Why Finland Fought in World War II While Sweden Maintained Neutrality

Despite popular misconceptions, Finland was not entirely neutral during World War II. The country's involvement in both the Winter War (1939–1940) and the Continuation War (1941–1944) tested its neutrality and strategic interests.

Finland's Involvement in World War II

Winter War (1939-1940): Finland was initially not a full participant in World War II, but the Soviet Union's invasion of Finland in November 1939, following the Soviet-Lithuanian, Soviet-Latvian, and Soviet-Estonian treaties, forced Finland into conflict. Despite extensive support from Nazi Germany, Finland's resistance was able to hold its own against the Soviet forces, leading to a peace treaty known as the Moscow Armistice. Under this treaty, Finland ceded territories, including the Petsamo region, to the Soviet Union.

Continuation War (1941-1944): The German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 provided Finland with an opportunity to reclaim territories lost during the Winter War. Finland joined the Axis powers and continued to fight against the Soviet Union, hoping to regain lost territories and protect its sovereignty. The conflict ended in 1944, when the Soviet Union offered a deal: if Finland rejoined the Allies and defeated Germany, it could retain its territorial gains. Finland's strategic alignment with Germany continued until the war's end. After an armistice in 1944, Finland fought against retreating German forces in the Lapland War.

Sweden's Neutrality During World War II

Sweden maintained an official stance of neutrality throughout World War II. However, its position was more complex. Sweden was located in a strategic position between Germany, the Allies, and the Soviet Union, making it a critical resource supplier to both Axis and Allied forces.

Nazi Germany: Sweden facilitated the transfer of troops and resources to Nazi Germany, particularly after the fall of Norway. It provided raw materials such as ball bearings, which were crucial for German industries, and rubber. This strategic alliance allowed Sweden to profit from the war while avoiding direct military involvement.

USSR and Allies: To ensure its continued neutrality, Sweden allowed British and American convoys to pass through its territorial waters and harbors. The Swedish government also provided refugees and volunteers who served in various Allied and Axis fronts. This dual strategy allowed Sweden to leverage its position without directly opposing any major power.

Strategic Implications and Security Concerns

Finland: Finland's decision to align with the Axis powers, especially Germany, was motivated by a desire to reclaim lost territories and ensure its national security. The country's proximity to the Soviet Union made it vulnerable to invasion, and Finland's actions during the Continuation War were a response to perceived threats from the Soviet Union.

Sweden: Sweden's strategic position required a delicate balancing act. While maintaining official neutrality, Sweden faced significant security concerns from both the Soviet Union and Germany. Its support of both sides allowed Sweden to maintain its neutrality and secure its own resources while avoiding direct conflict.

Conclusion: The contrasting experiences of Finland and Sweden during World War II highlight the complexities of maintaining neutrality in a conflict with global implications. Finland's alignment with the Axis powers, albeit briefly, was driven by a need to protect its sovereignty, while Sweden maintained a more nuanced approach, leveraging its position to gain resources and avoid direct military engagement.