U.S. pays price for arrogance (A barfbag special)

Have you ever heard of something called sarcasm?

If I mis read your intent, a thousand pardons. I am hypersensitive on this issue perhaps. I lost no relatives or loved ones to death in this incident. But I may have lost a brother. A recently retired General Officer in the Army. Had a big argument with him about interventionism over this. We may never speak again.

God help us, the casualities are not just in NYC and DC. Man I feel bad, (not to diminsh the pain of those who actually lost someone,) but I may have lost someone emotionally. I am not sure what is worse. I have lost both parents and my younger sister in the last two years....my brother is all thats left.

Take care, and regards.

J.R.

I'm referring to Europe as a whole

Think about all the bandwidth we could've saved if you had mentioned that when you replied.

I really don't care if you object to hawkish attitudes expressed on this board

I don't mind hawkishness, but I do object to ignorance and misinformation.

Any opinion that supports nations whcih are not with the program tells me that the poster is either an extreme libertarian (to which party I am a member) or a typical liberal

What program? As defined by whom? And what if the poster is a part of said nation?

Thought you might want to review your thoughts. Here is a series of quotes from a reasonable historian.

When the Second World War broke out, Sweden had many times stated herself as a strict neutral country. It had not been involved in a war since 1814, which was exactly the way it should be in the minds of the Swedes. Today they do not know much about their involvement in the Second World War, probably since it is nothing to be proud of. The Swedish history books do not tell about Sweden's involvement in the war, you only read about the official version which says that Sweden was a neutral country. In reality, it broke the neutrality in the beginning of the war, and supported the Nazis.

The war between England, France and Germany seemed so far away from Sweden, but when Russia attacked Finland and "The Finnish Winter War" started, Sweden suddenly became very close to the war. The prime minister, P-A Hansson, established a coalition government, with all the political parties included, except the Communists. They believed that they should stick together, to avoid political disruption. The first purpose was to keep Sweden outside the war, no matter the cost. The second purpose was to stop the opposition from the inhabitants. Per Albin Hansson continued to be Prime Minister and his strategy during the war was not to be strong and clear, and not to be neutral. Instead he chose to be weak and vague, and not clearing out the arising problems until it was absolutely necessary, and even then he often solved them in the Nazi's advantage.

Sweden, for example, refused England and France to transport troops through Sweden to help Finland.

In the spring of 1940, "The Phoney War" ended. On the 9th of April, the Nazis attacked and occupied Denmark and Norway. On the 18th of June, Sweden gave the Nazis permission to transport soldiers through Sweden. 2140 000 German soldiers, were transported on the Swedish railways during three years to August in 1943, when it was clear that Germany would loose the war.

The population managed, and food supplies functioned better than it had done in the previous war. Sweden was cut off from the west, but convoys from Gothenburg brought the necessary food supplies. Large scale exports of iron ore to Germany continued. It was probably one big reason for the German occupation of Norway, since the iron was shipped out from Narvik, and the Englishmen started mining that area, to stop the iron export. Sweden ignored that Germany made guns from the iron.

Really nice folks! Screwed the Finns, Norwegians, British, French and the US. Then pretend to be morally superior. Hah. They kept helping Hitler until late 1943 when they knew the German's were going to lose. The URL is:http://www.utb.boras.se/uk/se/projekt/history/ns4.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thought you might want to review your thoughts

Look at my reply (#25) again and point out what needs to be reviewed. Like I said, Sweden would have joined the Allies under the same conditions as the United States - when attacked. Sweden did not let German troops through to invade Norway, only soldiers of leave from occupied Norway were allowed transfer.

Here is a series of quotes from a reasonable historian

You are quoting a school project made by 16-year old students. Void of any serious analysis it's not really worth the bandwidth. Sweden's outspoken policy of pragmatic neutrality (not as the author puts it - strict neutrality), then and now, is not very hard to understand for someone who dares explore the reasons behind the decisions. This pragmatism, of course, led to situations and actions that at least in hindsight were objectionable and unnecessary; but in WWII politics were logical results of putting Sweden's interests, and indeed national survival first. However, some people would claim that the interests of countries other than your own are more important.

If you care to explore WWII politics, I'm sure you should be able to find better sources than the school project of a 16-year old kid.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.