Posted on 06/07/2009 11:56:22 AM PDT by WesternCulture
1709 was an interesting year.
Back then, USA didn't even exist.
Scandinavia of those days, naturally, was dark and gloomy.
We drank too much Absolut and suicide was frequent.
Furthermore, we all believed in Socialism.
That pretty much explains the fact that today two of the world's 20 richest men are Swedes (no, Sweden doesn't have oil).
But let's forget about Forbes and study Peter the Great instead.
300 years ago, Peter the Great burned Russian soil in panic.
300 years ago, in 1709, Sweden was "defeated" at Poltava.
300 years ago, Sweden survived a major North European conflict while the Russians decided to remain backwards.
80 years later, Sweden was victorious at Svensksund.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Svensksund_(1790)
Perhaps Scandinavia today is prosperous because we always continue to fight.
Whatever the cost.
History is interesting in many ways and we could all learn from it, but the only thing one could learn from Russian history is that a loser remains a loser.
Viva Poltava!
Thanks WesternCulture,
Thrilled to hear it.
I worked hard as hell my whole life, and retired and 51. Did well and I attribute it to my Grandmas hard ass work ethic.
Own a nice sailboat and love life.
Live on an airpark with a private airport in my front yard.
Didn’t do this waiting for the govt. to give it to me.
GOD bless.
While those things were nice and all, they still stayed out of the fight. And what I read, her Scandinavian neighbors took a long time to forgive them for that.
Not that I don’t understand why they stayed out. Just saying.
“In what way do YOU contribute to civilization?”
Didn’t become a Muslim.
“Didn’t become a Muslim.”
- Always a start.
Ever considered becoming an anti-Muslim?
What about supplying Nazi Germany with weapons and materials throughout the war?
I was pretty much born that way. :)
supplied iron ore to the Nazi Germany during WWII.
300 years ago, Sweden survived a major North European conflict while the Russians decided to remain backwards.
Beleive or not, Russia gained some previously Swedish territories in the Northern War and later. I mean Ingermlandia, Carelia, Finland, Estlandia, Livonia.
Perhaps Scandinavia today is prosperous because we always continue to fight. Whatever the cost.
When did Sweden fight last time?
Sweden supplied 10 million tons of iron ore per year to Germany from 1940-1943, as much as in the pre-war year 1938, in addition to vast numbers of manufactured ball bearings.
All in all, Sweden, just like Switzerland, avoided WWII and occupation by becoming nazi collaborants, rather than their credible deterrent force. The vast income they made on the tremendous suffering of WWII is the source of their current-day prosperity. Frankly, both country should cough up some large sum to compensate the victims of WWII.
- Among other things, remaining neutral in the context of an armed conflict involves continuing doing trade with everyone.
The Swedish trade policy remained intact.
Back then, Sweden would have been happy to do much more of trade with the Allies.
However, Germany happened to invade Denmark and Norway.
If the generation of my grandparents simply would've shut the country down, deliberately starve themselves and refuse to do trade with anyone else, would that’ve meant true neutrality?
If the generation of my grandparents simply would've shut the country down, deliberately starve themselves and refuse to do trade with anyone else, would that’ve meant true neutrality?
I feel little compassion for that since two sons of one of my great-grandfathers were MIA as well as three sons of another were the same thus leaving my father an orphan at the age of 12. The swedish iron ore could play a part in that. The same can be said about a fraction of that generation in the USA and the UK.
- More or less every type of goods are “war material”.
Again, why should a neutral country starve itself, alternatively carry the blame, because of conflicts they didn't start?
Sweden traded with both Nazi Germany and Britain - so let's blame Sweden for the Munich agreement of 1938, shall we!
Some people drink and drive - yeah, let's sue the automotive industry!
“I feel little compassion for that since two sons of one of my great-grandfathers were MIA as well as three sons of another were the same thus leaving my father an orphan at the age of 12.”
- Many Westerners of today (and others) were “innocent” victims of WWII or have close relatives who were.
My (paternal) grandmother who fled Finland and her brother (who got shot by a Soviet sniper, but survived) are examples of such people.
We are all victims as well as makers of history.
What ordinary people can do is to learn how to distinguish between real leaders like Charles XII of Sweden and Mannerheim, a great son of Finland and poor leaders like Peter the Great and Stalin.
Okay, some more and the iron ore is an example.
Again, why should a neutral country starve itself, alternatively carry the blame, because of conflicts they didn't start?
Because it's contributed to conflict's passage.
Some people drink and drive - yeah, let's sue the automotive industry!
It's not equalent to the Swedish WWII policy. More accurate one would be serving booze to a seeably drunk driver who stopped for a minute at a gas station.
My (paternal) grandmother who fled Finland and her brother (who got shot by a Soviet sniper, but survived) are examples of such people.
If you wanted help the Nazi back then why not signing an official alliance with them openly joining the WWII as a belligerent? It's the honest way to demand blood for blood.
between real leaders like Charles XII of Sweden and Mannerheim, a great son of Finland and poor leaders like Peter the Great and Stalin.
This requires historical knowledge and thought. Mine tend me to disagree with you on Stalin, Peter I and Charles I.
- Back then, the Nazis were in more desperate need of oil than iron ore, especially as they already controlled the French sources of iron ore. But again, we Swedes reserve the right to do foreign trade.
Today, Germany could turn coal into diesel oil, but as far as I've understood things, they were unable of mastering such a process at a grand scale in the 1940s.
“If you wanted help the Nazi back then why not signing an official alliance with them openly joining the WWII as a belligerent? It's the honest way to demand blood for blood.”
- Mannerheim has stated that out of two bad allies he felt Finland had to choose the Nazis.
Mannerheim might sound very much like a German name, but few people in Finland, Sweden or other Nordic countries ever have shared Hitler's notion that Russia belongs to German or Austrian megalomaniacs.
“This requires historical knowledge and thought.”
- It's a good thing you nurture this philosophy.
But let's have a look at today as well.
Today's Russia is not like Somalia, but on the other hand, it's not exactly like Sweden either.
Russia has extreme amounts of natural resources and houses a population that, in large, is patriotic (probably more patriotic than its Swedish counterpart) and would work hard for money if given a proper chance.
So why is Russia still comparatively backwards?
IMO, it is very much because of the inability of a good nation to choose good leaders.
Mannerheim has stated that out of two bad allies he felt Finland had to choose the Nazis
Remaining honest so he deserves praise for this at least.
So why is Russia still comparatively backwards?
This is a theme which requires thousands of pages to describe. In my view the mainest reasons are:
Another factor to add:
comparatevely low population concentration comparing to Western Europe during the longest part of Russia’s history.
We definitely agree iron ore was a very important war material, but what I wish to point out is this:
- From a Nazi German perspective, the imports of Swedish iron ore were convenient, but not as decisive as some people seem to think. This means a lot of things. Among others, that it was not up to Sweden to determine the outcome of WWII.
But even if it was, why should a neutral country refrain from sticking to the ideal of free trade?
Sweden's continuous trade with Nazi Germany (as well as the Allies and not at least Finland) simply means it REMAINED neutral NOT that Sweden gave up neutrality!
Concerning Russia lagging behind the richest economies of today, I claim that Feudalism also matters.
Like you are well aware of, Feudalism also existed in Germany, Italy and France. These nations are not poor, but compared to countries like Sweden, Canada, Switzerland and the US, which have a stronger tradition of self governance (Sweden has high taxes and strong unions, but it also important to remember that Swedish farmers were running their own farms and enjoyed representation in parliament while most French, Italian and German peasants practically were slaves), they are poorer.
West Germany is not very far from Sweden or the US in terms of standard of living, but even in West Germany strikes occur and there is not enough sense of responsibility among ordinary workers and union leaders. Many Germans are very intelligent and well educated, but still many of them seem to lack belief in Capitalism, their companies and their nation. In the case of Italy and France, the situation is even worse.
But at least, France and Italy are democracies.
Few people in Western Europe feel Russia is today. I'm not an expert of Russia and there are a lot of things you can criticize concerning Swedish democracy, but something that might be of greater importance is whether or not the average Russian feels he is in control of his own future and that people like him is in control of the future of their nation.
Despite the shortcomings as well as the differences of USA and Sweden of today, these two countries exemplifies what Capitalism and democracy can do to develop a country. Switzerland and Finland are two other good examples of this. Russia and many other countries could learn a lot from
them if they wished to be self critical and truly open minded.
Yes, these countries feature several differences, for instance Sweden is more Socialist than the US (but also more Capitalist in the sense we are even engaged in the national performance of our multinationals than most Americans are, many Americans view their big corporations simply as “milk-cows”), but what they/we have in common
is that they are world-leaders in terms of being well functioning democratic nations where the individual citizen have a very strong position in society AS WELL as countries that have produced plenty of successful multinational companies in relation to their population (Germany is, in fact, not that impressive given its population size). I don't accuse you of not understanding the blessings of Capitalism and democracy, but I fear there are not enough Russians like you. I sincerely hope Russia will choose to become more democratic (no, not politically correct, that's not what I'm saying) and even more Capitalist instead of becoming more protectionist and authoritarian.
why should a neutral country refrain from sticking to the ideal of free trade?
On the same reason on which a shop owner refrains from that ideal by denying to sell booze to a minor , and a gun dealer doesn't sell bullets to a known convicted criminal.
I claim that Feudalism also matters.
Like you are well aware of, Feudalism also existed in Germany, Italy and France. These nations are not poor, but compared to countries like Sweden, Canada, Switzerland and the US, which have a stronger tradition of self governance [...]they are poorer.
This doesn't work for Ireland or Austria which are wealthier than Sweden in terms of GDP per capita
Few people in Western Europe feel Russia is today
Pardon?
But at least, France and Italy are democracies.
France, Italy and Germany have contributed more to the world's economy, science, technology, culture and art than Sweden. They have enough to be proud of.
Russian feels he is in control of his own future and that people like him is in control of the future of their nation.
Most of us don't rely on the government in the issues of our personal lives, the USSR's collapse and the nineties taught us this. People like me are less in control of my country future than in Sweden - it's a fact.
USA and Sweden of today, these two countries exemplifies what Capitalism and democracy can do to develop a country. Switzerland and Finland are two other good examples of this.
I wonder how China progresses in double digits annually, while there's no democracy and is there capitalism? While Brazil and Argentina are capitalistic but not rich at all. Sweden is hardly a capitalistic country with its vast social system.
I don't accuse you of not understanding the blessings of Capitalism and democracy, but I fear there are not enough Russians like you. I sincerely hope Russia will choose to become more democratic (no, not politically correct, that's not what I'm saying) and even more Capitalist instead of becoming more protectionist and authoritarian.
I don't think there is a wonder weapon whether it's Capitalism or anything else. Since that was capitalism which made slavery in the USA, serfdom to the East of Elba profitable. The "Spinning Jenny" machine made 0.5 mln people in the XVIII century's UK die of hunger. The top of the capitalistic food chain hasn't enough place for each country. But Russia needs to be more capitalist and more democratic while this can take more time than many expect and the ways may be not democratic at all.
- I'd say it was pretty necessary for our survival as a free nation and like said, we traded with the Allies as well.
“In this case it's like shooting someone down to get a place in a Titanic lifeboat.”
- Perhaps, given the precondition that the person who got shot down (Soviet) had attacked your neighbor and close friend (Finland).
“This doesn't work for Ireland or Austria which are wealthier than Sweden in terms of GDP per capita”
- My impression is that the Irish view the oppression their ancestors were exposed to as being something of foreign origin. France is very different as there still is very much of the same, basic, conflict between different social segments of society like there was prior to the French Revolution. Ordinary people lack an ability to reason like free, patriotic men and blame everything on the elite. This “elite” often chooses to surrender to their irresponsible protests and demands.
The Irish of today seem to have a much better understanding of what it means to build a future for themselves as a nation.
Austria definitely isn't poor, but in terms of nominal GDP per capita, it is poorer than Sweden according to CIA, the IMF as well as the World Bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
The figures you refer to deal with GDP per capita at “purchasing power parity”.
If prices are high because of things like a very high VAT in a given nation (like they are in Sweden), it will have a negative impact on it's theoretical purchasing power per capita compared to another country with more or less the same nominal GDP/capita. Sweden has a VAT of 25% and Austria 20%. In return for this higher level of taxation of consumption Swedes receive more of free or low cost social services (child care, health care, education etc), advanced infrastructure (very affordable public transport, toll free roads etc - the only time you have to pay for using a road in Sweden is when you take the bridge to Denmark).
I'm not saying our system is better or that every other country should copy it, but Swedes get a lot of things for free (or at low cost) that people in many other countries do not. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PROPERLY MIRRORED BY THE GDP PER CAPITA AT PURCHASING POWER PARITY.
In any case, countries can be comparatively rich in one way and comparatively poor from a different perspective. Purchasing power, standard of living and nominal GDP per capita are different things.
I would say Sweden beats Austria in all these areas, but I admit Austria is an example which seems to contradict my thesis that an influential Feudal past seems to counteract economical development in today's world.
There are better counterexamples. I think it's fair to say Denmark has been more Feudal than Sweden ever was but by today, Denmark is even richer than Sweden. On the other hand, if we measure national economic development and success by the ability to produce internationally successful companies, countries with a weak tradition of Feudalism like Sweden, Great Britain, USA and Switzerland stand out.
Japan is impressive in this area too despite its comparatively strong Feudal roots, but less successful than Switzerland and Sweden. Furthermore the Feudal system and history of Japan is rather unique and we could easily find more of differences between Japanese society and Austrian society than between the Austrian and Swiss ones.
“France, Italy and Germany have contributed more to the world's economy, science, technology, culture and art than Sweden. They have enough to be proud of.”
- And have far larger populations..
These countries are of course admirable and I wish them to be prosperous, but unfortunately many Italians and French don't wish their respective countries to. Instead they go on strikes in protest of their leaders because of the poor state of their economies - an economic situation that has more to do with the fact that they don't wish to work hard for their own future than the fact that people like Berlusconi sometimes make statements that happen to offend certain groups of people.
“I wonder how China progresses in double digits annually”
- The Chinese economy is in a catching up process. It is mostly a combination of applying technology that already has been developed by OTHER countries and competing over global investments by providing cheap labor (and political stability).
Argentina and Brazil are not especially politically stable and they are very corrupt.
“Sweden is hardly a capitalistic country with its vast social system”
- Like you are well aware of, Sweden has high taxes and an extensive social welfare system while simultaneously being home to many internationally successful Capitalist corporation which are not run by politicians and government bureaucrats. Sweden is a mixed economy, just like the US and unlike North Korea.
“..Russia needs to be more capitalist and more democratic while this can take more time than many expect and the ways may be not democratic at all”
- I agree.
Personally, I'm optimistic about Russia's development in the long run. Seems like you are too.
|
|
|||
Gods |
|
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
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.