- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI actually agree with you on all points with the exception of the end of war against Japan. We'll never agree on that. I'm not the one to come into these debates with the "galant American rubbish" that you speak of. At least I try not to. I realize others do. However, I will defend America against outlandish accusations such as "The US has started more wars than any nation in history".
Two points:
Neutral countries actually serve a purpose during wartime, besides the obvious fact that you don't have to get involved with other people's battles all the time.
And don't come away with the galant American heroism rubbish. Waiting until 1943 isn't all that galant and forming European economies to suit American business isn't galant and to their knees within months, without having to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirOf course not. But don't you think its a little different when it's your next door neighbor? The Swedes should have taken a stand against the Nazi's when Norway was invaded. There's no doubt about that.
Neutrality isn't bad. When the US went to war with Vietnam, do you think Sweden should have remained neutral? In hind sight, it's easy to say: "Oh... you should have fought the nazis."
Instead they allowed an entire division of Wehrmacht soldiers to use their rail system on their way to Finland and many Swedes volunteered to fight in the SS. Had the United States done this you lot would not hesitate to point your fingers.
Originally posted by Ullrthat sounds more like collaboration than neutrality.
Of course not. But don't you think its a little different when it's your next door neighbor? The Swedes should have taken a stand against the Nazi's when Norway was invaded. There's no doubt about that.
Instead they allowed an entire division of Wehrmacht soldiers to use their rail system on their way to Finland and many Swedes volunteered to fight in the SS. Had the United States done this you lot would not hesitate to point your fingers.
Originally posted by shavixmir1941 ...
Two points:
Neutral countries actually serve a purpose during wartime, besides the obvious fact that you don't have to get involved with other people's battles all the time.
And don't come away with the galant American heroism rubbish. Waiting until 1943 isn't all that galant and forming European economies to suit American business isn't galant and ...[text shortened]... to their knees within months, without having to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.
and ...
the lend-lease terms appear extremely advantageous to the british ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement
The Destroyers for Bases Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, September 2, 1940, transferred fifty destroyers from the United States Navy in exchange for land rights on British possessions. The destroyers became the Town class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Lend-Lease was the given name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war materiel between 1941 and 1945 in return for, in the case of Britain, military bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. It began in March 1941, over 18 months after the outbreak of the war in September 1939.
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Apart from that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the termination date, the terms of the agreement providing for their return or destruction. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a discount, for £1,075 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.) No lend lease money went to Canada, which operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union. [1]
...
Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when Washington suddenly and unexpectedly terminated Lend-Lease on 2 September 1945. Britain needed to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. As a result the Anglo-American loan came about. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at the knockdown price of about 10 cents on the dollar giving an initial value of £1,075 million. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 years at 2% interest. [7] . The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million) due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred on several occasions) was made on 29 December 2006, it being the last working day of the year. After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary, Ed Balls, formally thanked the US for its wartime support.
1 edit
Please, critisize *me* instead of critisize Sweden.
I have my standpoint. Sweden might have another.
I think this debate has nothing to do with Sweden itself, it has everything to do with me personally.
Yes, I critisize USA sometimes, as I do with Israel for its occupation of Palestine, China for their occupation of Tibet, Mugabe for its corruption of Zimbabwe. But it is *my* critisism. And I excersice my freedom of speach. Why? Because this is a democracy, we are allowed to do that.
So, I critisize USA, but not americans. Is there a difference with this? Yes, it is.
Now, der swartze ritter holds me responsible for Swedens warsome period of its history. Ullr holds me responsible for Swedens neutrality in WW2. Let me tell you, I wasn't born then, and even if I were, I couldn't do anything about it.
I am now, and I would have been then, a pacifist, an anti-nazi, and a relatively decent guy.
Originally posted by shavixmirTotally cool. What's your problem with that? Should the US have let the Russians get their hands on all of them? What would the world be like today if that had happened?
[b]Did it?
The US, after the war, took nazi scientists and put them to work in the US... very cool...mhmmmm?
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by FabianFnasHey look, I don't have a problem when you criticize America. As we all know there is plenty to criticize. I only speak up when that criticism is exagerrated and inaccurate. I have no doubt you're a decent guy.
Yes, I critisize USA sometimes, as I do with Israel for its occupation of Palestine, China for their occupation of Tibet, Mugabe for its corruption of Zimbabwe. But it is *my* critisism. And I excersice my freedom of speach. Why? Because this is a democracy, we are allowed to do that.
So, I critisize USA, but not americans. Is there a difference with t ...[text shortened]...
I am now, and I would have been then, a pacifist, an anti-nazi, and a relatively decent guy.
Just to bring a little balance and fairness to my earlier comments, Sweden should also be recognized for its humanitartian efforts after WWII.
But I can't help but pick on Sweden a little bit since I'm of Norwegian descent.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterhttp://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0507/bikiniImage3.jpg
In the course of my research, I was surprised to discover how bellicose Sweden has been throughout its history. For example:
1434-1437, Engelbrektsson's Revolt, Sweden 1434-1437
1521-1523, Swedish War of Liberation
1534-1536, Conflict over Danish Throne
1554-1557 Swedish-Russian War
1563-1570, Swedish-Danish War . see also 1558-1582 Livoni ...[text shortened]... liberated Swedes can now occupy their time by learning to Salsa dance and cook a good Paella?
All is forgiven.