#1 Phhbt. That article seems to be based at least in part on the assumption that the US was an ally at war with Britain in November 1941, which was the date of contention in question. When did WWII start for the Americans, class? Early December, very good. Thus, this wasn't close allies sharing information. This was a nominally "neutral" power sharing notes - somewhat contentiously - with a belligerent in a war in which they were not technically involved.
The American stance throughout 1941, and the Swedish stance throughout the war, informs my basic contempt for the stance of "neutrality". There's no such thing as an uninterested neutral neighbor to a war. The only true neutrality is distance - being a state where the "neutral party" is so distant from the conflict that they have no interests at work in any of the affected theatres.
That is, the Ching Dynasty was an effective neutral in the War of the Spanish Succession, due to it's mostly total disinterest in any of the sprawling issues involved, (aside from some bullion-flow interests which I'm not at all convinced the Chinese were even cognizant of, let alone concerned with) but you'd be damned hard pressed to find any other actual neutrals to that first world-war. |