Talk:Swedish neutrality

Sweden High‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scandinavian defence union after WW2[edit]

"When it became known that the western alliance would not be able to supply the Scandinavian countries with armaments before meeting their own pressing needs, this issue ultimately proved to be the turning point for Norway, which resigned from the talks. Denmark was still willing to enter into an alliance with Sweden, but the Swedes saw few advantages in this and the proposal fell. Norway and Denmark subsequently became signatory parties of the North Atlantic Treaty and members of NATO."

There appears to be some confusion here. What negotiations did Norway resign from? For NATO? Why then did this scuttle the Scandinavian proposal? If anything it seems as though it should have been reinforced. Peregrine981 00:25, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

"scientific kinship"[edit]

Does it have some real meaning in sentence: "Although feelings of cultural and scientific kinship with the German Empire..." or it is typo? Pavel Vozenilek 00:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's most probably not a typo, but it may be somewhat hard to express the meaning of the thought behind the expression to an anglophone reader.

I may add that I'm not particularly pleased with this article, nor with its origin Swedish neutrality during World War II. The language was much better than the factual content; a situation that I fear kept more than one knowledgable Scandinavian away from editing the articles and correcting errors and bias. I myself am for the moment not spending much time at Wikipedia at all.

/Tuomas 10:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War[edit]

I removed the part based on Nils Bruzelius' article. It's just his speculations and the article is a strange mix of irrelevant facts and logical errors. 83.248.99.35 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original cause misleading[edit]

The formulation

The policy originated largely as a result of Sweden's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars during which over a third of the country's territory was lost, including the traumatic loss of Finland to Russia.

is disputable. Firstly, the 1809 loss of Finland is not normally (at least in Sweden) considered a part of the Napoleonic Wars. Secondly, this was compensated for comparatively soon by the 1814 (?) win of Norway. Thus, while there may be an underlying causality between the wars of the time and the policy, the current formulation is misleading and/or an oversimplification.

Could we have a more in-depth discussion by an expert? 94.220.242.34 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the policy of 1812 was more a product of the new crown prince Bernadotte, who viewed renewed conflict with Russia as a hopeless venture and instead sought reconciliation with her, leading to Swedish neutrality on the French invasion of Russia and participation on the coalition side when the war turned against Napoleon. While the war of 1809 is often viewed as separate from the Napoleonic wars, the coup against Gustaf IV Adolf indicates another story, since it was the latters intransigence regarding Napoleon's boycott against Britain that led to the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.186 (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References / See also[edit]

All:

See here. Any reason why the last 2 bullets in the new "Additional information" section I just created couldn't be moved to the "See also" section. They're not general links, but also not references, as they point to specific editions of the sources. What do you think? Saebvn (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Cables[edit]

The leaked cables are cited as the positions of the US, which usually applies it is the official opinion of the US government, but aren't these cables the usually secret opinion of diplomats? Anyway, the link is broken 188.200.194.26 (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and the EU[edit]

"Sweden is still today a non-aligned country in regards to foreign and security policy, however it maintains strong links to NATO."

I doubt that, since the EU introduced its Common Foreign and Security Policy and Sweden is a member state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcongorat (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Arms Sales[edit]

It should be noted that in 2016 Swedish arms sellers are open to doing business with what most would call fascist regimes. http://www.manilatimes.net/swedish-firm-wants-supply-military-equipment-ph/296130/ NaturalEquality (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with the subject of the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake[edit]

Yeah this is fake Laboviorodruin (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that isn't much of an argument, but it really isn't an argument at all. Repeatedly blanking large sections of an article without explanation is a good way to get blocked. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions[edit]

The Neutral countries article previously contradicted this page. I've changed it to say Sweden stopped being neutral in 2009. However, I'm not sure how high quality this article is, or if the claim that Sweden isn't neutral is controversial. I wish someone else could help with this. InezSerrano (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is mistitled. Sweden has not claimed neutrality during the 20th or 21st century except during the two world wars. The official stance, and the public stance since WWII was that Sweden is 'alliance-free' (outside of the great-power alliances) and intended to declare neutrality in any European war.

Also note that Sweden broke it's neutrality in WWII by supplying arms to Finland. 62.84.204.10 (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"British invasion of Norway"?[edit]

The British invasion of Norway and Germany's counter-attack on, and occupation of both Norway and Denmark, coupled with the fact that Finland was battling the Soviets, made Sweden's position extremely tenuous[...]

Is this referring to the Altmark incident? I don't think that's an invasion, since the British never touched land in Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.42.55 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATO membership[edit]

Needs update on neutrality. Parliaments in all NATO countries have now approved Sweden's application for NATO membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]