The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
11 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > »    Reply to this topic

Swedish neutrality and Thatcher's view on it.

The iron lady and blonde interviewer

skogsbo
post 28.Feb.2012, 07:21 AM
Post #106
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

QUOTE (7 @ 27.Feb.2012, 11:00 PM) *
here's where you bring up the american connection. what was your point?

I give up, I was attempting to talk about how perspective differ in relation to remote wars and integral wars, BOTH sides how casualties either way. You seem to have take me referencing the US as a personal attack, when in fact you personal experiences are more akin to Europeans on other nations who had fighting on their door step. If you read everything referencing the US personally I can't help you there.
If nothing else it proves that you can take the American out of America, but not America out of the person. Even a hint of anything negative towards an American or America, the barriers are up and the war is on. But, the point is I was never being negative, different nations were in very different positions and drew very different conclusions at the end of WW2.
Go to the top of the page
+
skogsbo
post 28.Feb.2012, 07:32 AM
Post #107
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

QUOTE (Streja @ 27.Feb.2012, 04:44 PM) *
skogsbo, I think the Soveit Union would have gobbled us up sooner than Germany. I don't think that's fair. Sweden has always been to war with Russia and that has alway ... (show full quote)

possibly, although the cold war was certainly brewing by then and with SU taking half of Poland before the Germans could get it, it was certainly clear they had intentions. But, if Scandanavia had some British backing(and physical presence there), the lines were never directly challenged between Soviets v The West, each was just trying to secure ground before the other. There had been clashes in the Middle East over oil rights though in the 30s.
Go to the top of the page
+
BritVik
post 29.Feb.2012, 09:04 PM
Post #108
Joined: 22.Oct.2011

Pax vobiscum
Go to the top of the page
+
skogsbo
post 29.Feb.2012, 09:08 PM
Post #109
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

et cum te
Go to the top of the page
+
BritVik
post 1.Mar.2012, 06:03 PM
Post #110
Joined: 22.Oct.2011

It may sound a bit naive, or something, but wouldn't it be great if wars were fought both on paper and in retrospect? A lot of life and devastation could then be saved, and the politicians and warmongers could fight things out over a cup of tea, coffee or a glass of vodka, and then go home afterwards.
Utopia?
Well, with all the technical advances of our times - then sometime in the future - - -.
We could then all perhaps be neutral.

Just a thought huh.gif

PS Skogsbo - your reply set me thinking back to my Latin i.e. pre 1948 - to remembering my grammar. Never liked Latin - they seemed to me always be going to, coming from, or involved in bellum wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
skogsbo
post 1.Mar.2012, 08:30 PM
Post #111
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

QUOTE (BritVik @ 1.Mar.2012, 05:03 PM) *
It may sound a bit naive, or something, but wouldn't it be great if wars were fought both on paper and in retrospect?

like the board game Risk?
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 1.Mar.2012, 08:48 PM
Post #112
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

In the old days they had "The King's Champion" and similar arrangements to settle affairs.

Too civilized for us though!
Go to the top of the page
+
BritVik
post 1.Mar.2012, 09:29 PM
Post #113
Joined: 22.Oct.2011

Don't think I would apply for such a job. Might get a lance where it would do a bit of no good. I think I'll stick to the idea of the board game, or else feather dusters at 40 paces.
Go to the top of the page
+
fulham
post 2.Mar.2012, 12:29 AM
Post #114
Joined: 29.Feb.2012

QUOTE (Gamla Hälsingebock @ 27.Feb.2012, 03:18 PM) *
The US supplied Britain with war goods while being neutral but nobody complains about that.

Actually it was only in the last 6 years that the British paid back the USA and Canada for the supply of war goods. The goods were not charity, we paid for it. This was an interesting article from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6215847.stm
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 2.Mar.2012, 12:49 AM
Post #115
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

Not saying that it was charity...the "neutral" US nearly bankrupted Britain in both wars.

Britain had no other place to go. So called neutrality can lead to usury in the most contemptible way.

For Britain alone at that time it was a matter of pay or die...that's my view, and she paid!

Also, at that time Swedish ships caught out of the Baltic and not able to return home where leased to Britain at no doubt very high rates.

Neutrality is what it is, and can be double sided.

"War is hell", Quote:
W. T. Sherman, one of America's generals that brought war to the civilian population of the Confederacy. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
BritVik
post 2.Mar.2012, 01:34 PM
Post #116
Joined: 22.Oct.2011

QUOTE (Streja @ 21.Feb.2012, 10:38 AM) *
she is the Swedish version of Parko...she speaks Swedish...get it? Actually hardly anyone in Sweden knew who Parko is, well except the ones who have lived in the UK. YES it ... (show full quote)

But Dabs has never been on UK TV since she speaks Swedish - oh yes and some English. Every country has its own famous personalities that are never heard or seen outside the borders. Famous nationally or famous internationally - quite a big difference. Tom Jones, the Beatles, ABBA, Queen, Frankie Boy, Bing C. James Last, all internationally famous. Carl Jularbo, Evert T. Carola - nationally famous. That's the way it is.
Take me for instance. I am famous - in my home village. I get letters from all over the world - from fellow villagers. Now that's fame you must agree! biggrin.gif Internationally famous - - - -
Go to the top of the page
+
wendist
post 2.Mar.2012, 11:30 PM
Post #117
Joined: 14.Feb.2010

Below is a link to a short summary of what the US meant with neutrality in the years before the war.
Notice that the cash and carry concept made it legal for the US to trade with both the UK and nazi Germany. The fact that the germans couldn´t cross the Atlantic safely wasn´t the americans problem but it did give the UK and France an advantage, at least as long as they could afford to pay cash.

( The same argument could be used in Swedens case. It wasn´t Swedens fault or problem that the UK´s access to swedish products were severely restricted by germanys occupation of Denmark and Norway.)

Moral arguments does not seem to have carried much weight at the time. The overriding principle was that all warring parties were to be treated equally (by a neutral party), regardles of how “evil” they were.

Of course by the time the US entered the war this line of thinking went straight out the window. Now, all of a sudden, neutrals were weak cowards that aided the enemy and only worthy of contempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930s
Go to the top of the page
+
BritVik
post 3.Mar.2012, 12:21 AM
Post #118
Joined: 22.Oct.2011

Somehow you would never believe that WW2 has been over since 1945, i.e. 68 years ago.

At the rate the heat is rising on this thread we will soon be heading into WW3. This stuff is what wars are made of. Everyone knows best and anyone contradicting is wrong. Cut the aggression, you'll have a stroke otherwise.

With such animosity I am more than glad that MY days are numbered if this attitude is what we have to look forward to on TL. You'll have the moderators coming out of their slumbers - or something - and the closed sign will be put into place.

That is unless folks go and take a cold shower or something. It is no longer a discussion, mates, everyone is far too hot under the collar.

For heavens sake - and ours - chill out. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 3.Mar.2012, 12:54 AM
Post #119
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

QUOTE (wendist @ 2.Mar.2012, 11:30 PM) *
Below is a link to a short summary of what the US meant with neutrality in the years before the war.Notice that the cash and carry concept made it legal for the US to trade wi ... (show full quote)



Somebody that understands...Tack, Gh
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 3.Mar.2012, 01:03 AM
Post #120
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

Hey Britvik!

I am with you, we have gone through that horror and really do not want it revisited.

But!

It keeps coming up and I feel that things are not right when a nation is slandered, so I must reply.

And the thing with me is...I am an Anglophile!

Why do some British people have this attitude?

However, I will fight fire with fire and be as insulting as those that denigrate the Swedish people.

I want it to stop too!

Pacem in terres
Go to the top of the page
+

11 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > » 
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: