Historical borders of Finland

Did they get this Roosevelt Assurance by seance?

 

Serious brainfart there on my part. I have no idea where that came from, honestly.

The US needed something, and was probably going to do it, regardless: place submarines in Swedish waters, forcing Sweden's hand. It was more like a big brother kick in the shin and a shove. The guarantees were to help out when the sham was discovered. But those weren't worth much had it been winter.

Throughout the Cold War, much media ado was made about Soviet Submarine activities on the East coast. But the conscripts in training on the West Coast, also noticed foreign submarines on the West Coast, of different types, of which nothing was ever made. Those discovered on the West Coast were never actively or efficiently hunted.

 

I replied to your post nr. 71, where you wrote this:

"When there is famine it is the fault of the US and we are expected to supply the bulk of the food and aid."

This I translated as a complaint for having to provide too large share of the supplies and aid - which is not the case.

 

1. For me they unfortunately sometimes sound like hollow propaganda. Living next to the USSR/Russia makes one a bit allergic to the empty words without real meanings...

2. I realise, that you enjoy endless arguments for the sake of it. I try (could try harder though...) to stick to the topic and avoid being drawn to the side tracks to show demanded endless evidencies of (supposedly) general knowledge. I'm not that well informed of the US media nor education system, but the influence of the US government on several non-democratic governments should not be news to anyone.

The list goes on and on. This is not a source as such, just a list of governments I've been talking about. If you still claim that these regimes are not/have not been supported by the USA and they have not often supported the US political views I give up:

Americas

• Porfirio Díaz, México, 1876-1880, 1884-1910
• The Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI (Under various names: PNR, PRM) 1929-2000
• Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela, 1908-1935
• Manuel Estrada Cabrera, Guatemala, 1898-1920
• Jorge Ubico, Guatemala, 1931-1944
• Fulgencio Batista, Cuba 1952-1959
• Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961
• Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982
• Military Junta of El Salvador (JRG), 1979-1982
• Hugo Banzer, Bolivia, 1971-1978
• Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983
• Brazilian military government, 1964-1985
• Somoza family, Nicaragua, 1932-1979
• François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986 [8]
• General Omar Torrijos Herrera 1969-1981 (although the U.S. military supported a coup that tried to depose him in 1969. Torrijos survived thanks in part to support by the CIA and State Department; later, the U.S. military fell in line.) [9]
• General Manuel Noriega, Panama, 1983-1989 [10]
• Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989[citation needed]
• General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990

Asia

• Syngman Rhee, South Korea, 1948-1960
• Ngo Dinh Diem, South Vietnam, 1955-1963
• Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979
• Ayub Khan, (Pakistan), 1958-1969
• Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[11][12]
• Zia ul Haq, (Pakistan), 1977-1989
• Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 1982-1990
• Suharto, Indonesia, 1975-1995
• Trương Tấn Sang, Vietnam[13]
• Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen, 1990-2012
• Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Bahrain
• Saudi royal family
• Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan
• Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, 2002-present[13]
• Pervez Musharraf, (Pakistan), 1999-2008
• Emomali Rakhmon, Tajikistan, 2002-present[13]
• Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, Turkmenistan[13]

Africa

• Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia, 1995-2012[13]
• Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, 2006-present[13]
• Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire, 1965-1997
• Idriss Déby, Chad, 2003-present[14]
• Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011
• Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, 1987-2011
• Charles Taylor, Liberia, 1997-2003
• Yoweri Museveni, Uganda

3. You are right. Based on the publicly known evidencies I did/do not agree with you.

4. It's not baseless. I just don't want to start an endless argument about the crimes of some US military personnel. Feel free to use e.g. your chosen internet search engine, if in need for some further information. Just wondering, how you could be unaware of them - after all they have often been headline news.

5. "Baseless denigration"? There was one (1) error, which did not affect any of the information nor the reasoning.

No - I wouldn't have. That was a baseless statement if any.

6. To defend Sweden they were not. To conquer the world maybe so.

7. Am so proud of your great ability in succeeding in your challenge...

 

As I seem to recall Finland had quite a close relationship with a most un-democratic nation from central europe during 1941 t0 1944.

Just pointing out that nations quite frequently interact with less than savory regimes due to a perception of need or best interest. A larger, more active nation, might have a wider interaction with such less than savory country's.

 

Indeed it might! But it would hardly be as isolated or pressed as Finland was.

Such is the burden that greatness imparts.

No nation is without flaws. As a caretaker of personal liberties and freedoms on a global stage, it hasn't always done a stellar job, but it has to be said, has been better than the alternatives. Anyone care for the Chinese version of Liberty, Democracy and Equality?

 

This fact is important and also complicates the problem, for Finland of course, because they have lost the war at the wrong side and not really as spotless knights. Even though the picture of the Finnish collaboration is carefully painted in rosy colors, there are indeed shameful details: Finnish Concentration Camps in Karelia. Even kids were starved to death there.

 

That would be what is sometimes referred to as "cherry picking". In the absence of NATO (and US) guarantees (implied or stated) could Sweden alone have prevented the Soviets from taking over? The same can be asked of Finland. It was the NATO or US umbrella that forced it into the "wider European conflict".

So from some time in late 40's to some time in the 60's Sweden would have been without the Umbrella. How long would it have taken them to assemble the bomb and load it on a delivery system? Looks like there's a window even after that time frame.

In both cases irrelevant.

 

Interesting how often you realize things that are fallacious.

That is rather classic case of changing the goal posts. Certainly the US has supported them at times and they have supported the US at times. That's a long way from the US controlling them.

Unsupported = baseless.

The way I see it there was one error that fundamentally undermined your point and wether you want to consider it one error or not the result was your list was meaningless.

 

Let's just take one nation from your list in post 124.

Iraq. Saddam Hussein. The hysterical left claims that the US armed Saddam. In fact, they claim it so often that Goebbels maxim begins to apply - the repetition of such claims makes it "true." However, It isn't true. Furthermore, if one digs into the "weapons" the US did supply, you'll find that it largely revolves around some unarmed light helicopters that would only be useful in an observational role.





We could go into all the other nations on your list, but why bother? The simple truth is that the US has relations and trade with every nation on the planet.

 

I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, but merely to point out that almost every nation will at some time have some form of reciprocal relationship with one or more nations that won't win any humanitarian awards. The larger the 'footprint' or greater the need, the lower the standards that become acceptable. For many the devil you know is more acceptable than the one you don't.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[16]

 

If true (and we only have one person claiming it is), add those up: US 1%, Jordan 1%, Egypt less than 1%. Saudi and Kuwait, so small they aren't even listed. Total 2%

Then, USSR 57%, France 13%, Czechs 7%, Poles 4%, Brazil 2%, etc, etc.

So, even using your argument (which is merely an accusation), we'd be about as culpable as Brazil, half as culpable as Poland, one third as culpable as Czechoslovakia, one seventh as culpable as France... I don't see the leftists blaming those countries. I only see them blaming the US.

I think you've proven my point quite admirably. It isn't at all about who actually supplied the arms, it's about knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

 

Sorry, you seem to be the one putting emotions into it. I've only posted the relevant links. I've not assigned a moral or ethical value to the activities of selling arms to Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqgate

There are more than one source, but if you want to deny the CIA's involvement, be my guest. I find it credible, given the CIA's activities elsewhere in the region.

And you wouldn't see leftists in the US blaming those countries. You'd actually have to live in those countries, and read the local news, to see what they say about their own country's performance. France and the UK both cop press about their government's "activities" towards Iraq during that period. Plausible deniability and all that. I'll liklely be dead before the UK government releases its files (1988 + 50 years minimum ). Poland and Czechoslovakia were both behind the Iron Curtain, and weren't democratic. IIRC, neither was Brazil at that stage, but I could be wrong, and can't be bothered checking. So your view seems rather limited. It probably has more to do with elected governments hiding sales and funnelling funding, than what was actually sold to whom and why. Perhaps if there had been an informed public debate, it would've been accepted, and everyone would've moved on?

Personally, in general I see arms sales as a good thing; it brings jobs and prosperity to the country selling. Every country has armed forces: either their own, or someone else's. I tend to draw the line when the purchaser starts using WMD, though, as Iraq did. On the other hand without WMD, would Iraq have been able to withstand Iranian arms? Probably not. So what kind of Middle East would we have seen then? "The road to Jerusalem, goes through Karbala!"

What many "leftists" disagree with, is aid and funding that keeps tyrannies in power. But you yourself alluded to disliking that in another thread.

 

Ummm no, they seem to only disagree when the US is involved. If the US isn't involved, they simply create a conspiracy to suggest an involvement. They ignore the actions of other nations.

 

I've already pointed out, that is simply not the case in the media in other countries. The UK press hammers the UK government. The French press nag at theirs. The Spanish press chases their representatives. Of course they all harp on at the US, but that is because its the biggest kid on the block, with the most clout. And quite frankly, why would, for example, the public of Great Britain concern themselves about most other countries arms sales, say, for instance, Spanish arms sales? Spanish foreign policy hardly causes any ripples for anyone, it just isn't on the same scale of either effect or interest. US policy affects everyone. When the world's largest economy and military power shifts a foot, everyone is going to pay attention and have an opinion.

 

Of course you haven't started a fight and I don't think anyone here is looking for conflicts. Some delicate themes are unavoidable and should be treated as any other theme, pleasant or not. If we want to approach the subject in a "scientific" way we must neglect possible wounded vanity, otherwise conversation would have been pointless. I have read relatively large number of books on the theme of WW2 and the most of serious authors use far more caustic language than I have used in some my statements here. Of course, we may pretend but where is the point then?

Regarding the "Godwin": Is it possible to talk about the WW2 without necessary references to the Nazis and their odd habits, however that might look unpleasant.

 

Typically Godwin's Law is invoked when an inappropriate comparison to Hitler or the Nazis is made.

 

And I recall the USA had not just a close relationship but an outright alliance with a most undemocratic nation of Europe/Asia during 1941-1945...

A small country fighting for her very existence during the worst world war of all times is surely a different case than the most powerful world power during peace time.

 

"Losing" a war is a much more complicated term as has already been discussed before. What ever the meaning of that term is, it does not give any right for the aggressor for robbery.

Compered to the aggressor - or almost any other country during WW2 - Finland really nearly was a "spotless knight". Nobody/nothing is perfect though.

Kids were not "starved the death" in Finnish relocation/concentration camps - although too many of them did indeed die during the first war year. The Finns did not have enough food - nor experience - to save all the children left behind without food by the soviet army.