Sweden: Paradise on Earth?

[David Floyd]

The rules had changed. Air supremacy over the channel would be all that was needed. The Home Fleet would not have dared to sortie if the Luftwaffe had gained air superiority over the channel and south eastern England.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Home Fleet would not have intervened against an invasion of England, even in the face of German air superiority?

I assure you, this would have happened, and I assure you that enough elements of the Home Fleet would have survived to crush any German amphibious forces in the Channel and isolate any German forces in England.

The only realistic way for Germany to invade England would have involved a)a prior crushing defeat of the Home Fleet, and b)absolute and complete air superiority over the Channel and southeastern England.

Fulfilling both of those requirements was FAR beyond the capability of Germany in 1940, and once the US entered the war, even if Germany had the resources of all of Europe and the Soviet Union, Germany still couldn't have forced a successful invasion of England prior to the US developing the atomic bomb.

[Berzerker]

I do, to some extent, buy the domino theory argument

The Vietnamese hated the Chinese more than us, we were just the latest bully to move in and tell them what to do. When the war ended and the Khmer Rouge went on the warpath, it was the Vietnamese who went in and ended their regime. China did not like that, but they weren't about to try and muscle the Viets. So one communist regime snuffed out another one right next door in defiance of yet another.

CO

Hitler and Stalin were the real enemies, no doubt. And to join the war, we would have to make one of them our friends, while at the same time making one of our brother nations (Finland or Norway) our enemies. Which side should we choose? Both sides were purely evil. Better to stay out.

Do you mean Finland would have attacked Sweden on behalf of Germany? No way, the Finns were only "allies" with the Nazis because the Russians tried to invade Finland. Hell, the Finns never helped the Nazis in any battles, they just defended themselves from attack.

Imagine what domestic welfare US could have done with the tax money you wasted in Vietnam? And don't give me that old BS that it was necessary to keep Sovjet at bay.

Okay, I wont.

[David Floyd]

The Vietnamese hated the Chinese more than us, we were just the latest bully to move in and tell them what to do.

Oh, absolutely, I don't pretend otherwise. However, I think it's also reasonable to assume that the Soviets would have greatly increased their influence in Southeast Asia without US involvement. The Soviets already had a good deal of influence with India, and if you add to that a stable regime in Vietnam, then the Soviets are looking pretty strong in the region, and would be able to support communists to a great extent in Cambodia, Laos, and even Indonesia.

Australia and South Korea would have gotten REAL nervous if the US had backed away from Vietnam.

When the war ended and the Khmer Rouge went on the warpath, it was the Vietnamese who went in and ended their regime. China did not like that, but they weren't about to try and muscle the Viets. So one communist regime snuffed out another one right next door in defiance of yet another.

True, yet the Chinese and Vietnamese were historical enemies - it was only natural that they would act against each other. Hell, the Chinese even invaded Vietnam in the late 1970s.

Again, though, a lack of US influence would almost certainly have led to a much increased Soviet influence over Southeast Asia.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Do you mean Finland would have attacked Sweden on behalf of Germany? No way, the Finns were only "allies" with the Nazis because the Russians tried to invade Finland. Hell, the Finns never helped the Nazis in any battles, they just defended themselves from attack.

In the Continuation war, the Finns went on attack to regain what they had lost in the Winter war. If we had joined the allies, Stalin would had demanded that we attacked Finland in the back to keep them out of Sovjet. Bad idea.

[aneeshm]

Coming back to the original topic , once economic globalisation is achieved ( effectively ) , Sweden will face a huge competitive disadvantage . That is the time to watch for its decline .

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by David Floyd


**** welfare, imagine the tax cuts!

Yes, or that.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Coming back to the original topic , once economic globalisation is achieved ( effectively ) , Sweden will face a huge competitive disadvantage . That is the time to watch for its decline .

Actually, most of the Western world would face competitive disadvantage, because we are all used to high salaries. Welfare systems or not.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Pekka
Didn't read the article but Sweden and poverty? No I do n't think so.. it's a nice place and wealthy place as well. Of course, every country has their fair share of poor people, but not as much that we should put Sweden and poverty together.

Sweden, like Denmark and Norway, exported their poor to the USA

I'm convinced that as result of the internet the USA is going to change because ordinary US citizens will start to realise just how ripped off they are. They live in the richest country in the world but many other countries have a much higher standard of living and better quality of life.

You see it here on Apolyton all the time - most of us kind of feel sorry for ordinary Americans and all they put up with.

[Berzerker]

Hell, the Chinese even invaded Vietnam in the late 1970s.

Damn, I didn't know that. Why? Btw, the Chinese wouldn't stand for the Russians having too much influence because they hate each other too. Ain't it funny how all these commies couldn't get along? Oh well, nationalism is stronger than internationalism.

In the Continuation war, the Finns went on attack to regain what they had lost in the Winter war. If we had joined the allies, Stalin would had demended that we attacked Finland in the back to keep them out of Sovjet. Bad idea.

So Sweden would have had to attack the Nazis and the Finns because Joe was mad at Finland? The US would have politely declined. But did Stalin make this request?
If not, I doubt he would have cared if Sweden attacked Germany after the spring of '41 without attacking Finland.

[Chemical Ollie]

If not, I doubt he would have cared if Sweden attacked Germany after the spring of '41 without attacking Finland.

Look at a map - we were surrounded by Germany. Attacking them would have been a very bad idea, even when most of their troops were tied up elsewere.

[Berzerker]

Actually, most of the Western world would face competitive disadvantage, because we are all used to high salaries. Welfare systems or not.

Yup, globalisation is about shifting production to lower wage regions. Painful but I'd think egalitarians would love it since its the best way to build up the 3rd world. Should be good for the west too after a while, more consumers is a good thing (well, unless you're a Malthusian).

I'm convinced that as result of the internet the USA is going to change because ordinary US citizens will start to realise just how ripped off they are. They live in the richest country in the world but many other countries have a much higher standard of living and better quality of life.

Our system is corrupt for sure, but not because government has too much respect for private property. I'd much rather have the bulk of those taxes I pay in my pocket, but we've embraced the redistribution of wealth.

[Alexander's Horse]

no you haven't

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie

If not, I doubt he would have cared if Sweden attacked Germany after the spring of '41 without attacking Finland.

Look at a map - we were surrounded by Germany. Attacking them would have been a very bad idea, even when most of their troops were tied up elsewere.

In any case, USSR was the bigger threat to us. We were much more likely to team up against the Soviets to help the Finns to survive.

[Berzerker]

Look at a map - we were surrounded by Germany. Attacking them would have been a very bad idea, even when most of their troops were tied up elsewere.

Y'all could have helped the Norwegians boot them out of Norway. You could have waited for an allied beachhead in mainland Europe too, anything, something. Oh well, I'm not really into a WWII debate and Monday morning QBing. I just wanted to point out to Agathon that Sweden got a free ride because Aggie says libertarianism would fail because of the free rider phenomenon.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Berzerker

I just wanted to point out to Agathon that Sweden got a free ride because Aggie says libertarianism would fail because of the free rider phenomenon.

Finland, Denmark and Norway all took part in WW2, still they are rich countries and have welfare systems similar to ours. Norway and Denmark are also NATO members, still they had lots of money to spend on welfare during the cold war.

Our neutrality during the cold war actually forced us to spend a lot of money on the military, as we had nobody to rely on but ourselves. But we used it to guard our own borders, not to waste it on imperialistic adventures a'la Vietnam (or currently Iraq).

Your explanation about "freerider due to US protection" does simply not fit the observations.