedish academic historians." She questioned relations with Nazi Germany, concessions, and limitations on civil liberties. In 1995 historian Alf Johansson described the Swedish government as "running errands for a tyrannical butcher". Still the issue is not simply black and white. The author attempts to explain the Swedish policy via two examinations: cosmopolitanism vs communitarianism and the psychological theory of motivation by Abraham Maslow. Cosmopolitanism is an ethical view that regard equal rights and inclusiveness to all people. In this view the Norwegians and Jews would rank equally in consideration with Swedes. Communitarianism restricts moral obligations to the Swedish community. As a clinical psychologist and college teacher of psychology for decades, I am very familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, although I think the highest level of human development occurs when a person acts with generosity even when lower needs are not met. A starving man shares a piece of bread. 1st level - physiological needs - shelter, food 2nd level - Safety needs - Health, Personal, Emotional, and Financial security 3rd level - Social needs - family, community, work group. 4th level - Esteem needs - accomplishment, recognition 5th level - self-actualization - self-fulfillment, having a partner, parenting. Later he added Transcendent needs - spiritual needs, one finds the fullest realization in giving oneself to something beyond oneself. This to me is an improvement in Maslow's needs and comparable to the ultimate level of human development for Erik Erikson - Generativity is a concern for the well-being of others and the next generation. So, how is Sweden judged by moral concerns. Products for supporting Germany's war production continued after the threat of invasion had passed. Needless non-diplomatic and sporting contacts were maintained. Early ambivalence concerning Nazi treatment of the Jews - remember Kristallnacht with the destruction of property and the murder of Jews took place on November 9, 1938 - almost a year before the war began. Later limited assistance. Disputation of the rights to Jewish property transferred to Sweden during the Holocaust. Racial purity, belief in eugenics, arianization of Sweden, German ownership of Swedish businesses, German military transports regardless of effects upon occupied Norway, National Socialist parties, press censorship. The government of Sweden and this book were community based. The purpose was the keep Swedish citizens out of the war and, if not prospering, at least well fed and employed. The Swedish government accomplished these goals, but what moral high ground did they lose and fail to acknowledge for decades? Read this book to know the message of the appeasing government, but not the full truth of Sweden's compromises and failings. I repeat: WRITING WITH AN AGENDA IS NOT HISTORY. Kristi & Abby Tabby Childless Cat Lady.

[Katharine Coldiron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Five stars for information, three for readability. It took me months to get through this - it’s exceedingly dry and dense - but I found it invaluable, as a thorough explanation and exploration of Sweden’s position, values, culture, and lifestyle during the war. The only book I could find of its kind in English.

The final chapter is far more passionate and intriguing than the rest. It takes a position about the meaning and context of Sweden’s actions as a neutral during the war and defends that position with care (and excellent writing). Sitting here in America in 2022 it’s easy for me to disagree with the chapter’s arguments, but the author explained why these arguments were valid *to Swedes*, which is of greater value than convincing me he’s right.

[Gabriel Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good and insightful

This is a very knowledgeable and well written overview of Sweden’s experience during World War II. I was particularly impressed by the discussion in the last chapter about where the Swedish policy was right or wrong, discussion that continues in Sweden. There are a few annoying errors, but overall this is an excellent book for someone interested in this topic and with no access to Swedish sources.

[Amelia Guitard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for my Bachelors thesis. Super easy to follow, really engaging throughout, and was excellently concise. Had a lot of sources for further reading too.