Do we really want to be more like Sweden?

[Shad]

I think Jumi was referring to Finland's war against the USSR, and he's correct: The U.S. didn't help Finland during that war.

Sure. Why would it?

As you point out, the US was neutral at the time of the Winter War. By the time the US entered the war, the Soviet Union was already on the Allied side, and Finland and the Axis were allies of convenience. So, we obviously weren't going to help Finland then.

Yes. You are missing the point. The claim was that using all the money spends on the military resulted in nothing. I pointed out Europe isn't speaking Russian right now. The reply was the US didn't help Sweden with pre-Cold War issue. Which merits the reply... so what? I pointed out Sweden played games during WW2 so never derserved aid.

Sweden did do some good things. I recall that most of Denmark's Jews were able to safely reach asylum in Sweden.

Sure.

And then there were the actions of Raoul Wallenberg.

And the Wiking SS.

Like most of Europe at the time, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. There wasn't much they could do.

Sure. However there is a difference between doing little and making trade deals.

Sure, they could have declared war, but they would quickly fall, and another country's resources would be in Hitler's hands.

Limited resources already being traded to Germany. Also it would eat troops for an occupation force like Norway. Poland did more for the war while losing that Sweden did sitting out.

It probably wouldn't have made much of a difference either way.

It would have been a net loss for the German war effort in my view if Sweden fought and lost

 

[LuisDantas]

Pat Condell and others have been telling us about the sorry state of Sweden for years.

Condell is great to warn about Islaam. Not so much about Sweden.

 

[Stevicus]

Sure. Why would it?



Yes. You are missing the point. The claim was that using all the money spends on the military resulted in nothing. I pointed out Europe isn't speaking Russian right now. The reply was the US didn't help Sweden with pre-Cold War issue. Which merits the reply... so what? I pointed out Sweden played games during WW2 so never derserved aid.

I just wasn't sure if we were talking about Finland or Sweden in terms of help against the USSR. The US spent a lot on military to help defend Western Europe, although we also spent a lot on other kinds of aid to rebuild their economies after the war. That's another key reason Europe isn't speaking Russian right now.

Sure.



And the Wiking SS.

The Wiking SS had foreign volunteers from all over Europe, including Sweden. But just because some Swedes were misguided in that way, it doesn't make the Swedish government pro-Nazi.

Sure. However there is a difference between doing little and making trade deals.

So, they shouldn't have made trade deals?

Limited resources already being traded to Germany. Also it would eat troops for an occupation force like Norway. Poland did more for the war while losing that Sweden did sitting out.

It would have been a net loss for the German war effort in my view if Sweden fought and lost

Maybe. It's hard to speculate on these things. One could just as easily argue that if certain other Western European nations had their act together in 1939-40, the war could have ended before it even got started. That's not necessarily Sweden's fault for the overall situation, but if they acted in what they felt to be their best interests, then I can't see how they can be blamed for that.

It may be true that it would have been a net loss for the German war effort if Sweden fought and lost. That would have been good for the Allies, but not necessarily good for Sweden.

 

[Shad]

I just wasn't sure if we were talking about Finland or Sweden in terms of help against the USSR.

I wasn't sure myself. I was talking about the Cold War but knew of the Winter War along ago.

The US spent a lot on military to help defend Western Europe, although we also spent a lot on other kinds of aid to rebuild their economies after the war. That's another key reason Europe isn't speaking Russian right now.

Yes. Still it is the military was required. The rest of Europe was destroyed militarily or in the long decline due to decolonization.

The Wiking SS had foreign volunteers from all over Europe, including Sweden. But just because some Swedes were misguided in that way, it doesn't make the Swedish government pro-Nazi.

Also SS Nord. Swedish government were collaborators sitting on the fence. It back stabbed the Allies with promises to cut ore product multiple time then find loopholes to do no such thing.

So, they shouldn't have made trade deals?

Cutting off trade with Germany would have crippled the war effort. Sweden promised to do it repeated but didn't.

Maybe. It's hard to speculate on these things. One could just as easily argue that if certain other Western European nations had their act together in 1939-40, the war could have ended before it even got started.

I agree. France and the UK sat on their asses during the invasion of Poland.

That's not necessarily Sweden's fault for the overall situation, but if they acted in what they felt to be their best interests, then I can't see how they can be blamed for that.

They picked the wrong side.

Also this excuse could be used to excuse the whole war.

It may be true that it would have been a net loss for the German war effort if Sweden fought and lost. That would have been good for the Allies, but not necessarily good for Sweden.

Yup. So they picked the wrong side instead.

 

[esmith]

Oh, if we were talking about ONLY the Southern combatants of those wars, rather than their entire coalition, then sure, I guess...
Except that I don't think you're taking into account how much assistance the Northern combatants had from their ideological superiors. If the Korean War had been JUST between the two Koreas, with neither UN nor Chinese assistance, it would have been very different. Vietnam, too. Sure, the NVA rolled over the RV very quickly after the American led coalition pulled out... but they did it with Russian supplied equipment and doctrine.

I don't wish to derail the thread, and "what ifs" are always fun, but IMHO, your earlier claim was...well, like I said, we can go with "arguable".

If you don't want to derail the thread then I suggest you do not put forth statements that are incorrect and have to be debunked.
In other words, learn about something before you speak, or in this case write.

What the **** did I say here you think is incorrect or has been debunked? I don't believe you even read my post.

First if you can read try reading the highlighted in the above post. It does not say "has been debunked".
Now your statement can be taken two ways. 1. The South would have been able to defend against the North 2. The North would have taken over the entire Korean peninsula.
I might have misread what you implied; if I did, my mistake. If I didn't then the below is correcting your assumption.

Your statement " If the Korean War had been JUST between the two Koreas, with neither UN nor Chinese assistance, it would have been very different"
Yes it would have been totally different, North Korea would have taken over the entire Korean peninsula.
On June 15th, 1950 the In Min Gun (North Korean Peoples Army) consisting of 6 regiments with hardened veterans with many that had fought with the Maoist army against the Nationalist that were well equipped and highly motivated (fight or die) crossed the 38th parallel. The South Korean army consisted of many officers that were only there for the power and monetary rewards and the majority of the enlisted personnel were basically peasants that had been drafted and received little or no training and basically had no equipment or very poor equipment. the South Korean army was outnumber at least 2 to 1. The North had a desire to win whereas the majority of the South Korean army ran. The In Min Gun easily routed the South Korean army and pushed what little ill equipped, poorly trained U.S. forces into the Pusan perimeter. So remove the U.S. forces from the picture and there would not be a North Korea or South Korea, just a Korea.

As far as your Vietnam statement. The South was well equipped with U.S. ground equipment. The deciding factor was not Russian doctrine but with the same type of discipline that the North Korean army had in the Korean War.....the will and desire to win.

 

[Jumi]

That is because Marx didn't create plans for his fiction

Whether we call it fiction or something else doesn't matter. You are right on one thing in that sentence though, we can't blame him for something that he wasn't even if you sorely dislike those who followed him. It's like pointing fingers at Jesus for witchburnings or Buddha for what's going on in Myanmar.

 

[Jumi]

I think Jumi was referring to Finland's war against the USSR, and he's correct: The U.S. didn't help Finland during that war. As you point out, the US was neutral at the time of the Winter War. By the time the US entered the war, the Soviet Union was already on the Allied side, and Finland and the Axis were allies of convenience. So, we obviously weren't going to help Finland then.

Right.

Sweden did do some good things. I recall that most of Denmark's Jews were able to safely reach asylum in Sweden. And then there were the actions of Raoul Wallenberg. Like most of Europe at the time, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. There wasn't much they could do. Sure, they could have declared war, but they would quickly fall, and another country's resources would be in Hitler's hands. It probably wouldn't have made much of a difference either way.

That's right. Smaller countries, ones that still exist at least, tend to have some sense when to go fighting with the big boys. Norway thought they would be helped by allies but got the short stick quite fast. A pretty strong signal to Sweden. If you couldn't help Norway there's no way you could help Sweden. Of course Swedes(and Finns) also volunteered in fighting against Nazis in Norway, but they fell too quick.

While maintaining neutrality, Sweden was helping Finland defend against the Soviet Union and the Nazis by giving temporary refuge to children, collecting aid and there were ~9000 Swedes fighting in the war and there were 100 000+ guns and loads of ammunition donated as well as a small volunteer airforce. We'd be speaking Russian in all Nordic countries without the Swedes, maybe even further. They took in Jews from Nazi conquered Denmark. Some Finns think Swedes should have done more, but basically any more than what they did would have been obvious enough that allies and Nazis would have been smart enough to realize whose side they were on.

 

[Notanumber]

Condell is great to warn about Islaam. Not so much about Sweden.

I thought it was Pat that told us about the lack of free speech in Sweden.

It could have been someone else.

 

[Shad]

Whether we call it fiction or something else doesn't matter. You are right on one thing in that sentence though, we can't blame him for something that he wasn't even if you sorely dislike those who followed him. It's like pointing fingers at Jesus for witchburnings or Buddha for what's going on in Myanmar.

He had an idea with no plan. His problem. Lenin took that fiction with communism in mind and created a dictatorship, Lenin's problem. Socialist can never get it right as Marx wrote fiction.

 

[Shad]

Right.

While maintaining neutrality, Sweden was helping Finland defend against the Soviet Union and the Nazis by giving temporary refuge to children, collecting aid and there were ~9000 Swedes fighting in the war and there were 100 000+ guns and loads of ammunition donated as well as a small volunteer airforce. We'd be speaking Russian in all Nordic countries without the Swedes, maybe even further. They took in Jews from Nazi conquered Denmark. Some Finns think Swedes should have done more, but basically any more than what they did would have been obvious enough that allies and Nazis would have been smart enough to realize whose side they were on.

Sweden also aided the Nazis war industry kill millions with it's trade deals. It broke treaties with the allies multiple times that would hinder the Nazi war effort.. Sweden did little good and a lot of harm by their fence sitting and collaboration. Without Sweden Iron ore and ball bearings the German industry would die in 6 months.

Murky truth of how a neutral Sweden covered up its collaboration with

 

[Jumi]

He had an idea with no plan. His problem. Lenin took that fiction with communism in mind and created a dictatorship, Lenin's problem. Socialist can never get it right as Marx wrote fiction.

So you think Sweden is socialist or what?

 

[Jumi]

Sweden also aided the Nazis war industry kill millions with it's trade deals. It broke treaties with the allies multiple times that would hinder the Nazi war effort.. Sweden did little good and a lot of harm by their fence sitting and collaboration. Without Sweden Iron ore and ball bearings the German industry would die in 6 months.

I don't know why you wanted to steer discussion away from today's Sweden? Do you think the Nazis wouldn't have taken Sweden as easily as they did with Norway if refused? At the same time Finland would have collapsed to the SU. I'd either not exist or I'd speak Russian or German. Of course you guys in big countries rarely care for such things as to how we little guys survive and even thrive so much.

And you do know the Sweden of that time hasn't existed in a long time in so many senses. Just like Germany of those days has little resemblance to today.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes. Still it is the military was required. The rest of Europe was destroyed militarily or in the long decline due to decolonization.

By saying the military was required, that's based on the assumption that the Soviets had an actual intention to expand into Western Europe (and would have done so if not for US military forces being stationed there).

Also SS Nord. Swedish government were collaborators sitting on the fence. It back stabbed the Allies with promises to cut ore product multiple time then find loopholes to do no such thing.

I'm not familiar with any promises the Swedes made to the Allies, so maybe you're right on this point. But they were still in a tight spot, as they were completely surrounded by the Axis. It was similar for Switzerland, and they've also been on the hot seat for collaborating with the Nazis.

Cutting off trade with Germany would have crippled the war effort. Sweden promised to do it repeated but didn't.

Just out of curiosity, did the Swedish government offer any reason as to why they didn't fulfill their promise to cut off trade with Germany? If they did cut off trade, then Germany would have probably invaded. If not, Germany was in a position to totally blockade Sweden where they could be completely cut off from the rest of the world.

Maybe that's not a good enough reason; other nations suffered much more than that. I can't say, since I've never been in an analogous situation to be able to judge.

I agree. France and the UK sat on their asses during the invasion of Poland.

Yep.

They picked the wrong side.

Also this excuse could be used to excuse the whole war.

Well, they didn't pick any side. They were neutral. It's not really an excuse, it's just putting the blame for the war on those who deserved it the most. Those who didn't really do anything wrong but "didn't do enough to stop the Axis" - that seems more a matter of secondary or tertiary responsibility.

I've read criticisms of the U.S. for similar reasons. One might argue that if we joined the League of Nations, we might have given more teeth to that organization which could have stopped Japan, Italy, and Germany in their tracks. Or if we had joined the war sooner, such as when Britain and France declared war in 1939. I think the U.S. has had to bear a certain degree of national "guilt" over that. That seems to be why we've taken a more proactive and interventionist approach to world affairs ever since.

 

[Stevicus]

Right.


That's right. Smaller countries, ones that still exist at least, tend to have some sense when to go fighting with the big boys. Norway thought they would be helped by allies but got the short stick quite fast. A pretty strong signal to Sweden. If you couldn't help Norway there's no way you could help Sweden. Of course Swedes(and Finns) also volunteered in fighting against Nazis in Norway, but they fell too quick.

I think the British tried to help Norway when the Germans invaded, but it seemed like an ill-fated plan. Germany was just rolling over everyone in those days. If the combined forces of Britain and France couldn't keep the Germans from invading France, what chance would Sweden have?

While maintaining neutrality, Sweden was helping Finland defend against the Soviet Union and the Nazis by giving temporary refuge to children, collecting aid and there were ~9000 Swedes fighting in the war and there were 100 000+ guns and loads of ammunition donated as well as a small volunteer airforce. We'd be speaking Russian in all Nordic countries without the Swedes, maybe even further. They took in Jews from Nazi conquered Denmark. Some Finns think Swedes should have done more, but basically any more than what they did would have been obvious enough that allies and Nazis would have been smart enough to realize whose side they were on.

Well, there's definitely been a lot of "what if" questions and second-guessing even in America, too. Some might ask "What if we had entered the war sooner?" or questions like that. Some believe that the war might have ended sooner and fewer lives would have been lost.

But even beyond that, it can be argued if the West (including the U.S.) had not gotten caught behind in the arms race in the 1930s, they would have been in a better position to respond to Axis aggression.

 

[Notanumber]

I think the British tried to help Norway when the Germans invaded, but it seemed like an ill-fated plan. Germany was just rolling over everyone in those days. If the combined forces of Britain and France couldn't keep the Germans from invading France, what chance would Sweden have?



Well, there's definitely been a lot of "what if" questions and second-guessing even in America, too. Some might ask "What if we had entered the war sooner?" or questions like that. Some believe that the war might have ended sooner and fewer lives would have been lost.

But even beyond that, it can be argued if the West (including the U.S.) had not gotten caught behind in the arms race in the 1930s, they would have been in a better position to respond to Axis aggression.

At least the UK did not surrender its armed forces back then as it may well do in the future.

The UK’s current leader has already signed a document of surrender.

 

[Stevicus]

At least the UK did not surrender its armed forces back then as it may well do in the future.

The UK’s current leader has already signed a document of surrender.

To whom are the British surrendering?

I guess they could surrender to Trump.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know why you wanted to steer discussion away from today's Sweden? Do you think the Nazis wouldn't have taken Sweden as easily as they did with Norway if refused? At the same time Finland would have collapsed to the SU. I'd either not exist or I'd speak Russian or German. Of course you guys in big countries rarely care for such things as to how we little guys survive and even thrive so much.

An interesting aspect of the kind of malignant nationalism which was embraced by Hitler and many Germans was the idea that only the strong and powerful nations should rule, while the smaller nations should be conquered. At best, Hitler might have granted some conquered countries semi-autonomous status as a protectorate or some kind of vassal state. So, they would have been able to keep their language, just as the non-Russian Soviet republics kept their language, along with the Warsaw Pact satellite nations of Eastern Europe.

I could be wrong, but it seems that more Europeans speak English than Russian or German. I'm not sure if that means anything, but just a side comment about the phrase "you'd be speaking Russian or German." I've heard it used on occasion. It also reminds me of a funny scene from A Fish Called Wanda:

Spoiler: Offensive Language

 

[Notanumber]

To whom are the British surrendering?

This man explains.

He is one of the few that are trying to keep the UK from becoming a vassal state.

 

[Jumi]

I think the British tried to help Norway when the Germans invaded, but it seemed like an ill-fated plan. Germany was just rolling over everyone in those days. If the combined forces of Britain and France couldn't keep the Germans from invading France, what chance would Sweden have?

Yeah the allies tried to help Norway and the neighboring countries tried to organize help for them. After Norway fell, Sweden's options became close to nil. You look at the map and see there's no way Sweden could defend against the Nazis, so "playing along" is a survival strategy. They could get their iron ore when they wanted. Stalins aggression forced Finland into a similar corner. Trying to join the allies when one of them's looking to grab your lands and has done some genocide on your ethnicity past the border? Sounds like asking to have a two front war with SU and Germany...

Well, there's definitely been a lot of "what if" questions and second-guessing even in America, too. Some might ask "What if we had entered the war sooner?" or questions like that. Some believe that the war might have ended sooner and fewer lives would have been lost.

Americans didn't do much wrong in the war decision against Germany. It's all logical, in hindsight Germany could have been stopped before any war started but the world doesn't give us second guesses... You did what you had to do and thank God you did.

But even beyond that, it can be argued if the West (including the U.S.) had not gotten caught behind in the arms race in the 1930s, they would have been in a better position to respond to Axis aggression.

Well, people were investing in Germany from the west seeing that booming military industry, the same failure's been repeated multiple times... what could go wrong...

An interesting aspect of the kind of malignant nationalism which was embraced by Hitler and many Germans was the idea that only the strong and powerful nations should rule, while the smaller nations should be conquered. At best, Hitler might have granted some conquered countries semi-autonomous status as a protectorate or some kind of vassal state. So, they would have been able to keep their language, just as the non-Russian Soviet republics kept their language, along with the Warsaw Pact satellite nations of Eastern Europe.

I can tell Finland would have at best had the fate of Estonia, but probably worse since Stalin got into killing even our communists for their ethnicity. Lenin had envisioned when they allowed our independence that Finland would fall to reds soon and join the SU willingly.

I could be wrong, but it seems that more Europeans speak English than Russian or German.

Of course, it's because of American and British cultural dominance after WW2. I learned English from British TV, it had better programming than Italian, Spanish, Russian and German channels we had access to. English is going to down a bit in Europe since it might stop being an official language in the EU and get replaced by German.

I'm not sure if that means anything, but just a side comment about the phrase "you'd be speaking Russian or German." I've heard it used on occasion.

Yeah it's a hindsight thing people use in my country all the time. It's mostly used in my country as a political talking point against either communism(imaginary or real, doesn't matter), pacifism and the like. You know someone is going to use it as their "main argument" every single time... as if Russian isn't just as good a language as English or Finnish.

 

[Shad]

By saying the military was required, that's based on the assumption that the Soviets had an actual intention to expand into Western Europe (and would have done so if not for US military forces being stationed there).

It was planned before WW2. Also the fact that the Soviets installed puppet governments in the nations they conquered. I wonder why people thought the Soviets were a problem.

I'm not familiar with any promises the Swedes made to the Allies, so maybe you're right on this point. But they were still in a tight spot, as they were completely surrounded by the Axis. It was similar for Switzerland, and they've also been on the hot seat for collaborating with the Nazis.

The problem is people know about Switzerland collaboration but not that of Sweden.

Just out of curiosity, did the Swedish government offer any reason as to why they didn't fulfill their promise to cut off trade with Germany?

Threats of invasion during a period which no such invasion was plausible.

If they did cut off trade, then Germany would have probably invaded.

Not in 42, 43, 44 and 45.

If not, Germany was in a position to totally blockade Sweden where they could be completely cut off from the rest of the world.

Maybe that's not a good enough reason; other nations suffered much more than that. I can't say, since I've never been in an analogous situation to be able to judge.

Sweden was already cut off due to the mining of the straits into the Baltic and fields in the North Sea. The Swedes that were outside those areas, and Sweden proper, flew Allied colours and could not return until the war ended.

Well, they didn't pick any side.

Wrong. They picked the Nazis via trade. Sweden cut trade to the Allies without blasting Germany for mining fields.

They were neutral.

So neutral that they let the Nazis use their train and port transportation systems to move troop to the Russia Front. Sweden ships escorted Nazi vessels thus attempting to use the protection of neutrality for ships that it would never be applied to. Yes very neutral.......

It's not really an excuse, it's just putting the blame for the war on those who deserved it the most. Those who didn't really do anything wrong but "didn't do enough to stop the Axis" - that seems more a matter of secondary or tertiary responsibility.

Sweden sold a valuable product Germany needed for the war especially after the Allies bombed the ball bearing industry in Germany into the ground. They were collaborators.

I've read criticisms of the U.S. for similar reasons. One might argue that if we joined the League of Nations, we might have given more teeth to that organization which could have stopped Japan, Italy, and Germany in their tracks.

The lack of teeth was due to Great War fatigue and disarmament. FDR was trying to get the US into the war from day 1. The US likewise claimed neutrality but picked a side. The right side.

Or if we had joined the war sooner, such as when Britain and France declared war in 1939. I think the U.S. has had to bear a certain degree of national "guilt" over that. That seems to be why we've taken a more proactive and interventionist approach to world affairs ever since.

The US at the start of WW2 had the 17th largest army in the world. 17th...... The 100k were a drop in the bucket compared to the 11 million French military, the 7 million Germany military, the 1 million of the UK. The US army was smaller than Canada's until spring/summer 42.

The US military is large due to Japan and how Europe disarms regardless of threats on the world stage. That is why the US is active. Europe never gets it's **** together.