Sweden maintained a position of neutrality during the Second World War; in spite of that, however, it acted as a major supplier of raw materials for Hitler's military, laundered the gold confiscated from Holocaust victims, and often failed to provide adequate asylum for refugees including the near-completely exterminated Norwegian Jews. Some Swedes even volunteered with the Waffen SS.[7] As in other wartime neutral European countries such as Ireland and Switzerland, the neutrality policy draws continued debate.
In 1941, Engdahl once again broke with his organization to find his own party, the Swedish Opposition (SO). Its main concern was anti-communism. Engdahl opposed all communism in the building of Swedish society, and printed 60,000 copies of an anti-communist brochure. Although Engdahl's new party expressed its admiration for Hitler and Nazi Germany on many occasions, the SO was not a Nazi or fascist party in a formal sense. Engdahl highlighted the differences between his party and National Socialism, particularly on Swedes united as a blood group rather than led by a dictatorship. As the war continued, the SO's sympathy with Hitler continued. On April 20, 1944, Engdahl wrote on the occasion of Hitler's 55th birthday, "words are too poor to express what we owe this man, who is a symbol of the best of what the world has produced. We can only celebrate him as the god-sent rescuer of Europe."[8]
When the war broke out, the former Youth League received a boost. The SNF's activities increased and membership soared. Its vogue proved short-lived, and opposition increased. Demonstrators showed up to its meetings and fighting was common. After a meeting in Uppsala on May 4, 1945, the police were unable to hold the crowds apart and rioting broke out.[9]
Lindholm's SSS had already distanced itself from Nazi Germany when the war broke out. Lindholm visited Germany during his honeymoon in July/August 1939 meeting Heinrich Himmler among others. He maintained some contact with Himmler throughout the war. From the German perspective, the SSS was the most organized National Socialist party in Sweden, even though there were those in the party who disapproved of Lindholm's personal attitude toward Germany.[10] After the German occupation of Norway and Denmark as "Jew depending western powers" Germany fell in the party's esteem.
The SO and public sympathy influenced Sweden's response to the refugee crisis. Between 1933 and 1939, Sweden accepted only 3000 Jewish refugees and permitted 1000 more to use Sweden as a transit stop.[7] As the war broke out, Sweden only absorbed political refugees and turned away Jews from occupied Norway at the border.[11] Sweden eventually accepted 900 Jews from Norway, but border controls and immigration contributed to the murder of over 700 Norwegian Jews at Auschwitz. In 1943, the policy changed, and Sweden provided asylum to 8000 Danish Jews.[12]
Obviously social democracies leave a lot to be desired and cannot be trusted to be even reliably anti-fascist. But ignoring the contributions a bunch of social democracies made to the defeat of fascism in WWII is as absurd as modern capitalists ignoring communist contributions to the same cause.
I would at the very least expect them to not be actively pro-fascist by providing them with iron. What social democracies are you otherwise referring to?
The major Allied powers, outside of the USSR, can be reasonably described as social democracies. If they weren't social democracies, they were to the right of that, which makes Stalin's comment about social democracy's relationship to fascism (which he wrote about 15 years before the start of WWII) even more wrong.
It just doesn't hold up as a categorical claim when the biggest conflict in human history provides such significant evidence to the contrary. Even the general sentiment runs into problems if you take a wide view of the Cold War. This shouldn't be too surprising -- big, sweeping statements like that almost never hold up to close scrutiny.
I think it's kind of strange to include them as anti-fascists when they really had no choice since the fascists attacked them first, a choice which Sweden actually did have (possibly a suicidal choice, but a choice).
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think the France and UK were more Keynesian capitalists than proper social democracies sustained by mass movements.
Do you mean that the social democracies sided with communism in the cold war or what? Maybe for a short period in the 60's?
Social democracies aren't anti-fascists, at least not in the sense that they are reliably, ideologically opposed to fascism. Their foreign policy is probably best described (certainly prior to the Cold War) as conventional geopolitics. But (1) they were resistant to allying with fascists, (2) they eventually fought an incredibly bloody war against fascists, and (3) they did so while allying with communists. All of this suggests they weren't fascists themselves, and wound up seeing fascism as a bigger threat than communism.
Regarding that first point, consider that fascists attacking social democracies didn't occur in isolation; it occurred after a decade or so of trying and failing to reach some rapport. In Europe, Britain had a fascist party (and fascist sympathies among more powerful parties), but it never cooperated with Germany to the extent Italy (for example) did, so it became an enemy. The United States had a full-on Nazi party (with a significant German immigrant population, and with Nazi sympathies among major U.S. industrialists), but you had the same lack of cooperation, so it too became an enemy. You can make similar arguments to varying extents about other European countries. In Asia, there was actually a fair amount of pre-war U.S. economic antagonism towards Japan that led Japan to conclude war was inevitable. If the Allies were just moderate fascists, why did they have such a hard time getting along with other fascists, and why did they form an alliance with the big scary communist USSR?
I think the France and UK were more Keynesian capitalists than proper social democracies sustained by mass movements.
In the same document where we get "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism," Stalin identifies France and the UK as social democracies. But if they were in fact to the right of social democracy, that makes Stalin's comments look worse, not better.
wikipedia
"A bunch" =/= "all."
Obviously social democracies leave a lot to be desired and cannot be trusted to be even reliably anti-fascist. But ignoring the contributions a bunch of social democracies made to the defeat of fascism in WWII is as absurd as modern capitalists ignoring communist contributions to the same cause.
I would at the very least expect them to not be actively pro-fascist by providing them with iron. What social democracies are you otherwise referring to?
The major Allied powers, outside of the USSR, can be reasonably described as social democracies. If they weren't social democracies, they were to the right of that, which makes Stalin's comment about social democracy's relationship to fascism (which he wrote about 15 years before the start of WWII) even more wrong.
It just doesn't hold up as a categorical claim when the biggest conflict in human history provides such significant evidence to the contrary. Even the general sentiment runs into problems if you take a wide view of the Cold War. This shouldn't be too surprising -- big, sweeping statements like that almost never hold up to close scrutiny.
I think it's kind of strange to include them as anti-fascists when they really had no choice since the fascists attacked them first, a choice which Sweden actually did have (possibly a suicidal choice, but a choice).
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think the France and UK were more Keynesian capitalists than proper social democracies sustained by mass movements.
Do you mean that the social democracies sided with communism in the cold war or what? Maybe for a short period in the 60's?
Social democracies aren't anti-fascists, at least not in the sense that they are reliably, ideologically opposed to fascism. Their foreign policy is probably best described (certainly prior to the Cold War) as conventional geopolitics. But (1) they were resistant to allying with fascists, (2) they eventually fought an incredibly bloody war against fascists, and (3) they did so while allying with communists. All of this suggests they weren't fascists themselves, and wound up seeing fascism as a bigger threat than communism.
Regarding that first point, consider that fascists attacking social democracies didn't occur in isolation; it occurred after a decade or so of trying and failing to reach some rapport. In Europe, Britain had a fascist party (and fascist sympathies among more powerful parties), but it never cooperated with Germany to the extent Italy (for example) did, so it became an enemy. The United States had a full-on Nazi party (with a significant German immigrant population, and with Nazi sympathies among major U.S. industrialists), but you had the same lack of cooperation, so it too became an enemy. You can make similar arguments to varying extents about other European countries. In Asia, there was actually a fair amount of pre-war U.S. economic antagonism towards Japan that led Japan to conclude war was inevitable. If the Allies were just moderate fascists, why did they have such a hard time getting along with other fascists, and why did they form an alliance with the big scary communist USSR?
In the same document where we get "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism," Stalin identifies France and the UK as social democracies. But if they were in fact to the right of social democracy, that makes Stalin's comments look worse, not better.