5 ms·

Regarding Sweden and WW II: If Sweden shouldn't have been a "lapdog" -- which side of the war should it have joined? With Norway or with Finland? Not a simple c

by berntb 10y ago

Regarding Sweden and WW II: If Sweden shouldn't have been a "lapdog" -- which side of the war should it have joined? With Norway or with Finland? Not a simple choice, neither now nor at the time. And regarding USA today: Check the democratic peace theory -- democracies don't fight wars with each others. (Not even USA. :-) ) So it is arguably in the Swedish interest to help all democracies be as strong and informed as ever possible. That said, I doubt the reason Sweden is such a handmaid to US interests was so philosophical, of course. Every country do realpolitik and lies shamelessly about it. We don't know what the US paid (hopefully not just bribes to Swedish politicians, old hatt/mössa style... :-) ). Edit: These comments really jumps up/down in votes. :-)

ggame 10y ago
Does covertly overthrowing a democratically elected government, installing a dictator only to later invade count as two democracies going to war? Otherwise it sounds like a very big loophole and one the US uses all of the time.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> all the time Uh? What examples [of deposing democracies then invading when the dictator becomes too oppressive] exist after the cold war? Edit: Point is, there was a war of influence in the cold war; dictators played Soviet/West against each others for support. E.g. South Korea and Taiwan became democratic after the cold war, to not risk being ostracized.
  - croon 10y ago
    Which one? Also, why the limitation?
  - kurthr 10y ago
    Yeah, even Reagan (Grenada & Panama) and the Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. The world is slightly different after Kissinger left office (Argentina)... realpolitik is really more of a Euro-Russian thing than a US thing. Although that could change again with the new president.
    - tormeh 10y ago
      You mean the US's middle East policy hasn't been driven by realpolitik? That it was idealistic? Why the has the US propped up so many dictatorships? Saudi Arabia?
      - berntb 10y ago
        I think most people believe their own country's propaganda. :-) In Sweden, since that is the subject, we really used to be naive and trust what we were told. Some of the typical characteristics you saw, all the way back to before written history, is that we are group oriented and do what we were told. This made for a high trust society, which is probably what made the place work. But no more, the society elites are really destroying this trust now. That the democratic world supports Saudi A is an extreme example of realpolitik, of course. We need stability in that part of the world.
    - at-fates-hands 10y ago
      >> Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. I would use the word "democracy" pretty loosely when it comes to Iraq. A consistent insurgency with widespread sectarian violence and much of the Sunni population not taking part in the elections, it was hardly what anybody would deem a "democracy".
      - scythe 10y ago
        Not to mention banning the Ba'ath party, which, while it had ruled under a dictator, nonetheless had the support of much of the population, who were disenfranchised as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_–_Iraq_Region#2003_invasion_and_new_Iraqi_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_... >In June 2003, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority banned the Ba'ath Party, and banned all members of the party's top four tiers from the new government and from public schools and colleges, a move which some criticised for blocking too many experienced people from participating in the new government. Thousands were removed from their positions, including doctors, professors, school teachers and bureaucrats. Many teachers lost their jobs, causing protests and demonstrations at schools and universities.
jacobush 10y ago
I hope that Sweden got a renewal on its lease on the nuclear umbrella, hopefully long enough to increase its own operative military capability. This would be a win for both the US (capable bilateral partner/buffer zone in area) and Sweden (less likely to be strongarmed into uncomfortable positions). Is that too much to dream of?
- jacobush 10y ago
  I think it serves to remember that even though Sweden is tiny compared to the US and NATO, its capability locally during its prime in the 80s was much more than NATO could bring to that theater.
henrikschroder 10y ago
Sweden always claims to be neutral, but the open secret is that Sweden is protected by NATO in case "someone" = Russia invades. Such protection costs, but since it's a secret, there can be no public debate about the price and if it's worth it. So each elected government gets to negotiate the protection payment themselves, and the whole reason for the FRA law was to legally increase and secure the amount of sigint that could be collected and handed over to the US. The whole public debate over that got really weird, because the executive branch was SUPER INSISTENT that the law got passed, but couldn't argue for it, because the actual reason was secret.
- jacobush 10y ago
  And tap fiber cables was cheap vs other favours we might have made to the US, so was probably deemed cost effective.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Check the democratic peace theory -- democracies don't fight wars with each others. The Democratic Peace theory has always been bunk: even when it was formulated, for any definition of democracy restrictive enough for the claim "Democracies don't fight wars with each other", the number of available democracy-democracy pairs is so small compared to thr number of pairs of countries that the expected number of wars between them is, rounded to the nearest integer, zero. Certain, since the wars in the Balkans from the 1990s, the Democratic Peace theory is even less defensible than it was previously.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> the number of available democracy-democracy pairs is so small compared to thr number of pairs of countries that the expected number of wars between them is, rounded to the nearest integer, zero. There are literally dozens of modern democracies that have been free since WWII, how can that be too few "pairs"? >> Certain, since the wars in the Balkans from the 1990s, the Democratic Peace theory is even less defensible than it was previously. Uh, Soviet ended 1989. Then the Balkan got free -- and Jugoslavia fell relatively quickly into a civil war. How does that reflect on democracies? (Are you defining "democracy" as "one free election, no power changes after consecutive free elections is needed"? That is hardly how the term is defined, last I checked either the democracy or the democratic peace theory.)
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > There are literally dozens of modern democracies that have been free since WWII, how can that be too few "pairs"? There's a little under 200 countries now. The number of democracies by any definition that leaves no inter-democracy wars is a small fraction of that (though, yes, in the dozens). The ratio of democracy-democracy dyads to total dyads is smaller (for reasons which should be mathematically obvious) than the ratio of democracies to countries. > Uh, Soviet ended 1989. Then the Balkan got free - Uh, Yugoslavia split from the Soviet bloc in 1948, and Tito died in 1980.
    - berntb 10y ago

by berntb 10y ago

ggame 10y ago

Does covertly overthrowing a democratically elected government, installing a dictator only to later invade count as two democracies going to war? Otherwise it sounds like a very big loophole and one the US uses all of the time.

berntb 10y ago
>> all the time Uh? What examples [of deposing democracies then invading when the dictator becomes too oppressive] exist after the cold war? Edit: Point is, there was a war of influence in the cold war; dictators played Soviet/West against each others for support. E.g. South Korea and Taiwan became democratic after the cold war, to not risk being ostracized.
- croon 10y ago
  Which one? Also, why the limitation?
- kurthr 10y ago
  Yeah, even Reagan (Grenada & Panama) and the Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. The world is slightly different after Kissinger left office (Argentina)... realpolitik is really more of a Euro-Russian thing than a US thing. Although that could change again with the new president.
  - tormeh 10y ago
    You mean the US's middle East policy hasn't been driven by realpolitik? That it was idealistic? Why the has the US propped up so many dictatorships? Saudi Arabia?
    - berntb 10y ago
      I think most people believe their own country's propaganda. :-) In Sweden, since that is the subject, we really used to be naive and trust what we were told. Some of the typical characteristics you saw, all the way back to before written history, is that we are group oriented and do what we were told. This made for a high trust society, which is probably what made the place work. But no more, the society elites are really destroying this trust now. That the democratic world supports Saudi A is an extreme example of realpolitik, of course. We need stability in that part of the world.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    >> Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. I would use the word "democracy" pretty loosely when it comes to Iraq. A consistent insurgency with widespread sectarian violence and much of the Sunni population not taking part in the elections, it was hardly what anybody would deem a "democracy".
    - scythe 10y ago
      Not to mention banning the Ba'ath party, which, while it had ruled under a dictator, nonetheless had the support of much of the population, who were disenfranchised as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_–_Iraq_Region#2003_invasion_and_new_Iraqi_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_... >In June 2003, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority banned the Ba'ath Party, and banned all members of the party's top four tiers from the new government and from public schools and colleges, a move which some criticised for blocking too many experienced people from participating in the new government. Thousands were removed from their positions, including doctors, professors, school teachers and bureaucrats. Many teachers lost their jobs, causing protests and demonstrations at schools and universities.

jacobush 10y ago

I hope that Sweden got a renewal on its lease on the nuclear umbrella, hopefully long enough to increase its own operative military capability. This would be a win for both the US (capable bilateral partner/buffer zone in area) and Sweden (less likely to be strongarmed into uncomfortable positions). Is that too much to dream of?

jacobush 10y ago
I think it serves to remember that even though Sweden is tiny compared to the US and NATO, its capability locally during its prime in the 80s was much more than NATO could bring to that theater.

henrikschroder 10y ago

Sweden always claims to be neutral, but the open secret is that Sweden is protected by NATO in case "someone" = Russia invades. Such protection costs, but since it's a secret, there can be no public debate about the price and if it's worth it. So each elected government gets to negotiate the protection payment themselves, and the whole reason for the FRA law was to legally increase and secure the amount of sigint that could be collected and handed over to the US. The whole public debate over that got really weird, because the executive branch was SUPER INSISTENT that the law got passed, but couldn't argue for it, because the actual reason was secret.

jacobush 10y ago
And tap fiber cables was cheap vs other favours we might have made to the US, so was probably deemed cost effective.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Check the democratic peace theory -- democracies don't fight wars with each others. The Democratic Peace theory has always been bunk: even when it was formulated, for any definition of democracy restrictive enough for the claim "Democracies don't fight wars with each other", the number of available democracy-democracy pairs is so small compared to thr number of pairs of countries that the expected number of wars between them is, rounded to the nearest integer, zero. Certain, since the wars in the Balkans from the 1990s, the Democratic Peace theory is even less defensible than it was previously.

berntb 10y ago
>> the number of available democracy-democracy pairs is so small compared to thr number of pairs of countries that the expected number of wars between them is, rounded to the nearest integer, zero. There are literally dozens of modern democracies that have been free since WWII, how can that be too few "pairs"? >> Certain, since the wars in the Balkans from the 1990s, the Democratic Peace theory is even less defensible than it was previously. Uh, Soviet ended 1989. Then the Balkan got free -- and Jugoslavia fell relatively quickly into a civil war. How does that reflect on democracies? (Are you defining "democracy" as "one free election, no power changes after consecutive free elections is needed"? That is hardly how the term is defined, last I checked either the democracy or the democratic peace theory.)
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There are literally dozens of modern democracies that have been free since WWII, how can that be too few "pairs"? There's a little under 200 countries now. The number of democracies by any definition that leaves no inter-democracy wars is a small fraction of that (though, yes, in the dozens). The ratio of democracy-democracy dyads to total dyads is smaller (for reasons which should be mathematically obvious) than the ratio of democracies to countries. > Uh, Soviet ended 1989. Then the Balkan got free - Uh, Yugoslavia split from the Soviet bloc in 1948, and Tito died in 1980.
  - berntb 10y ago