>>64051750
>Neutrality allows a party to provide near-unlimited support to a belligerent as far as they're willing to risk the ire of the opposing belligerent.
Are you just naturally retarded or do you have to make an effort every single time? The British blockade was in force, Swedish exports of iron and steel were capped and the Brits would have retaliated if the Swedes started going balls to walls for the Endsieg.
WW2 specifically saw the expansion of the blockade even beyond WW1 levels, simply because the Brits knew what they were doing and the Swedish position was weaker this time around because the Mericans were shipping the supplies for the Soviets and the Brits had even less need for swedish produce.
>It doesn't mean you haven't picked a side.
That's politics, yes. Nations have their own interests and have the right to pursue them, which also includes the right to limit their use by treaty agreements. International law is a gentlemen's agreement you keep up because it's usually cheaper than a shooting war.
>That wasn't the case in the Midsummer Crisis.
I'm aware that all transfers had been made illegal and that the Swedes tried to keep them as mum and as minimal as possible and stopped them at the earliest date. But that's just Realpolitik - they wanted to keep their own nation, so they had to bend to force major in this specific case. It's no different to how they agreed to and largely followed British blockade regulations.
