Abstract The actions of Sweden during the second world war has been richly discussed over the years. Sweden declared itself neutral in the war between the great powers but did not manage to maintain its neutrality. The nature of neutrality has often been discussed; whether it is of a idealistic or more pragmatic nature. Realism, a theory of international relations, would argue that it is of a more pragmatic nature, hence these two are in opposition. Realism also takes credit in claiming to explain how and why a state chooses to act in a situation. The aim of this essay was to, by examining specific decisions made by the swedish government during the Second World War, come to a conclusion whether or not Sweden’s proclaimed neutrality was of idealistic or pragmatic nature, and thereby possibly coming to a conclusion about neutrality in large. It was also to examine the worth of realism as an explanatory theory by applying it to this specific case; to examine its validity. The study was conducted using a qualitative method; presenting empiric facts and then by using a decision model interpreting the actions and results from a realist perspective. The study concludes that realism has explanatory power, although not a complete one. The evidence, concerning the neutrality matter, points to that neutrality should be considered as being of a more pragmatic nature. Keywords: Second world war, international relations, realism, neutrality
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:lnu-6845 |
| Date | January 2010 |
| Creators | Olsson, Andreas |
| Publisher | Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för samhällsvetenskaper, SV |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0094 seconds