5 ms·

Those of us from Poland definitely appreciate Sweden's "neutral and peaceful" stance, which meant selling resources to Germany so that the Nazis could slaughter

Those of us from Poland definitely appreciate Sweden's "neutral and peaceful" stance, which meant selling resources to Germany so that the Nazis could slaughter our ancestors. Thanks mate.

lillecarl 5y ago
There's that way of looking at it, or that we have self-preservation. Do you hold every single German accountable for WW2 too? Also this is hardly an apples to apples comparison to compare current Russia to any stage of WW2.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  I'm sorry that you're finding the truth inconvenient, but yes, those who can't bring themselves to outright condemnation of the war — which includes torture, rape of women and children, mass destruction of civilian homes, war crimes, and genocide — are also morally reprehensible. So which side are you on?
  - lillecarl 5y ago
    I'm on the side of not joining NATO to trigger further actions to be taken by the crazy man to the east. I condemn war, I don't want there to be a war, therefore I don't want more countries to join NATO as it would be another reason for conflict. If war broke out here because we joined NATO, what would you say then?
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Ukraine didn't join NATO. It wasn't on the brink of joining NATO. It got invaded anyway. So if Finland, say, joins NATO and gets invaded, did it get invaded because it joined? Or would it have been invaded anyway? I also condemn war. I don't want there to be war. But given the crazy man in the east, I'd rather have people to help me shoot back if it came to that.
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      As I explained to you in another comment[0], it's not about NATO expansion. Furthermore, your pacifism is exactly what fuels Russia's aggression. If you want fewer people to die and fewer nations to be subject to terrorism of the kind that Russia is subjecting Ukraine to, then you should be in favour of Russia's swift and crushing military defeat on the battlefield. You can't appease a tyrant by singing kumbaya and cowering in the corner. Hitler and his buddies had to die for peace in Europe to be restored. The current administration of the Russian Federation is no different. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30991398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30991398
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > to trigger further actions to be taken by the crazy man to the east You are trying to argue that Putin is both crazy and rational in the same line. > I condemn war, I don't want there to be a war, therefore I don't want more countries to join NATO as it would be another reason for conflict. If someone wants conflict, anything will be a valid pretext for that conflict and if not one will be conveniently provided by a false flag operation. Standard Russian playbook since time immemorial. > If war broke out here because we joined NATO, what would you say then? The chances of that are roughly just as large as the chances of war breaking out if Sweden did not join NATO. But if you did join NATO then at least you would not be in the position that Ukraine finds itself in today. Neutrality is a great thing, right up to the point where you are attacked yourself, and then everybody remembers that you took great pains to be neutral. I assume you do expect the rest of Europe and NATO to come and aid Sweden if it does get attacked?
helloworld11 5y ago
Considering Sweden being completely surrounded by Nazi-held territory and that of a potentially hostile Nazi ally (Finland), what was it supposed to do exactly? Be "brave" while it gets dismembered just like Poland? They made a pragmatic accommodation towards what they considered the lesser evil for their territory, and on the balance, it at least let that country harbor hundreds of thousands of refugees in relative safety during the course of the war.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  Arguably, Sweden's bravery could have only extended as far as banning the sale of iron ore which would have halted the Nazi war machine and brought the war to a close in a matter of months, saving tens of millions of lives. It's wild to me that any Swede could be proud of this part of their history.
  - helloworld11 5y ago
    Had Sweden banned the sale of vital iron ore to the Reich, Hitler would have had it invaded in weeks, full stop, and his occupation would have been vengeful in typical Nazi style. The country was able to stay neutral largely by luck, unlike Switzerland, which the Nazis knew to be a very difficult and painful invasion target (aside from it being convenient as a money haven for stolen wealth). The Swedish government was pragmatic without a doubt, but given their geographical circumstances, I hardly see how they had much choice. Since banning or not banning sales of ore would have in either case not stopped rapid and raveneous Nazi acquisition of said ore, allowing it, staying neutral and uninvaded and thus harbouring thousands of refugees was the better outcome in a sea of moral greyness. One wonderful example, the smuggling of Denmark's entire Jewish population to Sweden during the early days of the war.

Those of us from Poland definitely appreciate Sweden's "neutral and peaceful" stance, which meant selling resources to Germany so that the Nazis could slaughter our ancestors. Thanks mate.

lillecarl 5y ago

There's that way of looking at it, or that we have self-preservation. Do you hold every single German accountable for WW2 too? Also this is hardly an apples to apples comparison to compare current Russia to any stage of WW2.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
I'm sorry that you're finding the truth inconvenient, but yes, those who can't bring themselves to outright condemnation of the war — which includes torture, rape of women and children, mass destruction of civilian homes, war crimes, and genocide — are also morally reprehensible. So which side are you on?
- lillecarl 5y ago
  I'm on the side of not joining NATO to trigger further actions to be taken by the crazy man to the east. I condemn war, I don't want there to be a war, therefore I don't want more countries to join NATO as it would be another reason for conflict. If war broke out here because we joined NATO, what would you say then?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Ukraine didn't join NATO. It wasn't on the brink of joining NATO. It got invaded anyway. So if Finland, say, joins NATO and gets invaded, did it get invaded because it joined? Or would it have been invaded anyway? I also condemn war. I don't want there to be war. But given the crazy man in the east, I'd rather have people to help me shoot back if it came to that.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    As I explained to you in another comment[0], it's not about NATO expansion. Furthermore, your pacifism is exactly what fuels Russia's aggression. If you want fewer people to die and fewer nations to be subject to terrorism of the kind that Russia is subjecting Ukraine to, then you should be in favour of Russia's swift and crushing military defeat on the battlefield. You can't appease a tyrant by singing kumbaya and cowering in the corner. Hitler and his buddies had to die for peace in Europe to be restored. The current administration of the Russian Federation is no different. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30991398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30991398
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > to trigger further actions to be taken by the crazy man to the east You are trying to argue that Putin is both crazy and rational in the same line. > I condemn war, I don't want there to be a war, therefore I don't want more countries to join NATO as it would be another reason for conflict. If someone wants conflict, anything will be a valid pretext for that conflict and if not one will be conveniently provided by a false flag operation. Standard Russian playbook since time immemorial. > If war broke out here because we joined NATO, what would you say then? The chances of that are roughly just as large as the chances of war breaking out if Sweden did not join NATO. But if you did join NATO then at least you would not be in the position that Ukraine finds itself in today. Neutrality is a great thing, right up to the point where you are attacked yourself, and then everybody remembers that you took great pains to be neutral. I assume you do expect the rest of Europe and NATO to come and aid Sweden if it does get attacked?

helloworld11 5y ago

Considering Sweden being completely surrounded by Nazi-held territory and that of a potentially hostile Nazi ally (Finland), what was it supposed to do exactly? Be "brave" while it gets dismembered just like Poland? They made a pragmatic accommodation towards what they considered the lesser evil for their territory, and on the balance, it at least let that country harbor hundreds of thousands of refugees in relative safety during the course of the war.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
Arguably, Sweden's bravery could have only extended as far as banning the sale of iron ore which would have halted the Nazi war machine and brought the war to a close in a matter of months, saving tens of millions of lives. It's wild to me that any Swede could be proud of this part of their history.
- helloworld11 5y ago
  Had Sweden banned the sale of vital iron ore to the Reich, Hitler would have had it invaded in weeks, full stop, and his occupation would have been vengeful in typical Nazi style. The country was able to stay neutral largely by luck, unlike Switzerland, which the Nazis knew to be a very difficult and painful invasion target (aside from it being convenient as a money haven for stolen wealth). The Swedish government was pragmatic without a doubt, but given their geographical circumstances, I hardly see how they had much choice. Since banning or not banning sales of ore would have in either case not stopped rapid and raveneous Nazi acquisition of said ore, allowing it, staying neutral and uninvaded and thus harbouring thousands of refugees was the better outcome in a sea of moral greyness. One wonderful example, the smuggling of Denmark's entire Jewish population to Sweden during the early days of the war.