Iron-y in the loyalty

In order to remain neutral Sweden had to promise Germany that the supply of iron from Norrland wouldn't subside, so in that Germany took Norway and Denmark, while Sweden promised not to interfere. By 1944 Sweden had gotten 40 tons of gold from Germany. I guess that's the price for throwing out all loyalty. 60% of the iron Germany required after 1933 when Hitler decided to ignore the deal made in Versailles and rebuild the army came from mines in Sweden. Germany was with that depending on supplies from Sweden, and occupying Denmark and Norway was a strategic move to keep the route between Sweden and Germany open.

So basically, in order to not be occupied by Nazi Germany Sweden had to promise to give NG what they wanted. In exchange for gold, of course. Naturally there are two sides to this. Of coure I think that Sweden should have helped their neighbours. But for what, really? Would the outcome have been any different. Sweden grew richer and the following decades the economy was blooming. What would Sweden's identity have been had it acted differently during WWII?

Another aspect to concider is Sweden's historically close relationship with Germany. At the time for the war German was more widely known than English among the Swedish public. Alliances grow through common intrests. We see the same in more current events. Three countries, US, UK and Iraq. Need I say more?

Leaving history and politics to the side, people are just people, and yes we're loyal to our friends, but we sometimes need to ask ourselves, what's a friendship worth, and whose dead body am I willing to walk over to get what I want?