There have been a number of comments about Sweden’s role during the Second World War and much of it shows that there is an enormous but common misunderstanding on the subject.

When Hitler started his rise to power most of the world was neutral, except for Britain and France. These two countries were given the task of guardian because they were left less ravaged by the first war than the other European countries. So it was only right that Britain and France warned Hitler that there would be trouble if he didn’t behave himself. But der Führer ignored them. He broke the peace agreement, he committed Austria to the Einschluβ, and he went on to take Czechoslovakia. It was only after he invaded Poland that Britain and France finally declared war on Germany. Neither of them actually sent troops to do battle with the Germans but they placed their men on the ligne Maginot which was the French fortified defensive along the border of France/Germany. There, the British and French were to simply wait for an attack by the Nazis. This seems like very little and indeed it might be considered nothing at all except that by Britain committing its’ troops “abroad” it (together with it’s commonwealth of nations) was actually making a pre-emptive military commitment that was far more daring than any other country would do throughout the war.

One by one the neutral countries were invaded, of course, and it was only then that the end of each, individual neutrality was effected. Eventually, the Germans circumnavigated the ligne Maginot by coming into France through Belgium - which had by then fallen to the Nazis. And so it went ….. neutral Denmark was attacked, neutral Norway was attacked, the neutral U.S. was attacked, etc. etc. etc. But what about Switzerland and Sweden? They were never attacked and so they naturally maintained their neutrality.

But now there is this business about Sweden and its’ alleged “cowardice”. Why is it assumed that we were cowards? People on this board have asked why Sweden did not help our neighbour Finland, for example. One must put things into perspective. When people talk about “Sweden’s involvement in the war” they are speaking about Sweden “as a nation”. In other words what Sweden as a nation was prepared to do on a ”NATIONAL” basis. But there is the other side - about which no one seems to be aware - and that is the question of what “Swedish citizens” did during the war.

Swedish citizens were volunteers on all fronts - and on all sides. Some wore German uniforms, some wore Russian uniforms, some wore Norwegian uniforms, some wore Danish uniforms, some wore British uniforms, and some wore American uniforms. I’m speaking now of VOLUNTEERS FROM SWEDEN. I’m not even taking into consideration all the Swedes who were living in those different countries and who were taken into the armed services as legal residents.

180 Swedish SS volunteers fought on the eastern front alongside their German comrades against the Soviet Army. 10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion. 9,000 spilled their guts out together with British and American troops against the Nazis on the western front. The assumption is that there were no Swedish volunteers fighting with the Nazis against the Americans and British but I find that difficult to believe. The complete number of Swedish volunteers who fought in the various Armies during the Second World War will never be known but remember that the total population of Sweden at that time was less than 7 million men, women and children.

And what about Sweden “as a nation”? What did it do? Did it do nothing, as has been suggested several times on this board?

Sweden continued to sell its’ natural resources to Germany just as it had done before the war. We have a history of trade with Germany that goes back to long before the birth of Christ. My town, as a matter of fact, is within the Hansa sea routes and was an international trade city during the Viking Age and the Hansa heyday, where Swedes, Germans, Danes, and Poles lived in a thoroughly mixed environment. But OK, we continued to sell our iron/ore to the Nazis despite Hitler’s shenanigans. We were, after all, still neutral. Not a good enough excuse? Maybe not. But we were fucking lucky anyway. Hitler could have occupied Sweden and taken our resources without paying us doodly squat.

We also allowed the Germans to traverse Sweden (by rail) on their way to occupied Norway. The stipulation being that neither German troops nor military vehicles were to disembark from the rail lines onto Swedish soil. We were neither an occupied country nor were we politically aligned to the Axis Powers or to the Allies. We were neutral. Still not a good excuse? Maybe not.

So is that it? Was that all we did – passively aid the Germans? Not on your fucking life, it wasn’t. We used our unique position to the maximum. Some of the things we did were down-right dangerous to our neutrality and there were times when Hitler had wanted to break our agreement and invade Sweden. We will never know for certain what went through Hitler’s mind but he kept his end of the agreement with us - right to the end.

We took in tens of thousands of Finish children and placed them in the care of Swedish families to wait out the war. We took in thousand of Jews from Norway and Denmark. Raoul Wallenberg, with the Swedish consulate in Hungary, handed out hundreds (thousands?) of Swedish passports to Hungarian Jews - making them Swedish citizens “on the spot” - so that they would be exempt from the gas chambers. It is noteworthy that the Nazis actually respected those passports. For all of the violations of international laws that Hitler committed, it seems incredible that the lives of these Hungarian Jews were spared merely on the basis of “spontaneous” Swedish citizenship. But such was the respect and political credibility of Swedish diplomacy on an international level.

Our unique advantage of observation of the movement of German troops passing through the Swedish corridor gave us particular insight to the German logistical situation. We now know that the Swedish Secret Service was involved in top-level espionage for the Allies, and all German troops and weapons transports were reported (in detail) to London. In this way the Allies were able to manipulate German positions. These deliberate, government activities prove that Sweden was not “pro-Nazi”, as some people here on the board have suggested.

And there is something more. Something that is of a very personal nature to me, in particular. During the war there were hundreds maybe thousands of bombing raids made on Berlin by the RAF, RCAF, ANZACS, and American Army Air Corps. Their planes would often take a beating from anti-aircraft guns and the German Luftwaffe defences, and so some of these Allied aircraft could not make it back to their U.K. squadron bases. Occasionally wounded aeroplanes found their way to neutral Sweden where they’d land and be cared for. Some men survived, some didn’t. The ones who didn’t are here, buried in my city. We have British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, Americans and Polish buried here. A Veteran’s Day ceremony is held each year by the British Commonwealth Club - of which I am a member. Despite a large number of Americans living here none (in the 6 years since I’ve been a member) has ever taken part in the ceremony and so because of my experience in the American military, I am often responsible for carrying the American banner and placing a wreath on the graves of these young American boys. I’ll tell you what. I don’t consider myself a wuss, but one grave is always exceptionally difficult to visit without feeling a deep emotional sadness. One American father was so grieved by the loss of his son that he asked my city for a special favour. This was granted, and he now lies buried alongside his son here in the Jewish section of the cemetery.

Every country tried to negotiate peacefully with Hitler. Chamberlain tried it. Stalin tried it. Everyone tried it - and nearly everyone failed. Should a small country like Sweden be ashamed just because we were lucky enough to succeed? I don’t think so. I suppose what we really need to do is ask ourselves how to define “neutrality”. On that point one might level the finger of criticism against Sweden. Personally, I see Sweden’s war time situation as an extremely precarious one. Should our responsibility have been more to the waging of war than to the population of Jews and other refugees who relied on our neutrality for their very lives? Should we have felt a necessity to declare war on Germany without actually being attacked, even though not one single neutral country did so themselves? When all the pros and cons are tallied up I think we did the right thing. Don’t you? I know that’s easy to say in retrospect but there it is. Neutral Sweden and Switzerland saved millions of lives. Shit! Thank God that somebody did! On the other hand our men and women were free to fight for whoever and whatever they felt was right in their own hearts. The numbers show that the overwhelmingly largest part of the nation was against the Nazis and many thousands of Swedes donned the respective uniforms of war to risk their lives on a voluntary basis for that very purpose.

And yes, there were numbers of Nationalist on-hangers in Sweden. The fact that the German Nationalist movement developed into the Nazi party was not something that Swedish Nationalists were happy about. All of Sweden wanted to see Germany pull itself out of the rubble of post World War I - and in the beginning it looked as though Hitler could achieve that, but executing Jews and gypsies, and invading everything within reach and enslaving the indigenous population was something that turned Nationalist Swedes off completely. We have a long tradition of anti-war neutrality. Why would anyone think that Sweden would want Fascist Nazism to control the world? The idea is completely ridiculous.

We know that many millions of men and women from many different countries took part in WW II – that’s why it was called a “World War” - but certain governments want to give their people the impression that it was only they who made the true sacrifice. And there are specific citizens (of specific countries) who actually believe it. I’m here to tell you that it is not true. Blood is blood and sacrifice has no nationality.

I think you clarified some key points - Sweden aided Germany. It supported the Nazi war machine by selling goods, it allowed passage through sweden. In short - that is basically cowardice & selling out, you can package it however you want, but that is what happened. Sweden was simply an extension of Nazi Germany. They didn't need to invade sweden because Sweden was apparently a willing helper.

Also interesting that Swedish volunteers fought with the Nazi's. There were no British volunteers fighting with the Nazi's.

It's really lucky for sweden that Britain, Russia & the US sorted out the war for you otherwise Sweden would be speaking German right now.

You want to look for a European country that fought & stood by what it believed, not simply allowing whatever situation arose happen to it's best advantage? - Look at Britain, it seems in your opening part of your post that you insinuate negatively on Britain's involvement in the war.

Originally posted by DrewM
I

You want to look for a European country that fought & stood by what it believed, not simply allowing whatever situation arose happen to it's best advantage? - Look at Britain.

".......so that one thousand years from now, men will say this was their finest hour..."
I get goosebumps recalling those noble words from Churchill.

Good post, Catch3,

I find it surprising that you would even have to go to such length to defend Sweden.
We live or die by the decisions we make. Before today I never knew anybody blamed Sweden in anyway for ww2.

But just suppose that Sweden had of helped Germany there still would be no reason to give you a hard time for what happened over 60 years ago.

Do we sit around blaming Germany for ww2?

I have a friend who was trained to hate and kill Germans for ww2 but when he got there he was ordered not to shoot German soldiers even if they were in uniform and carrying guns. He was pissed for not being able to to what he trained so hard to do.

The German soldiers went through his lines on their way home from the Russian front. They were allowed to carry side arms and rifles but nothing bigger.

I have a German friend who was in Hitlers army and nobody treats him any different than any other American.

I never gave any real thought to what did or didn't happen with Sweden in WWII. Not much more than I gave to Holland or Belgium. Some countries just got overrun & that was that.

Originally posted by Catch 3
There have been a number of comments about Sweden’s role during the Second World War and much of it shows that there is an enormous but common misunderstanding on the subject.

When Hitler started his rise to power most of the world was neutral, except for Britain and France. These two countries were given the task of guardian because they were left less ravaged by the first war than the other European countries.

I read the whole thing, but I must admit this opening left me with a somewhat tainted outlook on the rest of the post.

Under what criteria would you conclude that England, and especially France, were "less ravaged" by WWI, than other European countries?

Originally posted by old-reb


I have a German friend who was in Hitlers army and nobody treats him any different than any other American.

I can understand that. The Wehrmacht was quite a bit different from, say, the SS.

Originally posted by rendova
I can understand that. The Wehrmacht was quite a bit different from, say, the SS.

My father-in-law who marched across europe under Patton became best friends with a former SS in the 1960's. The ss guy was a charming generous, witty and wealthy business man.

While the other German trooper is just a regular hard working guy. He is expected to die soon from old age. He was in the Russian front and is only about 5'8" but feisty and cheerful.

Germans solders; just regular people in a different army. But both were anti-semitic.

Originally posted by DrewM
I think you clarified some key points -
You are no longer simply an illiterate asshole. You are the complete, illiterate ass: hole - cheeks – bleeding haemorrhoids - dingle berries - nomadic pubic hairs - the lot. :p

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Under what criteria would you conclude that England, and especially France, were "less ravaged" by WWI, than other European countries?
It is of historical fact that Britain and France were the most powerful European countries left in the aftermath of World War I. It is for this reason that these two countries were charged with the responsibility of "guardian".

If you want to argue the matter or challenge it then you should consult a history book. Blaming me for historical fact seems very childish to me.

Originally posted by old-reb
Good post, Catch3,

We live or die by the decisions we make.
Precisely, Reb.

We must play the cards that we’re dealt - and do the best that we can with them.

Some people take personal confidence in knowing that they’ve done the best they can. The criticism against Sweden, however, is a phenomenon that stems from “hero worshipping”. These sorts of people make no improvements upon themselves but try to elevate themselves by destroying or criticizing everything around them, thus making themselves feel superior to their surroundings. It ties in very well with that other subject, doesn’t it!

Originally posted by Catch 3
It is of historical fact that Britain and France were the most powerful European countries left in the aftermath of World War I.

Ok. No argument there.


It is for this reason that these two countries were charged with the responsibility of "guardian".

I see. Earlier you posted that they were given this task for a very different reason. You wrote:

These two countries were given the task of guardian because they were left less ravaged by the first war than the other European countries.

Would you like to posit a third reason?


If you want to argue the matter or challenge it then you should consult a history book. Blaming me for historical fact seems very childish to me.

I'm challenging your post, not historical fact. Perhaps you could direct me to the history book which describes how England and France emerged from WWI "less ravaged" than other European countries.

As far as acting "childish" is concerned Catch3, maybe if you took more time with your posts and stood behind them you'd be taken more seriously. Insulting people and pretending you didn't post something that you clearly did, isn't terribly impressive.

Originally posted by old-reb
My father-in-law who marched across europe under Patton became best friends with a former SS in the 1960's. The ss guy was a charming generous, witty and wealthy business man.

While the other German trooper is just a regular hard working guy. He is expected to die soon from old age. He was in the Russian front and is only about 5'8" but feisty and cheerful.

Germans solders; just regular people in a different army. But both were anti-semitic.

When I was little, we lived next door to a family who'd emigrated to the US after the War. The lady had married an American serviceman and brought her parents over too.

The old couple was very nice--I never knew their names--they gave me a German shepherd puppy, and the old lady, who we called "Oma" was always baking cookies for the neighbor kids.

But my Dad did not like them. It bothered him, that they were always saying that they had hated Hitler and worked against him, but they had a picture of him on their wall!

Dad said he could have respected them more if they hadn't been such phonies.

catch 3

Your post was simply an apologea for Sweden's complicity during the Second World War. Drew called it correctly. I would have more respect for you, Swedes and Sweden if you simply admitted that Sweden was basically pro-Axis during the war rather than posting a twisted denial of what is known to be the truth.

You may feel free to call me the same names you called Drew. I would consider it an honor to be in his company.

Casualties World War I


According to this link:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm

French total casualties: 5, 920,000


British total casualties: 3,050,000

Sweden not listed.

I think you clarified some key points - Sweden aided Germany. It supported the Nazi war machine by selling goods, it allowed passage through sweden. In short - that is basically cowardice & selling out, you can package it however you want, but that is what happened. Sweden was simply an extension of Nazi Germany. They didn't need to invade sweden because Sweden was apparently a willing helper.

What like these American companies who freely and openly helped the Nazis without reprocussions?

Standard Oil, Dupont, Ford, GM, Kodak, Chase Bank, Chrysler, ITT, and Morgan Bank.

Ford and GM actually built war machines for the Nazis then successfully sued the US for bombing their factories. Just goes to show what/who is the true superpower in the world...$

Originally posted by Catch 3
You are no longer simply an illiterate asshole. You are the complete, illiterate ass: hole - cheeks – bleeding haemorrhoids - dingle berries - nomadic pubic hairs - the lot. :p

Interesting response.

You post a lengthy spin on Swedens collaboration with the Nazi's in WWII - trying to make it look like Sweden was something it wasn't & when I paraphrase it down to a much shortened version in plain english - you get upset.

Hilter invaded almost every european country, there was a reason why he didn't invade sweden & it wasn't because he was afraid of the swedish army. He didn't invade because there was no need to - sweden was in his pocket.

No doubt if Hitler had won the war, you could have just as easily written a post about how wonderfully supportive sweden was to the nazi war effort. You should write that post anyway - it would be more reasonable than that bunch of baloney you posted. All that post was lacking was violins playing in the background.

ps - You forgot to mention the 38 tons of gold sweden received from Nazi Germany, no matter you can include it in the re-write.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
What like these American companies who freely and openly helped the Nazis without reprocussions?

Standard Oil, Dupont, Ford, GM, Kodak, Chase Bank, Chrysler, ITT, and Morgan Bank.

Ford and GM actually built war machines for the Nazis then successfully sued the US for bombing their factories. Just goes to show what/who is the true superpower in the world...$

Here we go again....

Do you think a single subject exists where you couldn't somehow bring the topic back to how terrible & corrupt America is?

Topic - My cat had surgery today
500lb Response - Yes, but if it wasn't for the US disgraceful record in exploiting cats to benefit the rich industrialists he wouldn't need any surgery.

Vilepagan, Frogger and Drew

Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy in my post. I’ve read through my original post and I see that you were correct! I wrote:

“10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion.”

It should have been, “More than 10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion.”

Thanks for the reminder!

*** My apologies and deepest condolences go out to all the loved ones of those who have perished during the last 3 days do to the inaccurate figure in my original post. :(

Originally posted by DrewM
Here we go again....

Do you think a single subject exists where you couldn't somehow bring the topic back to how terrible & corrupt America is?
Yes! Shame on you “Pounder”!

Haven’t you yet realized that you may post as many topics on how “terrible & corrupt” any other country is – but for God’s sake (!) cease your criticism of the U.S. immediately! What are trying to do – flaunt democratic, freedom of speech and improve the U.S. for the benefit of all Americans? What nerve!!! :mad:

Originally posted by Catch 3
Vilepagan, Frogger and Drew

Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy in my post. I’ve read through my original post and I see that you were correct! I wrote:

“10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion.”

It should have been, “More than 10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion.”

Thanks for the reminder!


Too bad those volunteers were fighting for the enemy.

BTW, I hope you take the time to address the other innaccuracies in your post, but I doubt you'll even admit they exist.

Hilter invaded almost every european country, there was a reason why he didn't invade sweden & it wasn't because he was afraid of the swedish army. Yeah right..."Hey guys lets take on millions and millions of Russians but we better steer clear of those Swedes they be dangerous" You were far more on target with the gold/assisstance thing.
Do you think a single subject exists where you couldn't somehow bring the topic back to how terrible & corrupt America is? Topic - My cat had surgery today 500lb Response - Yes, but if it wasn't for the US disgraceful record in exploiting cats to benefit the rich industrialists he wouldn't need any surgery. Ummm catually Catch 3's point was that Sweden was merely doing whaat all the other countries had done. You tried to point out how they were different. I proved you wrong and - you got upset. The same thing you were just complaining about Catch 3 doing you just did. All you did was browbeat, you didn't even respond to what I said, good job.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yeah right..."Hey guys lets take on millions and millions of Russians but we better steer clear of those Swedes they be dangerous" You were far more on target with the gold/assisstance thing.

huh? - I was being sarcastic

Ummm catually Catch 3's point was that Sweden was merely doing whaat all the other countries had done. You tried to point out how they were different. I proved you wrong and - you got upset. The same thing you were just complaining about Catch 3 doing you just did. All you did was browbeat, you didn't even respond to what I said, good job.

huh? - You lost me with that one. Where did I get upset? and where did you prove me wrong?

Originally posted by Catch 3
Vilepagan, Frogger and Drew

Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy in my post. I’ve read through my original post and I see that you were correct! I wrote:

“10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion.”

It should have been, “More than 10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion.”

Thanks for the reminder!

*** My apologies and deepest condolences go out to all the loved ones of those who have perished during the last 3 days do to the inaccurate figure in my original post. :(

:@@:

Originally posted by DrewM
Sweden aided Germany. It supported the Nazi war machine by selling goods, it allowed passage through sweden. In short - that is basically cowardice & selling out, you can package it however you want, but that is what happened.

I commend you on your desire to hold the guilty accountable for cowardice and for selling out.

I'm sure then that you also hold GWBush's gradfather (the traitor) accountable for the same things you see Sweden as having done.

In terms of **aiding and supporting the Nazi war machine and selling them goods**, it is dounbtful that any American was more guilty than Prescott Bush, GW's grandfather.

Prescott Bush and the other directors of the Union Banking Corp. were in essence front men for the Nazis during WWII.

Prescott Bush and his collaborators played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany. Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the others in the cabal financed the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A. They also helped in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with the slave labor and extermination camps as the result..........now, how did that little parting remark go?......oh yes; -- ""You can package it however you want, but that is what happened".

Any animosity that anyone holds for Sweden should be multiplied a hundredfold for the despicable traitor Prescott Bush.

And with his sons and grandsons, sadly, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

a post about swedish involvement in WW2 has brought out a post agaisnt the US by guerilla and a post against the Bush family from Freethinker, why am I not supirised.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I commend you on your desire to hold the guilty accountable for cowardice and for selling out.

I'm sure then that you also hold GWBush's gradfather (the traitor) accountable for the same things you see Sweden as having done.

In terms of **aiding and supporting the Nazi war machine and selling them goods**, it is dounbtful that any American was more guilty than Prescott Bush, GW's grandfather.

Prescott Bush and the other directors of the Union Banking Corp. were in essence front men for the Nazis during WWII.

Prescott Bush and his collaborators played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany. Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the others in the cabal financed the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A. They also helped in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with the slave labor and extermination camps as the result..........now, how did that little parting remark go?......oh yes; -- ""You can package it however you want, but that is what happened".

Any animosity that anyone holds for Sweden should be multiplied a hundredfold for the despicable traitor Prescott Bush.

And with his sons and grandsons, sadly, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

I don't have any animosity for Sweden & I don't have any desire to "hold the guilty responsible in sweden" either.

This is a thread started by Catch to romaticise sweden's ww2 history & I called him on it. Successfully it seems because he got enraged.

So, what does Prescott Bush have to do with it? I'll take your word on his involvement with the Nazi's - I have no clue about that & frankly I couldn't really care less.

Freethinker

I am surprised that being as concerned about Americans who are considered by you to be pro-Nazi you failed to mention Joseph Kennedy Senior and Joseph Kennedy Junior, two notorious Nazi sympathizers. I guess it was just an oversight.

Sweden was neutral in WWI, as they were in WWII (militarily neutral)--that is, they did not take up arms against Germany in the Second War.

Seeing as how Sweden suffered zero battle casualties in the first War, that makes them even LESS ravaged than Britain and France, doesn't it? So why didn't they stand up to Germany and the Axis?

I'm having a hard time following some of the reasoning here.....

Originally posted by Catch 3
Yes! Shame on you “Pounder”!

Haven’t you yet realized that you may post as many topics on how “terrible & corrupt” any other country is – but for God’s sake (!) cease your criticism of the U.S. immediately! What are trying to do – flaunt democratic, freedom of speech and improve the U.S. for the benefit of all Americans? What nerve!!! :mad:

Oh Catch - quit wetting your pants because you think you've got a friend.

I may not agree with 500lb on much - but unlike yourself, he backs up his posts with information & debates his opinions.

Yes, that’s true.

Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg (to name only 2) were avid Nazi sympathisers who morally supported the Nazi cause and even contributed large sums of money. They both thought that Hitler was the greatest leader at the time.

Originally posted by DrewM
This is a thread started by Catch
to romaticise sweden's ww2 history ...
Another soap-operatic spin from the ”Spin Queen”. :D

Something for you to read.


http://allfreeessays.com/student/Henry_FordPortrait_of_an_Anti-Semite.html (http://allfreeessays.com/student/Henry_FordPortrait_of_an_Anti-Semite.html)

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_06.htm


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/Ford_Fuhrer.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/Ford_Fuhrer.html)

Sweden has had centuries of trade tradition with Germany (and still does). NOTE I said “Germany”. The Nazi movement didn’t even come about until the early-mid 20th Century. Our cooperation was based on that tradition whereas Ford and other American companies mostly built their support on Nazism. But perhaps you don’t understand the difference? Look it up.

Originally posted by Catch 3
Yes, that’s true.

Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg (to name only 2) were avid Nazi sympathisers who morally supported the Nazi cause and even contributed large sums of money. They both thought that Hitler was the greatest leader at the time.

At least they didn't volunteer to fight for the Nazis. Were the thousands of Swedes who fought for the Nazis doing so out of respect for your centuries-old trading tradition, or were they just misguided idiots?

BTW, you still haven't answered this question: "Under what criteria would you conclude that England, and especially France, were "less ravaged" by WWI, than other European countries?"

Originally posted by Vilepagan
At least they didn't volunteer to fight for the Nazis. Were the thousands of Swedes who fought for the Nazis doing so out of respect for your centuries-old trading tradition,
Wow! From 180 individuals to "thousands"! That's quite a jump in exaggeration!

I’m beginning to understand how the Jews feel with regards the Nazis and the anti-Semitic in general.

Of the Jews, the anti-Semitic has been known to say, “Dirty, filthy Jews! Useless people who live in squalor and never bath! Rats! Cockroaches!”

But as soon as the opportunity presents itself the same people will say, “Disgusting, money hungry Jews! Running the banks, wearing rich clothes and flaunting their wealth! They think they can rule the world!”

I understand how the Jews must feel whenever they are witness to such extreme contradictory, illogical, spite ………. Here’s more of the same stuff:

Originally posted by Frogger
“Your post was simply an apologea for Sweden's complicity during the Second World War.”
……and yet……..
Originally posted by DrewM
“This is a thread started by Catch to romaticise sweden's ww2 history"

Which is it, guys? Am I apologising or am I bragging?

I'm doing neither, of course, and the fact that I wrote the thread introduction with good, honest, even soul-searching humility – well, it just went completely over their heads. But that’s a good thing. I suppose. Because when I first saw their reaction I assumed it was another attempt to intentionally “smoke screen” my contribution to a serious discussion. That would actually have been far worse. But honestly I think now that they just didn’t “get it”. They don’t see the humble spirit with which I wrote. The lack of arrogance and conceit is completely beyond their grasp. Why? Because they’ve never seen it before. In their tiny little confused minds they consider these things signs of weakness. It’s bravado they’re use to seeing - in themselves and in the circles of friends they keep.

And speaking about being way their heads …. This one takes the cake…

Originally posted by DrewM
“ … it seems in your opening part of your post that you insinuate negatively on Britain's involvement in the war.”

So should I have expected them to really understand this thread and the spirit in which I wrote it? I suppose not. Maybe I’ll stay off of controversial subjects from now on. Let’s see ….. I'm definitely not allowed to write about the U.S. Not Sweden either. And by the reactions I guess I’m not welcomed to write anything about Europe at all. After all, these guys know more about America, Europe and the world than I do, right?

Hey Catch3,

Vile Pagen accuses me of using "us" and "them" Well, I think this argument is an "us/them" agurment.

Who did the most for fight Hitler? Whose ball team is the best? It is just a lot of chest beating.

No matter how you critize the USA, I still feel culturally connected to Sweden. Now if you were sending suicide bombers and trying to curtail our freedoms then I would declare you as "enemy".

Originally posted by Catch 3
Yes, that’s true.

Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg (to name only 2) were avid Nazi sympathisers who morally supported the Nazi cause and even contributed large sums of money. They both thought that Hitler was the greatest leader at the time.

Yes, but Ford and Lindbergh were not running our government.
England also had a Nazi sympathizer--Edward who became Duke of Windsor after he married Wallis Warfield Simpson.
I have often thought that the real reason the English did not want him as King and pushed for his abdication was because of his well-known Nazi sympathies.

Originally posted by old-reb
Hey Catch3,
It is just a lot of chest beating.

I think they called it "rattling their sabres" during the civil war didn’t they?
:D :D :D

Originally posted by rendova
Yes, but Ford and Lindbergh were not running our government.

I realize now that you’re sitting at the wrong table. This one is for the grown-ups. You should be downstairs, in the romper room, with the rest of the children. :p

Originally posted by Catch 3
I think they called it "rattling their sabres" during the civil war didn’t they?
:D :D :D

Maybe you can teach me as much about our Civil War as you did our Revolution.


realize now that you’re sitting at the wrong table. This one is for the grown-ups. You should be downstairs, in the romper room, with the rest of the children.

**********************************************


Yes, I am aware of your "fondness" for kids.

Originally posted by Catch 3
Wow! From 180 individuals to "thousands"! That's quite a jump in exaggeration!

Wow! Once again you can't answer the question so you just insult someone...great work Catch3, you're quite the debater.

The number I posted was from one of your posts.

It should have been, “More than 10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion.”

Remember that one?

Originally posted by Catch 3
[/SIZE] Sweden has had centuries of trade tradition with Germany (and still does). NOTE I said “Germany”. The Nazi movement didn’t even come about until the early-mid 20th Century. Our cooperation was based on that tradition whereas Ford and other American companies mostly built their support on Nazism. But perhaps you don’t understand the difference? Look it up.

More rationalle for why Sweden was simply opportunistic & on the side of whoever was winning. Now you admit to co-operation with the Nazi's and say it was due to tradition.

Keep on driving the point home about your countries sad sad history

:drive:

Joseph Kennedy Senior and Joseph Kennedy Junior, two notorious Nazi sympathizers. sounds interesting. you got a source?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The number I posted was from one of your posts.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should have been, “More than 10,000 Swedish volunteers fought in Finland against the Soviet invasion.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What an idiot! You post the very quote that PROVES that you are wrong! Could you BE any dumber?
:D :D :D

Originally posted by DrewM
Oh Catch - quit wetting your pants because you think you've got a friend.
Yes. I’ve known for quite some time that this is one of your major concerns. You must be suffering a multitude of sleepless nights over the few friends that I already have.

You know - if you get your own life then perhaps mine won’t trouble you so badly. :lolhit:

When I first started to write this thread I wasn’t sure if it was a good idea. But now that the results are in I'm very pleased that I did!

This thread proves some important things ….

1). … that Sweden acted righteously during the Second World War
2) … that the Swedish people served the cause of the world honourably throughout the war
3). … that my signature (below) is right on the money!

All 3 points have proven themselves correct independently - but even greater than that, each of them confirms the precision of the other two- in PERFECT BALANCE. :)

Sweden acted righteously?
By aiding and abetting one of the most vicious regimes this poor planet has ever known?
You have a very interesting take on things, catch. Your opinion, of course.
But in my mind it's kinda like saying that Mary Surratt acted righteously when she aided and abetted John Wilkes Booth.

Originally posted by Catch 3
When I first started to write this thread I wasn’t sure if it was a good idea. But now that the results are in I'm very pleased that I did!

It's becoming very apparent what you enjoy, and what your motivation is for posting here.

Originally posted by Catch 3
When I first started to write this thread I wasn’t sure if it was a good idea. But now that the results are in I'm very pleased that I did!

This thread proves some important things ….

1). … that Sweden acted righteously during the Second World War
2) … that the Swedish people served the cause of the world honourably throughout the war
3). … that my signature (below) is right on the money!

All 3 points have proven themselves correct independently - but even greater than that, each of them confirms the precision of the other two- in PERFECT BALANCE. :)

What a joke. The only thing you've proven to date is that you are a moron & that Sweden was a shameful country in ww2.

The Germans despised those who worked with and for them a lot more than those they legitmately conquered.

Just so you know that, catch--you were nothing special to them--just fawning toadies.

Accept it, move on, and maybe next time a cruel regime arises, you all won't disgrace your brave Viking ancestors and actually put up a bit of a fight--instead of merely wanting to make money off of them and ridiculing those who DO fight.

Of course catch 3 is going to attempt to rationalize Sweden's cooperation with the Nazis. Sweden was banking on the Axis to win and as soon as the war ended the campaign to distance itself from the Nazis and to explain away its cooperation with them began. It continues to this day.

The problem is, the facts. No matter how much people like catch try to rationalize Sweden's behavior, to sugar coat it, to explain it away, the facts remain. Sweden was a willing junior partner to the Nazi regime. The only difference between Sweden and other Nazi allies was the fact that Sweden was too cowardly to be open about her support for Hitler.

double cowardice - good point.

Seems to me all countries acted the ass in WW3. I mean WTF was Japan thinking siding with the Nazis. Sure they want to murder Jews, but I'm sure they'll leave us slanty eyes alone...

Many countries refused to take Jewish refugees.

The Zionists refused to pay passage for Jews to escape (that was a tactical move however).

Hitler thought it was a good idea to invade Russia.

Britain and France could have invaded when poland was taken and probably crippled the German military.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Britain and France could have invaded when poland was taken and probably crippled the German military.

Britain did try & ended up evacuating the troops at dunkirk.

There is a difference between mistakes and sheer cowardice. Sweden apparently falls into the latter according to what Catch has told us.

Originally posted by Catch 3
Which is it, guys? Am I apologising or am I bragging?

I believe you were accused of "romanticizing", not bragging.


I'm doing neither, of course, and the fact that I wrote the thread introduction with good, honest, even soul-searching humility – well, it just went completely over their heads.

Perhaps you expressed your "honest soul-searching humility" poorly.


Because when I first saw their reaction I assumed it was another attempt to intentionally “smoke screen” my contribution to a serious discussion.

Another attempt?


But honestly I think now that they just didn’t “get it”. They don’t see the humble spirit with which I wrote. The lack of arrogance and conceit is completely beyond their grasp.

I get it now...you lack arrogance and conceit...


Why? Because they’ve never seen it before. In their tiny little confused minds they consider these things signs of weakness. It’s bravado they’re use to seeing - in themselves and in the circles of friends they keep.

Immediately followed by this arrogant and conceited statement. I guess you have plenty of both after all.

And here's more...

So should I have expected them to really understand this thread and the spirit in which I wrote it? I suppose not. Maybe I’ll stay off of controversial subjects from now on.

Yeah, only someone as unarrogant and non-conceited as you could understand the subtle and sublime meaning in your profound writings. :rolleyes:


Let’s see ….. I'm definitely not allowed to write about the U.S. Not Sweden either. And by the reactions I guess I’m not welcomed to write anything about Europe at all.

Despite the whining evident in this post, you know very well that you are welcome to debate any subject (with a few exceptions), here on allforums. This welcome will not last long if the following are examples of what you wish to say here:

You are no longer simply an illiterate asshole. You are the complete, illiterate ass: hole - cheeks – bleeding haemorrhoids - dingle berries - nomadic pubic hairs - the lot.

If you want to argue the matter or challenge it then you should consult a history book. Blaming me for historical fact seems very childish to me.

Another soap-operatic spin from the ”Spin Queen”.

I realize now that you’re sitting at the wrong table. This one is for the grown-ups. You should be downstairs, in the romper room, with the rest of the children.

What an idiot! You post the very quote that PROVES that you are wrong! Could you BE any dumber?

That's just from this thread. It seems increasingly apparent as time goes by that you aren't as interested in discussion as ruffling as many feathers as you can. It's called trolling and won't be tolerated much longer.

Sweden was a willing junior partner to the Nazi regime.
-Frogger (2/24/06)

Germany acts upon Sweden by threats.
-Winston Churchill (9/29/39)

From the Wikipedia:

When Germany invaded Norway and Denmark on the 9th of April, 1940, demands were made stating that Sweden was to keep neutral and refrain from mobilizing to aid her neighbours. German communications were to continue uninterrupted through Swedish channels and the trade with iron ore was not to be disturbed. The Swedish government agreed, but secretly increased her armed forces during the following weeks, from 100,000 men to 320,000. More demands followed during the spring and summer, particularly for the transit of medical personnel, later stepped up to include ammunition and soldiers on leave. During the summer of 1941, the Swedish government was forced to accept the transit of a fully equipped German division headed to Finland, bound for the recently opened eastern front. In February, 1942, German presence in Norway was stepped up in preparation of an invasion of Sweden. Hitler was dissatisfied with Swedish cooperation and doubted its ability to defend against an allied attack through Norway, threatening ore resources. 300,000 Swedish soldiers were sent to the western border to train and prepare, but no invasion came and the crisis dissipated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II

Does a 'willing junior partner' deploy 300,000 troops to defend itself from it's patron and benefactor?

I think not.

quote:
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Britain and France could have invaded when poland was taken and probably crippled the German military.



Originally posted by DrewM
Britain did try & ended up evacuating the troops at dunkirk.

What an ass.

If you'd have bothered to actaually read my intro to this thread (or really read 500lbguerilla's comment above) then you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous reply, but let me help you out here AGAIN (!): Dunkirk, my dear idiot of a friend, is actually in France. Let me spell that for you so you can look it up in your Rand McNally …

F- - R - - A - -N- - C - - E.

Oh! I see! You think that British troops were doing battle with the Nazis in Poland and were pushed all the way back to Dunkirk! God help us all! I just cannot believe the ignorance of those who speak the loudest … Your performance is nothing but scandalous.

What is this - a Krusty the Klown Konvention? I swear you guys could walk head-on into an oncoming Continental Trailways bus in Nebraska and then say, ”Duh, what hit me?”

Since I started this thread all you’ve done is gang up (as I clearly predicted in my signature) and post page after page of lies, misquotes, exaggerations – yeah, puppy's poop. And after all that crap, the one and only thing you could put together was the tiniest complaint, that the intro might have been easier to understand had I written ”Britain and France were the most powerful countries in Europe after WW I” rather than ”Britain and France were less ravaged than the other European countries”.
Bravo! Magnificent! Fantastic! You scored a gigantic hit. Too bad it had nothing to do with the main subject, which is Sweden’s Role in the War.

* Here’s a tip that you may find helpful: When the task deals with knowledge, rely less on the strength in numbers of clowns who sing the same song. Instead, make sure you know what you’re talking about. You might start by searching the library or Internet for something called “FACTS”. They’re very useful in a discussion.

One more thing. If you detach yourself from your personal ego and refrain from regarding life as a contest of national virility then you’ll keep the subject at “centre stage” at all times and consequently:

1). You’ll keep the subject an open and intelligent discussion rather than turning it into a “shouting match”
2). You’ll have a much better chance of keeping yourself honest
3). If you’re wrong on a point or make a mistake, you will be grateful to have been corrected instead of it making you angry
4). You won’t be ripping your guts out every night when you should be sleeping
5). … and you won’t make fools of yourselves as often

Better luck next time! :D :D :D

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The number I posted was from one of your posts.

Remember that one?
When the Soviet Union invaded Finland, Stalin and Hitler were allies.

I'll bet you anything that some of your friends knew that - but they thought it was far more important to support the Krusty Klown Klan than to be honest and tell the truth. Yes, I see them there with guilty looks on their faces and trying to hide behind you.

Of course, Okra-for-Brains, YOU didn’t know anything about it, because, “duh!” you get all of your information by eavesdropping on blue-collared drunks and 6th-Grade Dropouts up at the Bowling Ally Bar and Lounge. :p

Here's something interesting on this topic:

http://www.utb.boras.se/uk/se/projekt/history/articles/ww2/ww21.htm

and this:

http://www.utb.boras.se/uk/se/projekt/history/articles/ww2/ww23.htm

Originally posted by Catch 3
When the Soviet Union invaded Finland, Stalin and Hitler were allies.

Quite so.


I'll bet you anything that some of your friends knew that - but they thought it was far more important to support the Krusty Klown Klan than to be honest and tell the truth. Yes, I see them there with guilty looks on their faces and trying to hide behind you.

Of course, Okra-for-Brains, YOU didn’t know anything about it, because, “duh!” you get all of your information by eavesdropping on blue-collared drunks and 6th-Grade Dropouts up at the Bowling Ally Bar and Lounge. :p

See, now this was the part of my post you should have paid attention to:

It seems increasingly apparent as time goes by that you aren't as interested in discussion as ruffling as many feathers as you can. It's called trolling and won't be tolerated much longer.

Good bye.

Originally posted by Catch 3
quote:
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Britain and France could have invaded when poland was taken and probably crippled the German military.




What an ass.

If you'd have bothered to actaually read my intro to this thread (or really read 500lbguerilla's comment above) then you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous reply, but let me help you out here AGAIN (!): Dunkirk, my dear idiot of a friend, is actually in France. Let me spell that for you so you can look it up in your Rand McNally …

F- - R - - A - -N- - C - - E.

Oh! I see! You think that British troops were doing battle with the Nazis in Poland and were pushed all the way back to Dunkirk! God help us all! I just cannot believe the ignorance of those who speak the loudest … Your performance is nothing but scandalous.

Yep I'm well aware that dunkirk is in France & I know fine well the British were not doing battle in Poland.

Catch - you are a moron that adds nothing to Allforums. I see Vile has banned you & I agree with that. You are one of the few people that has ever been banned.

To echo Vile's last comment to you.

Goodbye !