In article
,
says...
Chapman billy wrote in message m...
In article ,
says...
(Sigvaldi Eggertsson) wrote in message . com...
"Tim Hanke" wrote in message news:tX8Ga.121577$d51.192194@sccrnsc01...
In fact after the good old U.S. of A., I'd say you Brits are pretty
much the best of the rest. Though personally, I've always had a soft
spot for Iceland and the Scandinavian countries, despite Sweden
letting down the side rather badly in World War II.

In what way?

Mr. Eggertsson,

As far as I can infer, Tim Hanke seems disappointed that Sweden did not
fight on the Allied side during the Second World War. On the other hand,
Hanke might have overlooked that Finland fought on the Axis side then.
--Nick

The Finns are not Scandinavian.

Simon,

Thanks for writing. I appreciate your mentioning a fact that you thought that
I had overlooked. Actually, I already knew that Scandinavia properly comprises
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, though in informal usage Finland has been included.

Nick,

Thank you for your response. It is a shame that so many
contributors appear to be unclubbable men; so perhaps
this is a cri de coeur for more soldiers of the monstrous
regiment to trumpet in this group? Anyhow, I don't see
the harm in an occasional off topic post.

I thought it best to find out indirectly whether you were
seeking to anneal the meaning of what Tim Hanke wrote, or
whether you were being careless in lobbing Nordic Finland
into Scandinavia. Most people who have called the Finns
Scandinavian that I have come across genuinely have been
unaware of the inaccuracy; somewhat implausible in your
particular instance, but then you usually take great
pains to achieve your desired effect in your postings.
One particularly amusing instance of this confusion over
the "Scandinavians" was when the Labour MP Diane Abbot
complained about the surfeit of blond blue-eyed
Scandinavian nurses; although, of course, the ladies in
question hailed from Finland.


I did not write that Finland is part of Scandinavia. My intention (which was
understood by Sigvaldi Eggertsson in his response) was to suggest one reason
why Sweden did not join the Allies. If Sweden had done that, then it would
have gone to war against its neighbour, Finland, which would have been quite
unwelcome to many Swedes. Finland has a substantial Swedish minority, and
the Swedes traditionally have felt close to the Finns. For example, with the
approval of their government, many Swedes volunteered to fight for Finland
in its 1939-40 'Winter War' against the Soviet Union. And most Swedes seemed
sympathetic toward Finland in its 1941-4 'Continuation War' against the
Soviet Union.

You are being very delicate in not mentioning that
Finland was once part of the Swedish empire, along with
a large chunk of the Baltic; up until the Grand Duchy
gained the dubious privilege of being grabbed by Russia
(1809 IIRC, but I'm too lazy to check) in the time of
Napoleon. The Finns had to wait until the Russian
Revolution before being able to slip their moorings and
begin their voyage as an independent state; unfortunately
not without a vicious civil war. It is my impression that
the Norwegians bear the brunt of the Swedes' "Irish" (for
want of a better word) jokes: nonetheless, the Swedish
claim on the Aaland Islands was an instance of a somewhat
less than benevolent attitude; happily the League Of
Nations found a workable compromise in that territorial
dispute, one of its few successes.

Many Europeans sympathised with the Finns in the Winter
War to the point of wishing to offer concrete aid; if one
wants to be cruel, perhaps the failure of the Narvik
expedition was a blessing in disguise in this respect.

All in all Finland has an impressive record as an
independent state: you doubtless recall the bilateral
trade agreements with the Soviet Union, and the
potentially disastrous impact upon the Finnish economy
when that empire collapsed. Yet the Finns managed to pull
themselves round.


Of course, another reason why Sweden did not join the Allies was that Hitler
never got around to invading Sweden.

Turning to the attitude of the Swedish Government, as
opposed to the Swedish population, during WWII; I
reproduce below extracts from the memoirs of Cordell Hull
Roosevelt's Secretary of State at the time.

"We were greatly concerned over the Swedish Government's
continuing to permit German troops and supplies to cross
Sweden to and from Norway. Sweden offered us both a
valuable point of observation for Northern Europe and
Germany, and a source of anxiety because of the valuable
supplies such as iron ore and ball bearings which were
going to Germany."

--Volume 2, page 1345.

The following relates to 1944.
"In our negotiations with Sweden, however, we encountered
opposition arising from the fact that Sweden still had
a lingering fear of German armed reprisals, despite the
growing strength and successes of the United Nations. I
said in a letter to the Joint Chiefs on May 19: 'No
matter how unrealistic it may appear to us here, the
factor which in the final analysis will control the
Swedish Government's decision ... is its conviction that
full compliance with our demands will almost certainly
expose Sweden to German military attack ... This
conviction is so strong that the Swedes, in their
disbelief that their present bearing exports to Germany
are as important as we say they are, strongly suspect
that our real purpose in pressing them on this matter is
not to obtain a reduction in ball bearings but to involve
them in war with Germany.'"

--Volume 2, page 1347 (August 1948 reprint, Hodder and
Stougton).



Regards,

Simon.