While Thiago Jollon’s ’27’s refutation of my article, “The Perils of Political Neutrality,” has some salient points, there are also certain inadequacies in his argument. Largely, I believe Jollon misinterpreted my article, which indeed highlighted the implications of Sweden’s neutrality. Specifically, I exposed Sweden’s “double standards,” of neutrality, evident within their unofficial liaisons with the U.S. during the Cold War that contradicted their abstention. Thus, Jollon’s argument for Sweden’s supposed lack of neutrality would appear tangential to mine, as we both evaluate the harms and contradictions of Sweden’s claims of neutrality. Contrastingly, I argue that the harms of Sweden’s political stance originate primarily from their lack of interference, rather than their non-neutral actions as claimed by Jollon.
Additionally, Jollon introduces a fascinating point regarding Sweden’s supposed support of Nazi ideologies. While I agree that there was frequent injustice towards Norwegian and Danish Jews, I deny the correlation of Sweden’s neutrality to Jewish oppression. While shameful and perhaps cowardly, their oppression of Jews did not fuel their neutrality, removing any relation of neutrality to ideological tensions. Simply, the concept of neutrality exists separately from theories of atrocity and violence and is instead concerned with resource management and international alliances on the global stage. Furthermore, it is a common myth that Sweden upheld certain Nazi ideologies, and Jollon’s mention of select groups displaying said beliefs cannot account for the broader political scope of the nation. There are always certain groups with beliefs that deviate from standard perception, often which do not reflect the vast majority. Here, does Jollon characterize Sweden as a perpetrator of Nazi ideology, and does he suggest that there is tangible evidence for their alleged support? From my interpretations, it appears there is limited reasoning to validate this point, as immoral actions are separate from neutrality.
Moreover, Sweden’s neutrality did not arise as a conspiracy. Rather, neutrality, whether deemed unsuccessful or not, was a pragmatic method to stabilize the nation and avoid invasions, demonstrated by its alteration of the national mentality across the following centuries. In tandem, the shipments of raw materials were justified as concessions to avoid invasion, rather than gifts to Nazi powers. Alongside, groups across many other nations upheld ties to Hitler’s governance during the war, rejecting the impression that Sweden’s oppressions were unique. Thus, Sweden cannot be fully discredited for its affiliation with German interests at the time, which also existed independently of neutrality. Overall, the motives behind Sweden’s neutrality were pragmatic above ideological.
