It is a known fact that learning from other nations wars is a pivotal part of military innovation. Other studies have shown that the Spanish civil war was a conflict that other nations used to learn lessons about how warfare was evolving during the interwar period. What was previously unknown however, was the extent to which the Swedish military learned from this event and whether the conflict affected the Swedish armed forces. Exploring this will inevitably also reveal interesting things about the Swedish military as a learning organisation. The method used to do this is a qualitative text analysis. The approach aims to see what the Swedish armed forces wanted to know, how it obtained the information, what lessons were drawn from the information, if the information had an impact on the organisation and lastly what this says about the Swedish military as a learning organisation. Thus, the method is used to interpret, decipher, and understand the information that was received. There are three theories which were used to aid me in my search for the answers. The first is what Tom Dysons calls the ideal learning process which consists of four criteria. To complement this the seven pitfalls to effective learning that Brent L. Sterling outlines in his book Other people’s wars were used. Finally, Michael Herman´s HUMINT pyramid is used to assess how advanced the Swedish intelligence network was during the time of the Spanish civil war. The conclusion drawn at the end of the study show that the Swedish military could collect adequate information and draw impactful lessons from the conflict while also meeting all four criteria outlined by Dyson´s ideal learning process. This despite the fact that Herman´s HUMINT pyramid showed that the intelligence organisation wasn’t the most advanced at the time. Regarding the pitfalls that Sterling had outlined the Swedish military managed to avoid most but not all of them.