Talk:Swedish neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sweden (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon 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, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 12:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)