Sweden: Paradise on Earth?

[David Floyd]

Besides, che claimed that without the Soviets, the US would have lost the war. That claim is incontrovertibly false, due to the fact that the atomic bomb did indeed work.

[David Floyd]

That assumes that the U.S. could have gotten one operational before the Nazis took Britain, which would have been a lot easier for them once the USSR was out of the way. Where would the U.S. base it's bombers to hit Germany, Iceland?

No, the East Coast. Ever heard of a little bomber called the B-36? If the war had gone to the late '40s - which, unless one side voluntarily made peace, any US-German war would have - we would have had them, along with hundreds of atomic devices.

Besides, I'd like to see you lay out a reasonable scenario in which Germany could conquer Britain prior to August, 1945.

[Admiral]

Besides, I'd like to see you lay out a reasonable scenario in which Germany could conquer Britain prior to August, 1945.

If Germany had not shifted the focus of the aerial assault on England to her cities in 1940, the power of the RAF would have been severely diminished. If Hitler had not then been unreasonnably afraid of losing his surface fleet after minor losses off Norway, Germany could have secured the English Channel. At this point, provided Hitler pushed back Barbarossa, he could have secured a beachhead in England. It would have been a long and tough battle, but once Germany had the beachhead, England's fall would have been inevitable.
As a sidenote, during the entire war, only one amphibious assault failed, and that was a very lack-luster Japanese assault on Wake involving no aerial support and extremely limited naval support (two destroyers, I believe).

[DanS]

Or better still:

Thanks for quoting my blog.

[DanS]

That bastion of the left, the Economist, recently had an article about how how happy people feel have little to do with GDP per capita ...

Happiness may have little to do with GDP per capita, but well being sure does.

In defense of the US system, I think that a lot of the problems we have with poor people and the like are a result of social problems of long-standing and a quirk of history rather than having much to do with the inequalities in our economy.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The problem is alot of people aren't happy with a state that presumes to have the moral authority to take what it wants in the name of equality, so Sweden loses people who could make their system stronger - a brain drain.

That's just a lot of farting in the wind, innit?

Originally posted by Berzerker
How many brilliant people are running to Sweden to live the ~socialist dream?

The counter hypothesis can be made just as easily - Sweden would have been a lot worse than now if not for its great social system.

Now prove me wrong.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Besides, che claimed that without the Soviets, the US would have lost the war. That claim is incontrovertibly false, due to the fact that the atomic bomb did indeed work.

You're assuming that the US would still get the atomic bomb before Germany. An untenable assumption.

In fact, the opposite assertion can be made. Given that the Soviets were out of the picture, Nazi Germany could devote much more resources to research of advanced weapons. Combine that with the fact that they were much more advanced in researching the A-bomb, it appears that the US could be nuked out of the war without the Soviets.

[Berzerker]

Aggie, I attached a smiley to convey my attempt at humor

It was better for all concerned that they stay neutral. It certainly didn't harm them, and in the end it didn't harm us very much.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Jaako

So, Berzie, if Sweden only got where it is by being socialists schmoozing off the manly capitalist USA during the cold war, then how do you explain Finland?

Finland is just as "socialist" as Sweden, with similar success, but had none of these (unfair?) advantages you claim were the only reason Sweden could succeed.

Funny isn't it?

The Finns resisted the Russians and did so effectively - enough to stop at least 2 invasions. The Swedes have the Finns to thank for that. Now, you claim Finland is comparable to Sweden, aside from the fact one fought and the other didn't, how are they analogous?

[Berzerker]

Btw, I read that it was Stalin's first invasion of Finland that convinced Hitler to attack Russia. The Russians did so poorly Hitler figured them to be weak.

[Pekka]

This is true. He had gotten messages even before that, that the SU troopers were poorly equipped, and was suggested to early on his attack. He refused the first time. Actually he refused the second time after seeing the battle between us, but it persuaded him to play with the idea and soon after he decided to make it earlier, the attack, and they got caught with the winter.

What comes to Sweden and the SU threat, surely it was there, and that's why Swedes felt strongly they should give up the neutrality. Most of you don' tknow how heated the debate was in Sweden. And in the government as well. THey really thought hard about it and didn't just say 'no' that easily. They thought and debated, a strong side said they should help but neutrality won at the end, but it was a very tight battle.

Official help was almost non-existent, but the unofficial help was largest from any nation. Almost 10 000 volunteers came to fight and tens of thousands of kids and babies were sent to Sweden, who offered free homes to everyone. So what was decided in the government didn't change the fact that they did feel strongly about helping and via unofficial routes came lots and lots of help. Who knows, without that help, we could have fallen, it's a possibility. They took lots of responsibility in the fronts, dominated few battles etc.. also many officers came in here to fight and gave priceless contribution through their experience and knowledge. Though official help was expected and hoped for, the unofficial help was more than welcome, even though it was smaller than official, because it was 100% volunteered base. But the amounts that came, you have to dig up many modern wars to come up with those numbers that came to help another country, to give their lives for free. So there.

[Berzerker]

That's just a lot of farting in the wind, innit?

Apt, thats what we'll be saying about the Swedish system - a fart in the wind. They bought the free lunch promise and now they're trying to avoid the free dinner...

The counter hypothesis can be made just as easily - Sweden would have been a lot worse than now if not for its great social system.

Now prove me wrong.

Easy, the USA has benefitted the most from other country's brain drains. It ain't welfare attracting them, its to make loads of money by helping humanity more efficiently.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You're assuming that the US would still get the atomic bomb before Germany. An untenable assumption.

In fact, the opposite assertion can be made. Given that the Soviets were out of the picture, Nazi Germany could devote much more resources to research of advanced weapons. Combine that with the fact that they were much more advanced in researching the A-bomb, it appears that the US could be nuked out of the war without the Soviets.

Or it could be argued that the Germans still wouldn't have done much in re: to atomic weapons considering that Hitler considered relativistic physics to be "Jewish science" and that resources still would've been spent on engineering projects (like rockets) that didn't have the taint of Jewishness to them.

Then there is the argument that Heisenberg purposely led the German effort astray.

Cite on the "much more advanced" statement? When? 1938?

[Berzerker]

No doubt Pekka, I have more faith in people than governments so I'd expect the Swedish Joe Blow to hate kissing Nazi a@@, but the war might have ended earlier without the Soviets grabbing half of Europe if the Swedes joined in after Barbarosa slowed to a halt.

[Pekka]

Berzerker, brain drain can be contributed by WWII too . Lot of Europe got destroyed. It took Europe back years and years. However, the brain drain is because what you say.. people want to make loads of money. Why not? IF you got the set of skills, and the best place to practice them is US, and as an added bonus you get paid multiple times, why the hell not.. it is the best solution for those individuals. And they are plenty of them.

But that is the result of the business world of the US. There are so many succesful businesses that makes it possible, it creates the spots for these individuals.

So, if anything, it's because US has the most businesses that again feeds itself. For example in here, we don't have too much businesses to help other businesses flourish. Say a computer manufacturing búsiness would be not so good in here, because there aren't supporting businesses. So it's difficult to establish such areas in here to begin with, without the support of other businsses you can do business with and cooperate.

This isn't so much 'the fault' of the system. However, today it is. The taxation of small businesses is horrible, it's still half. It's not at all fair, and if you want to make money wiht a business, you better be ready to make it in the fortune 500, because if you don't have an idea and plan and then execution of that plan in the caliber of that, you won't succeed even locally. It is equally difficult to create service based businesses, because the GDP etc are relatively low, so there is no consumer base like there is in the US. And still the taxation is hard. So you aren't allowed to grow. Furthermore the hiring of people is super expensive in here.

SO, it has to start from pummeling the taxation for small businesses to start with. We have to encourage people to start be enterprauners more, not by telling them it's cool but in action, lowering that tax. That's the best way. Now, no one has motivation to start a business, because government will leech it from the get go. This is not only my estimation, this has been polled numerous times recently in academic schools. No one wants to start a business in here. And if there's no businesses starting, well we all know what happens next. There's just no creation. And there certainly will be no new money to go around.

[Pekka]

Berz, could be, could be.. but they had a lot in stake.. it's not lkie they didn't want to help us. The ones who would say they should stay neutral didn't think we aren't to be helped.. they just waged it against neutrality, which in itself is a big thing to give away. And even so, many thought it was worth giving up in the government as well, and more so in action by the people.