I would concur with joe about the matter of Sweden's neutrality or collaboration. They could either supply the Germans with what they wanted as a quasi-free nation, or be overrun and supply them as an occupied nation, and suffer all the involved atrocities and deprivations.
In the case of WW2, it was in the Swedish interest to remain neutral and try and survive. National interest is only very rarely concurrent with altruism, or idealistic defiance.
Sweden was not a natural fortress like Switzerland; it was open to an attack, and would have suffered under Nazi occupation. Certainly they did trade with the Nazis, but they also provided a haven for many who fled German occupation. The best example of this is a deed that will live in memory forever as heroism, when in 1942 the Danish managed to smuggle all but a few of the Danish Jews across the Skaggerak(or is it Kattegat) to safety in Sweden. This should be credited entirely to the Danes, but would not have been possible without Sweden being nominally free.
It is easy to fling about accusations of collaboration from some among the beligerant powers, such as the US, but the mainland US was never in range for a major Axis attack, save the firebomb kites of the Japanese, which killed 4 civilians. It is all well and good to talk about suicide tactics, but sometimes they are not necessary, and in the case of Sweden did save more lives than it cost, with the important exception being the crossing of territory to reach Norway, but that was not the main thrust of the invasion.
As to the mention of the King being a Nazi sympathiser or collaborator, I do not think so personally. My uncle was his valet for many years after the war, and did not describe him as such, rather as a very nice gentleman.
As for the general gist of this thread, I applaud and endorse what Dexter wrote (Very good, little boy! Would you like a candy from the nice evil man in the suspicious black overcoat?
), and further reinforce my own thoughts:
Americans as a people are no more evil, imperialist, corrupt or whatever than anyone else. Nor are they any better than most other PEOPLES (by this I mean the general populace of a nation) There are many millions of them, and the media is to a certain extent dominated by them. Thus, we see a lot of particular types, and form our opinions only by this.
Due to their large numbers, of course they are bound to have more strange or naughty individuals as other smaller nations.
By the same token, they do have large numbers of extremely pleasant, intelligent and good individuals, some of whom it is my honour to know over these boards.
As for their foreign policy, it can be criticized, but so can that of any country, and constant flaming of it brings about no constructive result. Nor in the end does the opinion of some people from other nations have the paramount impact upon the formulation of this policy and the determination of their national interest. These are affairs primarily for the American people, and their elected representatives to determine, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WORLD NEEDS AND FEELING, BUT NOT ABOVE ALL ELSE.
On certain matters, this is a good principal to operate, on others, there needs to be room for improvement, but I do not know enough about the specifics of these (mainly the intricacies of the environmental proposals, ie Kyoto) This does not make America evil, fascist, or imperialist, with the last two terms being constantly misused to the extent that it makes me, an academic and scholar of these concepts, shake my head in wonderment at how some people operate.
Suffice it to say, in every nation, and in all policy, there is good and bad, and conflicting concerns to be taken into hand.
... 
