The best books that explore the role of neutral countries in times of war, and in shaping the world

I really enjoyed reading Leos’ book as it considers neutrality and war from a comprehensive historical perspective covering the early modern era to the present day. I thought his analysis of the development of international law governing maritime trade and the influence of the work of Hugo Grotius was a fascinating starting point.

His command of the evolving context during the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries made me really question the meaning of neutrality itself and how the concept of neutrality interrelated with views around morality.

Leos adeptly explores the tensions between collective security and neutrality. For example, the well-known permanent neutral, Switzerland, only became a member of the United Nations in 2002, arguing previously–in contrast to other neutrals–that its neutrality was incompatible with the membership requirements. There aren’t many books on neutrality that cover such a vast swathe of time, and Leos’ attempt to do so and draw insightful conclusions is really impressive.

I think Maartje’s book has been transformational in the study of neutrality. As she rightly points out, the study of neutrals has been skewed by more modern ideas of neutrality being a passive concept. It shows that in the nineteenth century, it was held in ‘high regard’ in diplomacy and statecraft. She superbly describes how neutrality, far from being a sideshow outside of the main events, was at the center of political thinking and shaping of the period between the Vienna Congress and the First World War.

I like how Maartje shows that neutrality after the Napoleonic Wars was self-serving. States avoided conflicts that they did not need to enter, and overall, this prevented any conflicts that did arise (such as the Crimean War) from becoming wider European conflagrations. Some states, like Belgium, were ‘neutralized’ by the larger, more powerful states to avoid conflict, whereas other countries actively sought neutralization to guarantee their independence, though not always successfully. I found the book to be a really insightful study.

I’ve included Ana, Jan, and María’s book on my list not because it is entirely about neutrality and war (although that theme plays a major part in the book) but because it pushed me to appreciate the effects of the First World War at a more global level. 

The modern name of the war, of course, includes the word ‘world’ in it, but the fighting was primarily European-focused. This book shows, however, that the war had a much wider reach–influencing China, Japan, South America, Mexico, and Africa, amongst other places. For example, the book shows that there was a clash of Empires in Africa–between neutral Portugal and belligerent Germany; and in neutral Argentina, Mexico, and Spain, societies were split down the middle between the rival camps supporting the Allies and the Germans.

I found the book to be a really important demonstration that we need to think differently about wars–the battles are, of course, important, but the cultural and political effects can be felt far from the location of the fighting.

Nick Cull’s book on how British propaganda was used to influence neutral American opinion towards supporting the Allies in the early part of the Second World War, I think, remains one of the most important books analyzing propaganda activities in the twentieth century. Clearly, the US entry into the Second World War was a significant moment, not only for the war itself but also for shaping the world order in which we continue to live today. 

Cull’s very readable and engaging account of British operations between September 1939 and December 1941 outlines how propagandists sought to influence news reporting of war events such as the Dunkirk evacuation and the Battle of Britain, amongst others. I think Cull’s broader definition of propaganda encapsulating broader influence in Hollywood through the work of people such as Alexander Korda, as well as through covert operations, is an approach that has really changed the way we think about how opinions are shaped and formed.

I’ve added Herbert and Pascal’s book to my recommendations as it provides a very thought-provoking set of chapters exploring the concept of permanent neutrality outside of specific wars. The contributors provide their thoughts firmly grounded in historical analysis, looking back over the last few centuries and seeing how the concept has emerged. They touch upon the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, and the UN, as well as the Spanish Civil War and the Iran-Iraq War, to demonstrate how views around neutrality have been shaped over a broad time horizon.

Just as with Leos’ book, I liked the way Herbert and Pascal bring to the fore the real dilemmas between permanent neutrality and collective security–in essence, they are opposing approaches to the same goal of achieving peace. The latter often fails when states perceive their own interests to trump the security of others, leaving the question of whether permanent neutrality can play a useful role. I found the book to be a helpful eye-opener to the role that permanent neutrality has played in world events and the effect it could potentially have in the future.