Stupid Letters to the Editor

[Iceberg]

OK, you guys are both assholes, and this has gone *way* beyond the intended point of my original post (which, poor wording aside, had nothing to do with morality as we define it conventionally).

The moral of the story is, "be very careful about your wording in a forum that doesn't let you go back and edit."

[Vympel]

OK, you guys are both assholes, and this has gone *way* beyond the intended point of my original post (which, poor wording aside, had nothing to do with morality as we define it conventionally).

The moral of the story is, "be very careful about your wording in a forum that doesn't let you go back and edit."

Errr- in case you didn't notice, this has nothing to do with you anymore.

[Axis Kast]

You see everything through the prism of your own lack of ethics and lack of concern for others, which to you necessarily refutes the value of a system of government where harm is minimized and well being promoted for all rather than some. The source of your many inane 'concession accepted' pronouncements.

That’s correct. Keep in mind that the moral system for which you advocate takes your nation out of competition for resources, influence, and other historically sought-after objectives. It’s an intentional self-handicapping; you propose standing idle while others gain – a position that inherently damages your own nation’s proportionate lead and, by extension, reduces its ability to buck the influence or dictation of others. It’s self-defeating.

You entirely coopt the realpolitican's obsession about being the 'supreme state' as a legimitate objective, and thus hold up the threat of this not being achieved by acting morally and responsibly with concern for others as some sort of refutation of the worth of the system.

You advocate for a form of government that fails to make concessions for all contingencies, a factor you’ve again ignored.

All nations in the geopolitical realm govern by cost-benefit analysis. These countries seek profit and expediency on a perennial level, believing the ultimate goal of government to be national self-strengthening. You, on the other hand, advocate a “closing of the doors,” so to speak – that is, a relinquishment of similar goals and voluntary ignorance to their continued prosecution by others. This position places you inherently at a disadvantage – one that grows progressively with each passing year. You are essentially advocating placing your own nation in disadvantages positions – knowingly – so long as morality is upheld.

You engage in a falsehood where not engaging in morally repgunant actions for profit and expedience places one at risk of 'attack' by one's 'enemies', ignoring the fact that

a: one can defend his interests against the actions of his 'enemies' (if you can call them that) without engaging in the same behavior

The ability of a given nation to defend itself against aggression or unwanted influence decreases dramatically with voluntary cessation of self-strengthening tendencies. That is to say, your nation’s ability to prosecute its own goals – whatever they be, including national defense – will be progressively weakened as other nations grow proportionately stronger through continued reliance on the cost-benefit rather than moral system of international policy-making.

b: that other nations might do something to you is certainly not carte blanche to commit similar acts all over the globe against all others

All nations use the cost-benefit system of government. Therefore, the United States is a target – direct or indirect- of all nations worldwide seeking to improve their own position. Just because something isn’t justified from a moral perspective doesn’t mean it stops being worthwhile from a certain point of view.

You are also advocating limitations to the pursuit of profit and expediency on the basis of personal moral objection. To do so is to imply that I too must be held to the same moral code as yourself. That’s a false statement – especially because nothing obliges me to do so.

You play some ridiculous word game where because a moral system is adhered to because it results in maximum good and minimm harm for all involved, rather than for 'moral's sake' (whatever that means- leaving aside your projection of your own non-existent ethics onto all), this somehow refutes the value of the system.

I don’t seek maximum good and minimum harm for all involved. I seek maximum good and minimum harm for some involved. The purpose of the cost-benefit form of policy-making is empowerment for a specific, organized population - not necessarily all. (Keep in mind however that this does not necessarily reduce the universal appeal of cost-benefit government.) Whereas your major objective is a morally sound existence, mine is personal profit.

You advocate the practitioner of moral behavior for moral behavior’s sake. There is no other reason behind your advocacy of moral government other than that it fulfills a personal need to gratify certain opinions of justice, good, and philosophical right. I on the other hand recognize morals only as tools to be taken out or put away given the situation at hand. Moral practitioners are, in my book, only useful in certain situations and under certain guidelines.

Make an appeal to tradition (that's how it is!) to defend the system. Luckily, appeal to tradition is the name of a logical fallacy.

Hardly. Given the current trend toward self-servicing (ie, cost-benefit) politics worldwide, abandoning that system puts one at extreme risk. You advocate abstention from any amoral or immoral action whatsoever despite the impositions, transgressions, or unwanted influence of others. That’s patently dangerous – it invites all others to profit as your nation stagnates and ultimately move you into the position that your state can no longer afford to live the moral system in relative safety.

Make an appeal to human nature to defend the system. Patently ludicrous, considering that human nature resulted in the construction of moral systems that regulate our everyday lives on the personal level. Your empty protestations of 'laughability' aside, you did not present any meaningful rebuttal.

Moral systems for self-profit, self-comfort, and self-expediency. Yours is however an ultimately ignorant statement considering that those morals are generally practiced for self-empowerment – and that amoral or immoral decision-making is far more prevalent. You ignore the fact that moral behavior is accommodated in the cost-benefit system – but merely not for reasons of spiritual fulfillment per se.

Claimed that the cost/benefit analysis was 'self moderating'. I'm sure the populations of Chile and Iran would disagree.

Red herring. You confuse the term “self-moderating” with “good for all.”

The cost-benefit analysis is self-moderating because it suggests that one should provide a certain degree of moral guidance or humanitarian assistance to given populations in order to promote good relations and discourage anarchic factors such as riot, starvation, or slaughter. While this is not a universal code (we generally apply this only to nations with which we enjoy important relations), it nonetheless represents an acknowledgement of the power and use of moral behavior.

What kind of revisionist fucking moron are you, you dumbass?

The Germans of the Third Reich were fucking happily anti-semitic, and were all too willing to see the Jews tossed out onto the proverbial street in everyway imaginable, treated like non-citizens, and tossed into camps. They *knew* what was going on in terms of genocide, and turned a blind eye.

For a more in-depth disussion, specifically, read "Hitler's Willing Executioner's: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, but really, that anyone could know anything about WW2 and pretend that ordinary Germans didn't bare responsibilty for what was perpeatrated is the height of infamy.

As to invalids: Germany engaged in terminating the lives of invalids, mentally disabled etc who had 'no prospect' for meaningful life (meaningful meaning, of course, service to the state). That was certainly cost/benefit analysis, and furthermore, I haven't seen much evidence of 'psychological scars' on the psyches of those who perpetrated those crimes.

Most Germans were apathetic. They were active observers in total, but not necessarily active participants. Many believed that no matter what was going on, personal intervention was too expensive to warrant – or couldn’t be relied upon to promote change anyway.

The German citizens never held a plebiscite about whether or not they’d like to liquidate millions upon millions of Jews. Stripping someone of rights is not akin to bringing about their ultimate destruction as a group of people.

Now the Holocaust was tolerated, for which you can hold the German population of the time ultimately morally responsible. But that’s not to say it was actively advocated by the whole population either. You also imply that knowledge of what was going on was in fact total approval. That’s untrue. It was more total resignation. Certainly some people objected. Others celebrated. The majority became resigned.

Their destruction of invalids was based on a biased predisposition to murder that same population – whether or not it was actually beneficial. An objective analysis would not reach the same conclusions. Other nations have followed the cost-benefit analysis in the past. Most do. I don't see the American, British, Russian, or Indian population of invalids being dragged off into camps.

No evidence of psychological scars? The German national mindset is today testament to the Second World War and all that it entailed. Or haven’t you heard about the, “We’ve fought too many wars,” notion that circulates widely among them?

I was unware unsubstantiated accusations like new Russian ATGMs and NVGs had turned into facts.

oh, and Sweden:

If Germany had gone off on a military adventure in Sweden, with the nonexistent divisions you merely pulled out of your ass when Germany is committed body and soul in the USSR, North Africa, and in the Atlantic (the Finland division claim was especially ludicrous), it would've meant even quicker defeat than happened historically. What's more, Sweden, like Greece, had a very real chance of recieving Allied aid in support.

That is all. For now. Of course, if you want me to keep up this point for point mega post crap, I may indulge you, but I'm getting quite sick of it.

Oh, bullshit. Some sources go so far as to say Russian officers – generals, no less – were in Baghdad just before the invasion to render advice on the best defense.

And, now it’s my turn to shout: “What kind of absolute fucking moron are you?!”

How the fuck was Germany supposed to continue the war when over half of its fucking supply of iron ore was suddenly not there?! The new priority would have immediately become invasion.

Nonexistent divisions? I suggest you take a look at a wartime atlas. Norway was occupied by ten divisions. The front in Finland could have spared at least several brigades – if not one understrength or even average division of its own. That ignores the fact that several divisions would also have been stripped from Germany’s lines of defenses – temporarily – to invade the Swedish neighbor.

[Vympel]

That’s correct. Keep in mind that the moral system for which you advocate takes your nation out of competition for resources, influence, and other historically sought-after objectives.

Hardly, it merely limits its actions to legimitate trade and development to get to them.

It’s an intentional self-handicapping; you propose standing idle while others gain – a position that inherently damages your own nation’s proportionate lead and, by extension, reduces its ability to buck the influence or dictation of others. It’s self-defeating.

The lead is only relevant to realpoliticians pursuing a fantasy of being the supreme state. Hardly a position worth oppressing others for, IMO.

You advocate for a form of government that fails to make concessions for all contingencies, a factor you’ve again ignored.

See below.

All nations in the geopolitical realm govern by cost-benefit analysis. These countries seek profit and expediency on a perennial level, believing the ultimate goal of government to be national self-strengthening.

It is? You might find disagreement on what the goal of government is. Many citizens would say the goal of a government is to look after it's people, and when asked what their government should do to look after them, I doubt you'd get many answers like "make our nation strong". I'm sure it's a big idea among facists and communists though.

You, on the other hand, advocate a “closing of the doors,” so to speak – that is, a relinquishment of similar goals and voluntary ignorance to their continued prosecution by others. This position places you inherently at a disadvantage – one that grows progressively with each passing year. You are essentially advocating placing your own nation in disadvantages positions – knowingly – so long as morality is upheld.

Disadvantageous in relation to what? The world isn't a game, no one's keeping score.

The ability of a given nation to defend itself against aggression or unwanted influence decreases dramatically with voluntary cessation of self-strengthening tendencies. That is to say, your nation’s ability to prosecute its own goals – whatever they be, including national defense – will be progressively weakened as other nations grow proportionately stronger through continued reliance on the cost-benefit rather than moral system of international policy-making.

So what if your nation is weak compared to a nation that is strong? Does, for example, Norway care that the US is stronger than it?

All nations use the cost-benefit system of government. Therefore, the United States is a target – direct or indirect- of all nations worldwide seeking to improve their own position. Just because something isn’t justified from a moral perspective doesn’t mean it stops being worthwhile from a certain point of view.

Pure paranoia. You perceive absolutely every nation on Earth as a rival?

You are also advocating limitations to the pursuit of profit and expediency on the basis of personal moral objection. To do so is to imply that I too must be held to the same moral code as yourself. That’s a false statement – especially because nothing obliges me to do so.

There are some core moral principles that all except the wierd sociopaths would undoubtedly agree with. All societies have discovered them, for the most part, except for the wierd bits tacked on by religion (sexual morality, for example, which is irrelevant in this take).

I don’t seek maximum good and minimum harm for all involved. I seek maximum good and minimum harm for some involved. The purpose of the cost-benefit form of policy-making is empowerment for a specific, organized population - not necessarily all. (Keep in mind however that this does not necessarily reduce the universal appeal of cost-benefit government.) Whereas your major objective is a morally sound existence, mine is personal profit.

That pretty much sums it up.

You advocate the practitioner of moral behavior for moral behavior’s sake. There is no other reason behind your advocacy of moral government other than that it fulfills a personal need to gratify certain opinions of justice, good, and philosophical right. I on the other hand recognize morals only as tools to be taken out or put away given the situation at hand. Moral practitioners are, in my book, only useful in certain situations and under certain guidelines.

Maybe you'll remember saying that one day when you could use some selfess charity from another, and don't get it.

Hardly. Given the current trend toward self-servicing (ie, cost-benefit) politics worldwide, abandoning that system puts one at extreme risk.

No it does not. The only 'adverse' consequences you can point to is that your own nation won't be top dog. Hardly an extreme risk.

You advocate abstention from any amoral or immoral action whatsoever despite the impositions, transgressions, or unwanted influence of others. That’s patently dangerous – it invites all others to profit as your nation stagnates and ultimately move you into the position that your state can no longer afford to live the moral system in relative safety.

You're contending that every nation that does not trample on the rights of others as a matter of course and minds its own business is in danger? Come on.

Moral systems for self-profit, self-comfort, and self-expediency. Yours is however an ultimately ignorant statement considering that those morals are generally practiced for self-empowerment – and that amoral or immoral decision-making is far more prevalent. You ignore the fact that moral behavior is accommodated in the cost-benefit system – but merely not for reasons of spiritual fulfillment per se.

Moral behavior is certainly not accomodated in the cost/benefit system, it is placed there by society's own moral standards, which undoubtedly exist, whether you admit they do or not. The reasons for moral behavior is a red herring. 'Moral's for moral's sake' is gobbledygook and of no relevance to the debate. There are plenty of morally repugnant things that a nation could perpetrate that would amorally benefit more than they cost.

Red herring. You confuse the term “self-moderating” with “good for all.”

The cost-benefit analysis is self-moderating because it suggests that one should provide a certain degree of moral guidance or humanitarian assistance to given populations in order to promote good relations and discourage anarchic factors such as riot, starvation, or slaughter. While this is not a universal code (we generally apply this only to nations with which we enjoy important relations), it nonetheless represents an acknowledgement of the power and use of moral behavior.

No, for example the United States cynically points to human rights violations of countries it disapproves on while arming and acquiescing to the human rights violations of allies- e.g. Turkey and Israel.

Most Germans were apathetic. They were active observers in total, but not necessarily active participants. Many believed that no matter what was going on, personal intervention was too expensive to warrant – or couldn’t be relied upon to promote change anyway.

The German citizens never held a plebiscite about whether or not they’d like to liquidate millions upon millions of Jews. Stripping someone of rights is not akin to bringing about their ultimate destruction as a group of people.

Now the Holocaust was tolerated, for which you can hold the German population of the time ultimately morally responsible. But that’s not to say it was actively advocated by the whole population either. You also imply that knowledge of what was going on was in fact total approval. That’s untrue. It was more total resignation. Certainly some people objected. Others celebrated. The majority became resigned.

They let it happen, with full knowledge of what was going on, and did absolutely nothing, save for a relatively small number of heroes.

Their destruction of invalids was based on a biased predisposition to murder that same population – whether or not it was actually beneficial. An objective analysis would not reach the same conclusions. Other nations have followed the cost-benefit analysis in the past. Most do. I don't see the American, British, Russian, or Indian population of invalids being dragged off into camps.

Call me crazy that may have something to do with people actually having a moral compass and finding such practices repugnant rather than people performing an amoral cost/benefit analysis.

No evidence of psychological scars? The German national mindset is today testament to the Second World War and all that it entailed. Or haven’t you heard about the, “We’ve fought too many wars,” notion that circulates widely among them?

The people that actually carried it out, not their descendants, who are rightly shamed.

Oh, bullshit. Some sources go so far as to say Russian officers – generals, no less – were in Baghdad just before the invasion to render advice on the best defense.

Evidence of Kornet ATGMs? They claimed 500 in Iraq. Do you have any idea how large they are, or how capable they are, or how stupid the claim is? A laser-guided ATGM would take training for troops to get proficient on, and I have not seen a single picture of a single missile, firing post, or FCS module, let alone the training aids that come with the product. Not to mention that simply ringing Kornets aroung Baghdad would've resutled in dozens of destroyed US armored vehicles. None of which occured.

And, now it’s my turn to shout: “What kind of absolute fucking moron are you?!”

Oh goody!

How the fuck was Germany supposed to continue the war when over half of its fucking supply of iron ore was suddenly not there?! The new priority would have immediately become invasion.

And that would've still meant utter defeat for Germany. Not only would she have been deprived of resources for possibly months, chances of meaningful offensives elsewhere would've been cut off.

Nonexistent divisions? I suggest you take a look at a wartime atlas. Norway was occupied by ten divisions. The front in Finland could have spared at least several brigades – if not one understrength or even average division of its own.

Finland will assist in an attack on Sweden? Yeah right.

That ignores the fact that several divisions would also have been stripped from Germany’s lines of defenses – temporarily – to invade the Swedish neighbor.

This is not Civilization. This is real life. You're talking about months of preparations at a critical time in the war for Germany. If she didn't outright crack from the pressure, she would've been far less capable of carrying out offensive operations elsewhere, with no guarantees of swift victory in Sweden whatsoever. Swedish resistance may also have kicked the Allies arses into gear to try and open a Northern front after the Norway humiliation.

[Ender]

I'm glad to see that newspapers all over the world get retards writing their editors, and not just mine.

[Axis Kast]

Hardly, it merely limits its actions to legimitate trade and development to get to them.

Limiting oneself only to legitimate trade and development is inherently disadvantageous. Those with the most resources automatically gain the most influence – and subsequently are able to infringe upon the national welfare (as well as security or outright autonomy) of their less-wealthy neighbors. Not to mention that placing self-imposed restrictions on the range of one’s own foreign policy tends to engender nothing but contempt and even worse transgression from the competition.

The lead is only relevant to realpoliticians pursuing a fantasy of being the supreme state. Hardly a position worth oppressing others for, IMO.

The “supreme state” has been exemplified by the hegemonies or superpowers since the beginning of time. It is a functioning, factual ideal – whether or not you agree that status is worth fighting for.

It is? You might find disagreement on what the goal of government is. Many citizens would say the goal of a government is to look after it's people, and when asked what their government should do to look after them, I doubt you'd get many answers like "make our nation strong". I'm sure it's a big idea among facists and communists though.

“Looking after people” implies maintaining both their safety and comfort. Each of these are optimized via the cost-benefit system. You simply refuse to look beyond a temporary period when the strong can afford to withdraw and throw caution to the wind.

Disadvantageous in relation to what? The world isn't a game, no one's keeping score.

Disadvantageous because those who eschew immoral or amoral activity have voluntarily imposed a moratorium on any action not inherently moral – including espionage, bribery, political intimidation – which you earlier supported in a broad form -, sabotage, and assassination. A state with the ability to do these things will progress in relative strength as compared to a state that does not practice such behavior.

As for international relations not being a game? That’s a terrible naive position.

So what if your nation is weak compared to a nation that is strong? Does, for example, Norway care that the US is stronger than it?

Define “care.”

Norway’s cost-benefit analysis runs toward independent profit. By extension, that implies a long-range goal of self-strengthening that would in theory one day permit Norway to surpass the United States if all advantages are pressed home. Unfortunately, Norway’s personal resources and potential for productive output pale in comparison to those of the American hyperpower. That does not however deter Norway’s policy-making from being any less true to the cost-benefit doctrine.

Pure paranoia. You perceive absolutely every nation on Earth as a rival?

Absolutely. Because that’s what they are. Even those with whom one aligns. Whether or not you believe yourself personally threatened is regardless.

There are some core moral principles that all except the wierd sociopaths would undoubtedly agree with. All societies have discovered them, for the most part, except for the wierd bits tacked on by religion (sexual morality, for example, which is irrelevant in this take).

Christian theology does not inherently approve of homosexuality and would therefore technically be bound to suppress its practice and expression assuming we’re being true to the scripture and/or majority interpretation.

Certain fundamental strains of Islam (now held in esteem by tens of millions throughout the Middle and Far East) define morality in a far different light than the modern Western tradition.

There is far more to the “moral question” than, “Thou shalt not kill, steal, cheat, or lie.”

Maybe you'll remember saying that one day when you could use some selfess charity from another, and don't get it.

Charity is often practiced out of (A) self-conscious obligation, (B) third-party imposition, or (C) the expectation that one will enjoy a return on this most seemingly insignificant of investments (whether by reducing anarchic factors in society or engendering friendship). Selfless charity exists only in a very limited sense, practiced only by people with very broad – and ultimately ridiculous - objectives in mind. You also forget that charity of any kind is never practiced by government institutions between nation-states merely for its own sake. I want to make the world a better place, but that has as much to do with the fact that it will benefit me as it does with wanting to be a moral human being. If I wish (as one single person) to feed the starving, for instance, it’s probably because their suffering causes me psychological stress. If a government wishes to feed the starving, it’s always because of some cost-benefit outlook.

No it does not. The only 'adverse' consequences you can point to is that your own nation won't be top dog. Hardly an extreme risk.

Again, you’ve a very limited interpretation of the question.

Not being “top dog” implies that unwelcome outside factors are influencing and guiding your nation’s hand moreso than would otherwise be the case. We must always accept “turbulence” from others, though it is most easily dealt with when we are in the position of supreme power. Falling from the position of “top dog” is a dangerous precursor to future intimidation or even imposition.

You're contending that every nation that does not trample on the rights of others as a matter of course and minds its own business is in danger? Come on.

Absolutely. But that’s not to say any nation doesn’t – because they do. Espionage, sabotage, assassination, intimidation ,bribery, etc. All are excellent examples. You must also keep in mind that amoral and immoral behavior is discouraged by the United Nations – which few constituencies, governments, or nation-states can afford to profitably contravene.

Moral behavior is certainly not accomodated in the cost/benefit system, it is placed there by society's own moral standards, which undoubtedly exist, whether you admit they do or not. The reasons for moral behavior is a red herring. 'Moral's for moral's sake' is gobbledygook and of no relevance to the debate. There are plenty of morally repugnant things that a nation could perpetrate that would amorally benefit more than they cost.

Incorrect. Morality for morality’s sake is not necessarily accommodated in the cost-benefit system.

That final statement – about amorality being inherently more profitable than morality – is true only from a certain point of view. You’ll find that definitions change. Doctrine is flexible, as are objectives. The definition of “profit” and the goals of “self-empowerment” change, for instance, when one switches from the international to the domestic.

No, for example the United States cynically points to human rights violations of countries it disapproves on while arming and acquiescing to the human rights violations of allies- e.g. Turkey and Israel.

And what does this have to do with the argument that the cost-benefit system has self-moderating tendancies?

The United States points to the human rights violations because it wishes to curry favor with others and prevent certain parties from taking offense at its support for Ankara and Tel Aviv. Cost-benefit. It speaks peace from one side of its mouth and quotes purchase offers with the other.

They let it happen, with full knowledge of what was going on, and did absolutely nothing, save for a relatively small number of heroes.

Letting it happen is not the same as wanting it to happen. You permit unwelcome transgressions to occur, but not necessarily because you want them to. More because you are largely powerless to intervene and achieve the desired result.

The huge majority of Germans did not gather together and request or even suggest that Jews by slaughtered. That they couldn’t stop it – or permitted it – doesn’t have anything to do with what they necessarily felt about it.

Call me crazy that may have something to do with people actually having a moral compass and finding such practices repugnant rather than people performing an amoral cost/benefit analysis.

Because moral considerations fall within the domestic cost-benefit analysis. People feel most comfortable in societies that do not practice repression. When a general population feels comfortable, anarchic factors – demonstrations, malcontent, etc. – decrease. Thus, we see the value of the cost-benefit analysis on the domestic level.

Everybody’s got a moral compass, but that doesn’t mean that amoral behavior isn’t profitable or attractive – especially on the international level.

The people that actually carried it out, not their descendants, who are rightly shamed.

I’m Jewish, but ironically, I had Lutheran German family drafted into the German army. Am I ashamed of them? No.

Keep in mind that the same Germans who lived during the war were still around to advocate Ostpolitik. These are the same Germans that established the mindset about which I speak.

Evidence of Kornet ATGMs? They claimed 500 in Iraq. Do you have any idea how large they are, or how capable they are, or how stupid the claim is? A laser-guided ATGM would take training for troops to get proficient on, and I have not seen a single picture of a single missile, firing post, or FCS module, let alone the training aids that come with the product. Not to mention that simply ringing Kornets aroung Baghdad would've resutled in dozens of destroyed US armored vehicles. None of which occured.

Once more, the point is that Russian and Syrian weaponry was reportedly located in Iraq.

Russian generals are rumored to have traveled to Baghdad just before the war.

We know the French illegally sold Hussein spares for combat aircraft in January 2003.

We know that the Syrians didn’t crack down effectively on the movement of irregulars across their common border with Iraq.

We know that Turkish special forces infiltrated Iraq for the sake of stirring up trouble. Amoral results of cost-benefit analysis.

And that would've still meant utter defeat for Germany. Not only would she have been deprived of resources for possibly months, chances of meaningful offensives elsewhere would've been cut off.

But Germany could have more easily afforded (even if on the ropes) a sudden invasion of Sweden than a continuation of even more distant – and more strenuous – activities on other fronts.

Are you now attempting to argue that Germany would have merely “given up” had Sweden turned them down?

Finland will assist in an attack on Sweden? Yeah right.

See, Axis satellites.

This is not Civilization. This is real life. You're talking about months of preparations at a critical time in the war for Germany. If she didn't outright crack from the pressure, she would've been far less capable of carrying out offensive operations elsewhere, with no guarantees of swift victory in Sweden whatsoever. Swedish resistance may also have kicked the Allies arses into gear to try and open a Northern front after the Norway humiliation.

Allied resistance? With what equipment? With which troops? And in what year?

If we’re already in 1942, the invasion would have been kicked off to the exclusion of the campaign in North Africa and Operation Barbarossa. If we’re in 1941, the invasion would have meant putting the Russian venture on hold. If we’re in 1940, it’s a natural outgrowth of the second blitzkrieg.

You seem to be implying that Germany would simply have stopped had Sweden closed the door. Is that the crux of your argument?

[Axis Kast]

I'm glad to see that newspapers all over the world get retards writing their editors, and not just mine.

You disagree with some of the points made during this discussion? Join in.

[Ender]

I'm glad to see that newspapers all over the world get retards writing their editors, and not just mine.

You disagree with some of the points made during this discussion? Join in.

I really just skipped the discussion to post my thoughts on the letter; I read enough stuff about "Zionist" conspiracies, and the "hypocricy" of America having WMD while demanding Iraq not having them as it is.

[Steve]

*peaks head over trench*

Wow.... Harsh battle.

[Edi]

*peaks head over trench*

Wow.... Harsh battle.

Better hunker back down or you just might get your head blasted off in the next salvo...

In 1942 Germany had jack shit available forces to prosecute any such invasion. It was committed in France, North Africa, and the Soviet Union especially.

For Sweden? Finland could have spared at least a few home brigades. There were ten divisions stationed in Norway for the duration of the war – several of them regarded as superfluous. Germany had total dominion over the Baltic Sea; a few submarines and some minor escorts could have spelled the doom of the entire Swedish Royal Navy. Around eight divisions from mainland Germany would have been all that was necessary – when combined with up to five or six additional German and one Finn divisions – to conquer and occupy the whole of Sweden. Especially after several weeks of bombing by a handful of squadrons. Germany was at its zenith in 1942. Now it would have meant trouble elsewhere, yes, but the Reich couldn’t very well get along without the ores of that particular part of Scandinavia. Rather vital to the war effort and all that jazz. This nation supported up to one half Germany’s iron ore consumption during wartime.

You will kindly point out to me which divisions my country could have spared, when we needed every single man we had and then some in the east, in combat operations against the Soviet Union. Moreover, Finland depended on Sweden's help in supplying iron and other crucial material, and we had Swedish volunteers fighting alongside Finns in the east. Furthermore, Finland was never officially allied with Germany during WW2, never mind being some puppet at the beck and call of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government. You can go and look in the Kirkuk thread where the Duchess and I had a drawn out argument about exactly that subject. There is no fucking way that my country would ever have participated or even condoned and invasion of Sweden for those and other reasons, and you can go fuck yourself for even suggesting that we would have.

We’re talking 403,000 men in 1940 – along with 79 AA guns and no tanks. By 1942, they’d have had a hundred or so additional guns and about two hundred tanks at best – all of the light Landsverk design. Against a battle-hardened Whermacht? Even the Swedes’ military reputation wouldn’t be able to save them from an ultimate defeat.

Germany didn't have the needed sealift capacity to transport the required number of troops to take and hold a country of Sweden's size with their geography. The most important iron mines were in the north, and that terrain would have been fucking brutal on them. You can take a look at the events of eastern Finland in 1939-40 to see what just a few hundred thousand men with no tanks and little artillery and AA guns can do. That little skirmish was called the Winter War. Granted, the German army was much more capable than the Soviet one, but in your ludicrous fantasy they are limited by geography much more than the Soviets were in invading Finland. And Sweden would definitely have mined its coastal waters prior to cutting off ore supplies to Germany, which would have made a seaborned invasion impossible. The land approach from Norway is quite easily defendable.

Your claim about Germany having total domination of the Baltic Sea is true with the caveat that they had it with Finland's sufferance. If Sweden and Finland had wished it so, the Baltic would have been closed off to them as well. You would do well to take a good, hard look at the role mine fields played in closing off the Baltic to the Soviet Union, how much causlaties they caused, and who did the minelaying. For the greater part, it was not the Germans.

Germany was capable of invading Sweden. You cannot escape that fact. Hitler would have put off the invasion of the Soviet Union for Sweden – as he did for Greece – if only because Germany couldn’t have gotten along without that ore.

If he'd put off the invasion of SU, yes, possibly, but again, it would have been much more difficult than you think. It would not have been a cakewalk.

However, I understand Sweden's wartime actions in that they did face the possibility of being invaded or having much of their country devastated if they did not acquiesce. There was a real threat, but the Swedish government of the time did go a bit too far in kowtowing to Germany. That's the part where the profit motives come in.

I seriously doubt that. Morality is a tool. People want moral government because it’s attractive and comforting. It’s a desire. They don’t want it merely because it’s moral per se. Not because it’s good. Not because it’s right. Because it’s gratifying.

The concept that some people find the things that are right and doing them gratifying, and more so than purely personal profit, is totally alien to you, but you've already made that abundantly clear. It's good, and it's the right thing to do, and those people like doing it for that reason because unlike you, they have some degree of empathy toward other human beings.

If my "total lack of ethics" doesn’t apply, why don’t we have moral government for the sake of moral government? Why is all government cost-benefit?

Why is all government not absolutely maximised cost-benefit? That fact alone destroys your argument. You argue for absolutely maxed out cost-benefit approach, dismissing anything other as fantasy, but it does not alter the fact that a hybrid moral/cost-benefit approach is possible, and is in fact quite widely practiced. You can take a look at Finland for example, if you want to see countries that practice it. Most other EU nations also qualify.

Nonexistent divisions? I suggest you take a look at a wartime atlas. Norway was occupied by ten divisions. The front in Finland could have spared at least several brigades – if not one understrength or even average division of its own. That ignores the fact that several divisions would also have been stripped from Germany’s lines of defenses – temporarily – to invade the Swedish neighbor.

I'm so glad you're such a fucking expert that you can come and tell me how many people my country could have spared. I'm quite sure that Marshal Mannerheim and the other leaders of Finland's defense would have been very keen to learn this information.

You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that Finland is and was also then a soverein nation and not a German puppet, and German troops would have been outright refused right of transit if they wanted to invade Sweden. Hitler demanded that Finland hand over its Jewish population, a demand made by Himmler on a state visit, and Mannerheim simply told him to fuck off. The only Jews who were handed over, were seven German citizens living in Finland at the time. Hitler also demanded we attack Leningrad. He was refused, again, something that shortened the war and spared the lives of a lot of Soviet citizens. Leningrad would have been dead if we had gone along. Good thing we didn't too, in retrospect, because we'd likely be in Estonia's position now, if we had independence in the first place.

And what does this have to do with the argument that the cost-benefit system has self-moderating tendancies?

What evidence of self-moderation is there for cases where the power applying the cost-benefit analysis is strong enough to do as it fucking well pleases and hang the rest of the world? Oh, that's right, none!

The United States points to the human rights violations because it wishes to curry favor with others and prevent certain parties from taking offense at its support for Ankara and Tel Aviv. Cost-benefit. It speaks peace from one side of its mouth and quotes purchase offers with the other.

You blithering idiot, does it escape your feeble comprehension that this selective approach causes everyone who cares about human rights to take more offense at US conduct in that regard than they normally would? There's some real good cost-benefit analysis for you... Fucking moron!

Edi

[Axis Kast]

You will kindly point out to me which divisions my country could have spared, when we needed every single man we had and then some in the east, in combat operations against the Soviet Union. Moreover, Finland depended on Sweden's help in supplying iron and other crucial material, and we had Swedish volunteers fighting alongside Finns in the east. Furthermore, Finland was never officially allied with Germany during WW2, never mind being some puppet at the beck and call of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government. You can go and look in the Kirkuk thread where the Duchess and I had a drawn out argument about exactly that subject. There is no fucking way that my country would ever have participated or even condoned and invasion of Sweden for those and other reasons, and you can go fuck yourself for even suggesting that we would have.

Finland was deploying a pair of armies (Karelia and Southeast) in the Soviet Union c. July 1941. A pair of corps (I and IV both) were threatening the line across Beloostrov and up to Lake Lagoda until 1943. That’s exclusive of any Home Guard formations – which would probably have been the units deployed earliest against Sweden – within Finland itself rather than on the offense against Soviet forces.

As with Germany, Finland could – for a time at least – have supported action against the Swedes from a material perspective.

“No fucking way?” All right then. I never predicated anything more than an understrength division anyway. The loss of the Finns wouldn’t necessarily have amounted to anything but slightly increased hardship for the German Army. And that’s to say nothing of Hitler’s taking advantage of Finland’s geographic location anyway.

Germany didn't have the needed sealift capacity to transport the required number of troops to take and hold a country of Sweden's size with their geography. The most important iron mines were in the north, and that terrain would have been fucking brutal on them. You can take a look at the events of eastern Finland in 1939-40 to see what just a few hundred thousand men with no tanks and little artillery and AA guns can do. That little skirmish was called the Winter War. Granted, the German army was much more capable than the Soviet one, but in your ludicrous fantasy they are limited by geography much more than the Soviets were in invading Finland. And Sweden would definitely have mined its coastal waters prior to cutting off ore supplies to Germany, which would have made a seaborned invasion impossible. The land approach from Norway is quite easily defendable.

Your claim about Germany having total domination of the Baltic Sea is true with the caveat that they had it with Finland's sufferance. If Sweden and Finland had wished it so, the Baltic would have been closed off to them as well. You would do well to take a good, hard look at the role mine fields played in closing off the Baltic to the Soviet Union, how much causlaties they caused, and who did the minelaying. For the greater part, it was not the Germans.

You mean just as they weren’t able to invader and eventually transport ten divisions to Norway? Or move a pair of fronts to Finland?

Finland’s success during the Winter War was predicated largely upon Soviet inefficiency. While I grant Mannerheim’s mettle much consideration – and accolade -, it was in the end Stalin’s purges that became your greatest source of strength. The outcome would never have been nearly as favorable for your country had the Soviets actually put forward a foot similar to that of Germany between 1940 and ’42.

Mines make seaborne invasion difficult – not impossible. There’s still the Norwegian link as well as the Finn.

I’m sitting right here with a map of the Baltic (including minefields). While you’re correct in arguing that the Finns and Soviets saturated the area beforehand – many Soviet mines were later responsible for losses on both sides -, Sweden couldn’t have blocked a seaborne invasion entirely without at least significant preparation beforehand. And, after all, what exactly does mining open waters by which Germany supplies troops around Leningrad imply? Never mind that even had Sweden closed the Baltic they’d have been unable to mine the entire coast without infringing directly upon German territorial waters in the first place.

If he'd put off the invasion of SU, yes, possibly, but again, it would have been much more difficult than you think. It would not have been a cakewalk.

However, I understand Sweden's wartime actions in that they did face the possibility of being invaded or having much of their country devastated if they did not acquiesce. There was a real threat, but the Swedish government of the time did go a bit too far in kowtowing to Germany. That's the part where the profit motives come in.

Sweden would have fallen inside six months almost for certain. Partisan activity would have been pronounced, but despite the merits of their regular military, the Swedes simply couldn’t have put up the kind of fight to deter or defeat the Germans.

“Too far in kowtowing?” Perhaps they didn’t push the absolute limit – but why? They were for all intents and purposes officially autonomous. Why should Stockholm have pressed its luck in an unusually tense situation? And don’t make the moral argument, because that’s bullshit. The politicans in Sweden weren’t sitting around worrying how Edi and Axis Kast would view them fifty years down the line when Hitler’s troops had already made the Baltic a personal lake.

The concept that some people find the things that are right and doing them gratifying, and more so than purely personal profit, is totally alien to you, but you've already made that abundantly clear. It's good, and it's the right thing to do, and those people like doing it for that reason because unlike you, they have some degree of empathy toward other human beings.

Certain human beings find certain activities gratifying. No nation has ever predicated foreign policy on that basis alone. If a nation makes a concession to an international criminal court or human rights activists for instance, it’s most likely – I’d venture always - an expression of acquiescence to civil pressures and domestic affairs rather than true moral backbone. You also forget that most countries tend to be extremely tolerant of human rights violations and immoral behavior until it appears at their doorstep and agitates anarchic tendencies. Kosovo is a perfect example. We didn’t see any meaningful action – outside banter, if it could be called that – until the Europeans finally agreed that they couldn’t risk the ethno-cleansing in the Balkans becoming a greater issue among their own constituents.

Why is all government not absolutely maximised cost-benefit? That fact alone destroys your argument. You argue for absolutely maxed out cost-benefit approach, dismissing anything other as fantasy, but it does not alter the fact that a hybrid moral/cost-benefit approach is possible, and is in fact quite widely practiced. You can take a look at Finland for example, if you want to see countries that practice it. Most other EU nations also qualify.

I imply that it is absolutely maximized cost-benefit. A hybrid moral/cost-benefit approach is possible but inherently flawed. You’d also do well to distinguish some examples of how this system would work in each given situation. I’m rather positive that he situations you’d take into account would be handled almost utterly identically under my own template.

So you’re arguing that Finland’s history of favoritism for human rights movements and general application to moral behavior is evidence of the moral/cost-benefit hybrid? I can make an equally strong argument that any Finn politician worth his salt is merely acquiescing to a population that experiences stress over certain situations – whether or not he or she personally believes in such opinions. And no, that’s not moral government, it’s simply realization of the cost-benefit analysis with a moral outcome. Just because human beings are predisposed to care doesn’t mean government upholds morality for morality’s sake. In this case – as with all others -, moral behavior is a tool by which Finn politicans maintain their buoyancy. The same was true of Vympel’s example regarding Germany’s arms sales.

I'm so glad you're such a fucking expert that you can come and tell me how many people my country could have spared. I'm quite sure that Marshal Mannerheim and the other leaders of Finland's defense would have been very keen to learn this information.

You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that Finland is and was also then a soverein nation and not a German puppet, and German troops would have been outright refused right of transit if they wanted to invade Sweden. Hitler demanded that Finland hand over its Jewish population, a demand made by Himmler on a state visit, and Mannerheim simply told him to fuck off. The only Jews who were handed over, were seven German citizens living in Finland at the time. Hitler also demanded we attack Leningrad. He was refused, again, something that shortened the war and spared the lives of a lot of Soviet citizens. Leningrad would have been dead if we had gone along. Good thing we didn't too, in retrospect, because we'd likely be in Estonia's position now, if we had independence in the first place.

I’ve provided evidence – even naming or numbering relevant divisions and fronts. Don’t take the high-handed, “How dare you accuse my people?” road with me. I’m not the one who’s trying to make an ad-hominem argument as part of his argument in the first place.

Bulgaria also attempted to shelter its Jews, as did Mussolini’s Italy. That does not necessarily mean that either were in a position to buck Hitler’s trends – especially after 1943.

So Mannerheim was able to tell Himmler, “No,” regarding Finland’s Jewish population. You also imply that he was able to pull Finnish troops from Leningrad. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t participate along the front and drain Soviet resources from that perspective. Finland put serious pressure on the Soviet flanks.

You also imply that Finland held back from Leningrad and could have obliged the capture of that city. That suggests that in their holding back they conserved or shifted certain forces in the same theater. Hence you’ve sunk your own boat. Finland could have obliged with at least some troops had they also acquiesced to the invasion of Sweden in the first place.

What evidence of self-moderation is there for cases where the power applying the cost-benefit analysis is strong enough to do as it fucking well pleases and hang the rest of the world? Oh, that's right, none!

The cost-benefit analysis considers the fact that blatantly aggressive behavior on a constant basis would be rather prohibitive from political and economic (as well as military, in most cases) perspectives. Just because a nation can enact certain policy doesn’t mean that it will. There’s still room for what you term “the moral road.” While a cost-benefit practitioner is inherently afforded the most options, that’s not to say at all that it’ll always chose the most repugnant. In Germany’s case, for example, human rights won a victory when Turkey was denied weapons sales. But that works from two different points of view. You intimate a moral victory. I intimate a natural concession by politicans to their respective constituencies.

You blithering idiot, does it escape your feeble comprehension that this selective approach causes everyone who cares about human rights to take more offense at US conduct in that regard than they normally would? There's some real good cost-benefit analysis for you... Fucking moron!

A cost-benefit analysis is not however always marked by poor or contemptible behavior, however much you’d like that to be otherwise. Strings of visible human rights abuses are therefore unlikely to occur.

You also seem to believe the United States doesn’t already act to its own benefit in all situations. That’s patently false.

[Vympel]

Limiting oneself only to legitimate trade and development is inherently disadvantageous. Those with the most resources automatically gain the most influence – and subsequently are able to infringe upon the national welfare (as well as security or outright autonomy) of their less-wealthy neighbors. Not to mention that placing self-imposed restrictions on the range of one’s own foreign policy tends to engender nothing but contempt and even worse transgression from the competition.

Got any evidence for these claims? Especially that acting morally will engender contempt? Hell, do you have any examples? There are plenty of nations that do not go around the world violently and oppressively imposing their will, and they're still around, and quite comfy.

The “supreme state” has been exemplified by the hegemonies or superpowers since the beginning of time. It is a functioning, factual ideal – whether or not you agree that status is worth fighting for.

It is not a functioning idea. Look at the most recent example of the fantasy, America's ludicrous 'national security strategy', which thinks that American superiority can be maintained indefinitely. The fall of America as a hegemon is only a matter of time, at some point, every hegemon the world has ever seen overstretches itself in its desperation to remain 'supreme', and dies (in a variety of ways, some less violent than others).

“Looking after people” implies maintaining both their safety and comfort. Each of these are optimized via the cost-benefit system. You simply refuse to look beyond a temporary period when the strong can afford to withdraw and throw caution to the wind.

No, I just totally disagree with the notion that one's own people are the only people who deserve safety and comfort.

Disadvantageous because those who eschew immoral or amoral activity have voluntarily imposed a moratorium on any action not inherently moral – including espionage, bribery, political intimidation – which you earlier supported in a broad form -, sabotage, and assassination. A state with the ability to do these things will progress in relative strength as compared to a state that does not practice such behavior.

As for international relations not being a game? That’s a terrible naive position.

Saying it's naive is not an argument. Again, who's keeping score?

Define “care.”

Is Norway competing with the US in order to become a supreme state?

Norway’s cost-benefit analysis runs toward independent profit. By extension, that implies a long-range goal of self-strengthening that would in theory one day permit Norway to surpass the United States if all advantages are pressed home. Unfortunately, Norway’s personal resources and potential for productive output pale in comparison to those of the American hyperpower. That does not however deter Norway’s policy-making from being any less true to the cost-benefit doctrine.

If you could make leaps in logic anymore massive, you could put on a cape and fight crime. There is no 'by extension' necessarily applied. I'm sure I could find rubbish like this in some turgid 'realpolitik' tome, but let's wait for the next quote:

Absolutely. Because that’s what they are. Even those with whom one aligns. Whether or not you believe yourself personally threatened is regardless.

You know that stating your position as fact isn't an argument. Your protestations without evidence to the side, it is ludicrous position to pretend that every nation on Earth is a rival with every other (though I'm sure realpoliticians, in their fevered masturbations about the supreme state), and that nations that do not go around imposing their will on others via immoral means (out of amoral reasoning) place themselves at risk.

Christian theology does not inherently approve of homosexuality and would therefore technically be bound to suppress its practice and expression assuming we’re being true to the scripture and/or majority interpretation.

Bullshit Christian sexual morality.

Certain fundamental strains of Islam (now held in esteem by tens of millions throughout the Middle and Far East) define morality in a far different light than the modern Western tradition.

There is far more to the “moral question” than, “Thou shalt not kill, steal, cheat, or lie.”

Those are some of the core ones. Religious bullshit tacks on the rest. That's why church/state seperation is a good thing.

Charity .... *snip*

Let's keep it short. No need to get defensive. We all know your amorality.

Again, you’ve a very limited interpretation of the question.

Not being “top dog” implies that unwelcome outside factors are influencing and guiding your nation’s hand moreso than would otherwise be the case. We must always accept “turbulence” from others, though it is most easily dealt with when we are in the position of supreme power. Falling from the position of “top dog” is a dangerous precursor to future intimidation or even imposition.

Only one nation is the top dog in the world. That being the case, there are hundreds of others that aren't, and of them, a sizeable portion who tell the top dog to shove it's wishes up its ass on a regular basis. Saying that not being 'top dog' is a precursor to intimidation and imposition is nothing but a big fat slippery slope fallacy.

Absolutely. But that’s not to say any nation doesn’t – because they do. Espionage, sabotage, assassination, intimidation ,bribery, etc. All are excellent examples. You must also keep in mind that amoral and immoral behavior is discouraged by the United Nations – which few constituencies, governments, or nation-states can afford to profitably contravene.

*Every* nation goes around assisting the oppression of others? When was the last time Denmark tried that?

Incorrect. Morality for morality’s sake

Gobbledygook. A system of morality is as valuable as the results it promotes. This is a red herring, not to mention incomprehensible nonsense.

is not necessarily accommodated in the cost-benefit system.

That final statement – about amorality being inherently more profitable than morality – is true only from a certain point of view. You’ll find that definitions change. Doctrine is flexible, as are objectives. The definition of “profit” and the goals of “self-empowerment” change, for instance, when one switches from the international to the domestic.

That's artificial excuse making, predicated on the presumption that only one's own people deserve safety/comfort/freedom from repression.

And what does this have to do with the argument that the cost-benefit system has self-moderating tendancies?

You said that the cost-benefit analysis is self-moderating because it provides "a certain degree of moral guidance or humanitarian assistance ... we generally apply this only to nations with which we enjoy important relations"

Your words.

The United States points to the human rights violations because it wishes to curry favor with others and prevent certain parties from taking offense at its support for Ankara and Tel Aviv. Cost-benefit. It speaks peace from one side of its mouth and quotes purchase offers with the other.

I know. Got nothing to do with self-moderating, an obviously false claim.

Letting it happen is not the same as wanting it to happen. You permit unwelcome transgressions to occur, but not necessarily because you want them to. More because you are largely powerless to intervene and achieve the desired result.

The huge majority of Germans did not gather together and request or even suggest that Jews by slaughtered. That they couldn’t stop it – or permitted it – doesn’t have anything to do with what they necessarily felt about it.

They willingly took part in the destruction of the Jewish people as part of German society. From there, it's pretty much hair splitting to suggest that on the issue of genocide they were opposed to it, or even felt that bad about it.

Because moral considerations fall within the domestic cost-benefit analysis. People feel most comfortable in societies that do not practice repression. When a general population feels comfortable, anarchic factors – demonstrations, malcontent, etc. – decrease. Thus, we see the value of the cost-benefit analysis on the domestic level.

Everybody’s got a moral compass, but that doesn’t mean that amoral behavior isn’t profitable or attractive – especially on the international level.

Profitable/attractive to the *few*, not the whole. That's my problem with it.

I’m Jewish, but ironically, I had Lutheran German family drafted into the German army. Am I ashamed of them? No.

Did they do anything morally repugnant?

Keep in mind that the same Germans who lived during the war were still around to advocate Ostpolitik. These are the same Germans that established the mindset about which I speak.

You're suggesting that Germans are a homogenous group?

Once more, the point is that Russian and Syrian weaponry was reportedly located in Iraq.

Wrong. It was a vague claim made without evidence, and the media, in its inimitable fashion, picked Kornet-E as the weapon, simply because *two* Abrams had been knocked out by Iraqis in pick up trucks toting RPGs. They couldn't even decide what weapon it was. First it was a 'wire guided' missile that they called the Kornet (wrong), then it was an RPG. Hell, it may well have been the many other ATGM kinds Iraq already had in inventory.

Russian generals are rumored to have traveled to Baghdad just before the war.

Yes, I've heard that rumor.

We know the French illegally sold Hussein spares for combat aircraft in January 2003.

The French government, or a private French company? Keep in mind that American defense contractors sold China military secrets throughout the 1990s. That doesn't mean the government did it.

We know that the Syrians didn’t crack down effectively on the movement of irregulars across their common border with Iraq.

No, because the border is impossible to close completely. This was a point brought up on the news about Syria turning away Iraqis trying to get in- if they went along the roads, yes, but the entire border isn't patrolled.

We know that Turkish special forces infiltrated Iraq for the sake of stirring up trouble. Amoral results of cost-benefit analysis.

Is that what we're talking about? I was contending the factuality of the Kornet claim, which is zero.

But Germany could have more easily afforded (even if on the ropes) a sudden invasion of Sweden than a continuation of even more distant – and more strenuous – activities on other fronts.

Are you now attempting to argue that Germany would have merely “given up” had Sweden turned them down?

No, but the war would've been over a helluva lot quicker.

See, Axis satellites.

As Edi already pointed out, Finland was not a lapdog of the Third Reich.

Allied resistance? With what equipment? With which troops? And in what year?

If we’re already in 1942, the invasion would have been kicked off to the exclusion of the campaign in North Africa and Operation Barbarossa. If we’re in 1941, the invasion would have meant putting the Russian venture on hold. If we’re in 1940, it’s a natural outgrowth of the second blitzkrieg.

You seem to be implying that Germany would simply have stopped had Sweden closed the door. Is that the crux of your argument?

No, the crux is that Sweden was holding a big warner brothers anvil over the third reich's head and didn't drop it. It was pure cowardice that cost millions of lives.

[Edi]

Finland was deploying a pair of armies (Karelia and Southeast) in the Soviet Union c. July 1941. A pair of corps (I and IV both) were threatening the line across Beloostrov and up to Lake Lagoda until 1943. That’s exclusive of any Home Guard formations – which would probably have been the units deployed earliest against Sweden – within Finland itself rather than on the offense against Soviet forces.

As with Germany, Finland could – for a time at least – have supported action against the Swedes from a material perspective.

A very limited time, but that would have meant cutting our own throat, had such events come to pass.

“No fucking way?” All right then. I never predicated anything more than an understrength division anyway. The loss of the Finns wouldn’t necessarily have amounted to anything but slightly increased hardship for the German Army. And that’s to say nothing of Hitler’s taking advantage of Finland’s geographic location anyway.

What do you mean? I suppose the Germans in northern Finland could have moved against Sweden, but they had other objectives in the east, in the direction of Murmansk. Hitler did take advantage of Finland's location for the duration of the war, we provided him with a willing non-German front against the Soviets from 1939 to 1944, because the Soviet Union decided to attack us. If it had not, Finland would have stayed out of the war entirely.

You mean just as they weren’t able to invader and eventually transport ten divisions to Norway? Or move a pair of fronts to Finland?

As I recall, the invasion of Norway was rather uncontested on the seas, and it's within spitting distance of German ports anyway. The troops moving to Finland didn't come all at once, and again, they were moving in uncontested waters.

Finland’s success during the Winter War was predicated largely upon Soviet inefficiency. While I grant Mannerheim’s mettle much consideration – and accolade -, it was in the end Stalin’s purges that became your greatest source of strength. The outcome would never have been nearly as favorable for your country had the Soviets actually put forward a foot similar to that of Germany between 1940 and ’42.

I freely admit that Stalin's political paranoia purges indeed played a decisive role in denying effective leadership to the troops sent against Finland, but that was by no means the only factor. The Soviets didn't have anything up to German quality at that time, so your point is rather academic in that sense. I did acknowledge that the German army was far superior at that time, and that it would of necessity factor into the debate here.

Mines make seaborne invasion difficult – not impossible. There’s still the Norwegian link as well as the Finn.

The Finnish invasion route would not have been available. Germany needed Finland pretty badly, and demanding the right of using our territory to attack Sweden would have been a sure way to alienate us to a great extent. From Norway, yes, but that's the most difficult route to invade Sweden because of the geography.

I’m sitting right here with a map of the Baltic (including minefields). While you’re correct in arguing that the Finns and Soviets saturated the area beforehand – many Soviet mines were later responsible for losses on both sides -, Sweden couldn’t have blocked a seaborne invasion entirely without at least significant preparation beforehand.

That's a given, they have a fucking huge amount coastline. That's why I specifically stated they'd have needed to prepare, and if they were going to stiff the Germans in the ore issue, they would have had to.

And, after all, what exactly does mining open waters by which Germany supplies troops around Leningrad imply? Never mind that even had Sweden closed the Baltic they’d have been unable to mine the entire coast without infringing directly upon German territorial waters in the first place.

Swedes could have mined large amounts of coastline without cutting off the supply route to Leningrad. The southern coastal area and Kattegat are the most problematic areas in that respect, something I'm hardly going to argue.

Sweden would have fallen inside six months almost for certain. Partisan activity would have been pronounced, but despite the merits of their regular military, the Swedes simply couldn’t have put up the kind of fight to deter or defeat the Germans.

No, not defeat, I'm not fool enough to suggest that, but make it far more costly time and material wise for the Germans than your initial prediction seemed to indicate.

“Too far in kowtowing?” Perhaps they didn’t push the absolute limit – but why? They were for all intents and purposes officially autonomous. Why should Stockholm have pressed its luck in an unusually tense situation? And don’t make the moral argument, because that’s bullshit. The politicans in Sweden weren’t sitting around worrying how Edi and Axis Kast would view them fifty years down the line when Hitler’s troops had already made the Baltic a personal lake.

I know they weren't considering what we'd say about it afterward, but what I meant is that some business interests in Sweden were a little enthusiastic in providing that material to the Germans. The Swedes as a nation did as they had to.

Certain human beings find certain activities gratifying. No nation has ever predicated foreign policy on that basis alone. If a nation makes a concession to an international criminal court or human rights activists for instance, it’s most likely – I’d venture always - an expression of acquiescence to civil pressures and domestic affairs rather than true moral backbone. You also forget that most countries tend to be extremely tolerant of human rights violations and immoral behavior until it appears at their doorstep and agitates anarchic tendencies. Kosovo is a perfect example. We didn’t see any meaningful action – outside banter, if it could be called that – until the Europeans finally agreed that they couldn’t risk the ethno-cleansing in the Balkans becoming a greater issue among their own constituents.

The heel-dragging around Kosovo (and Bosnia before that) was considered an outrage rather universally here. The problem with military deployment of European forces is that virtually all of the European militaries outside the British one are feared toward defense of their own territory, not force projection outside it, and the Balkans are not the easiest of terrains. I can't really speak for other countries, but Finland is not tolerant of human rights abuses if we can do something about it. Being as small as we are, our voice doesn't carry all that much weight if it comes to a confrontation.

Why is all government not absolutely maximised cost-benefit? That fact alone destroys your argument. You argue for absolutely maxed out cost-benefit approach, dismissing anything other as fantasy, but it does not alter the fact that a hybrid moral/cost-benefit approach is possible, and is in fact quite widely practiced. You can take a look at Finland for example, if you want to see countries that practice it. Most other EU nations also qualify.

I imply that it is absolutely maximized cost-benefit. A hybrid moral/cost-benefit approach is possible but inherently flawed. You’d also do well to distinguish some examples of how this system would work in each given situation. I’m rather positive that he situations you’d take into account would be handled almost utterly identically under my own template.

So you’re arguing that Finland’s history of favoritism for human rights movements and general application to moral behavior is evidence of the moral/cost-benefit hybrid? I can make an equally strong argument that any Finn politician worth his salt is merely acquiescing to a population that experiences stress over certain situations – whether or not he or she personally believes in such opinions. And no, that’s not moral government, it’s simply realization of the cost-benefit analysis with a moral outcome. Just because human beings are predisposed to care doesn’t mean government upholds morality for morality’s sake. In this case – as with all others -, moral behavior is a tool by which Finn politicans maintain their buoyancy. The same was true of Vympel’s example regarding Germany’s arms sales.

I'm so glad you're such a fucking expert that you can come and tell me how many people my country could have spared. I'm quite sure that Marshal Mannerheim and the other leaders of Finland's defense would have been very keen to learn this information.

You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that Finland is and was also then a soverein nation and not a German puppet, and German troops would have been outright refused right of transit if they wanted to invade Sweden. Hitler demanded that Finland hand over its Jewish population, a demand made by Himmler on a state visit, and Mannerheim simply told him to fuck off. The only Jews who were handed over, were seven German citizens living in Finland at the time. Hitler also demanded we attack Leningrad. He was refused, again, something that shortened the war and spared the lives of a lot of Soviet citizens. Leningrad would have been dead if we had gone along. Good thing we didn't too, in retrospect, because we'd likely be in Estonia's position now, if we had independence in the first place.

I’ve provided evidence – even naming or numbering relevant divisions and fronts. Don’t take the high-handed, “How dare you accuse my people?” road with me. I’m not the one who’s trying to make an ad-hominem argument as part of his argument in the first place.

Yes, you named a couple of divisions, conveniently ignoring what the consequences of sending them off to the ass end of Finland from the combat zone would have been to the developments of the war. Remember, Finland was not out for an outright war of conquest, but to defend its own territories. The aspirations for a Greater Finland that would have incorporated a rather big tract of Soviet Karelia was not shared by the populace at large. It's hardly an ad hominem to point out that there your argument is not sound, and you made it in a highly offensive way, so don't start crying about being insulted for it. You all but called my people Nazi Germany's puppets, and if that doesn't warrant severe insults in return, I don't know what does.

Bulgaria also attempted to shelter its Jews, as did Mussolini’s Italy. That does not necessarily mean that either were in a position to buck Hitler’s trends – especially after 1943.

No, they weren't in such a position, but we are not talking about Bulgaria and Italy, so I'm going to ignore this red herring.

So Mannerheim was able to tell Himmler, “No,” regarding Finland’s Jewish population. You also imply that he was able to pull Finnish troops from Leningrad. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t participate along the front and drain Soviet resources from that perspective. Finland put serious pressure on the Soviet flanks.

Your argument might be convincing if Finnish troops had participated in the attack on Lenigrad in the first place, which they did not. Of course Finland put serious pressure on the Soviet flanks, especially north of Lake Ladoga, but that was ultimately the Soviet Union's own doing. When you attack someone, they tend to respond, and they just caught the backlash for what they did in 1939-40. If it inconvenienced their defense of Leningrad, that's just too bad.

You also imply that Finland held back from Leningrad and could have obliged the capture of that city. That suggests that in their holding back they conserved or shifted certain forces in the same theater. Hence you’ve sunk your own boat. Finland could have obliged with at least some troops had they also acquiesced to the invasion of Sweden in the first place.

What, the Isthmus theater? Sorry, but it still does not work. Troops were indeed shifted from the Isthmus theater, iirc, but they went to the Karelian army, which needed those troops. Sending troops a 1000 km away to the north would have put them out of operating radius if there was a quick need to transfer them back (as later happened). Besides, helping invade Sweden would have cut us off from vital supplies, spelling our own doom, and was thus not a viable option anyway.

The cost-benefit analysis considers the fact that blatantly aggressive behavior on a constant basis would be rather prohibitive from political and economic (as well as military, in most cases) perspectives. Just because a nation can enact certain policy doesn’t mean that it will. There’s still room for what you term “the moral road.” While a cost-benefit practitioner is inherently afforded the most options, that’s not to say at all that it’ll always chose the most repugnant. In Germany’s case, for example, human rights won a victory when Turkey was denied weapons sales. But that works from two different points of view. You intimate a moral victory. I intimate a natural concession by politicans to their respective constituencies.

Yes, you do, but you act as if moral considerations never enter into the equation in politics, when they in fact do. Those people are people like the rest of us, and most of them have something of a moral code they live by. They might not be able to accommodate it in full when making decisions, but to the extent they can, they do it, and when that's the case with the people making the decisions that matter, you are no longer operating only on a cost-benefit analysis base.

You blithering idiot, does it escape your feeble comprehension that this selective approach causes everyone who cares about human rights to take more offense at US conduct in that regard than they normally would? There's some real good cost-benefit analysis for you... Fucking moron!

A cost-benefit analysis is not however always marked by poor or contemptible behavior, however much you’d like that to be otherwise. Strings of visible human rights abuses are therefore unlikely to occur.

Don't try to change the subject. Nobody was ever arguing that the cost-benefit analysis will only result in contemptible behavior, but that it allows it when this is clearly not acceptable to decent people. Besides, with regard to human rights abuses, the original quote was:

The United States points to the human rights violations because it wishes to curry favor with others and prevent certain parties from taking offense at its support for Ankara and Tel Aviv. Cost-benefit. It speaks peace from one side of its mouth and quotes purchase offers with the other.

The fact that the US actively condones visible human rights abuses by its allies (e.g. Israel and Turkey, and it has even tried to pressure the EU to accept Turkey despite those violations) while condemning them elsewhere actually cops it even more flak than usual from those who care about human rights and offends them even more, so there is no visible cost-benefit at all. In China's case, yes, that might be the case, but there is no visible gain for supporting Israel, and a clearly visible gain in stopping to do so, or at least pressuring them to cease in their violations of human rights. This also torpedoes your argument about visible human rights abuses not being likely to occur. They already do, so your argument is worthless.

You also seem to believe the United States doesn’t already act to its own benefit in all situations. That’s patently false.

Only in your imagination do I believe that. In fact, I have often recognized publicly the fact that it is no surprise at all that the US tends to have a habit of not giving a fuck about what happens to the people of other nations if American interests are at play, and I have also said that it is not morally acceptable. You can stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Edi

[Edi]

Aargh! the quoting format is fucked up due to some mistake someplace in my post.
My apologies for that.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

There are plenty of nations that do not go around the world violently and oppressively imposing their will, and they're still around, and quite comfy.

You seem to misunderstand that cost-benefit politics doesn’t lead direction to imperialism.

You imply that moral government would seek to impose limitations on political-economic subterfuge and other intelligence-related activity. Don’t tell me you mean to suggest that others will take this as a show of good will and reciprocate?

It is not a functioning idea. Look at the most recent example of the fantasy, America's ludicrous 'national security strategy', which thinks that American superiority can be maintained indefinitely. The fall of America as a hegemon is only a matter of time, at some point, every hegemon the world has ever seen overstretches itself in its desperation to remain 'supreme', and dies (in a variety of ways, some less violent than others).

So nations should make absolutely no concession to national security because hegemony cannot – as a matter of course and logic – be indefinite? America’s strategy aims toward extension of its hyperpower into the future. Just because human beings and their constructs inherently dissemble doesn’t mean we should resign ourselves to a careless existence. Never mind that in our attempt to prosecute what you term as universal hegemony that American government is eliminating as many potential threats as possible. Some, I remind you, would have remained – or will remain - dangerous whether or not the United States continues enjoying superpower status.

Just because universal, indefinite monarchy is a logical fallacy doesn’t justify your argument that the factual ideal of the “supreme state” is non-existent. Or do you deny that the United States is currently a hyperpower whose every move sets off reverberations in all corners of the globe?

No, I just totally disagree with the notion that one's own people are the only people who deserve safety and comfort.[/quote[

It isn’t about deserving. Nobody deserves anything. That’s a fantastic (and illogical) notion held over from the Enlightenment. It’s based entirely on appeal to emotion – and only appeal to emotion. Acquiescing to somebody’s else’s “deserved” status is inherently contradictory to the competitive tendencies of the natural human being.

Saying it's naive is not an argument. Again, who's keeping score?

Of course it’s valid. You’ve acknowledged clear deficiencies in your own argument. The moral system of government is inherently unable to challenge certain situations (such as those involving national security) outside the cost-benefit analysis. To accuse you of naïveté is to point out that your entire proposal is predicated on the whole world agreeing with your position and respecting your sanctity.

It’s not about who’s keeping score. It’s about the fact that everybody’s trying to put themselves on top.

I’ll add more later this afternoon – I’ve got class at the moment.

[Axis Kast]

Is Norway competing with the US in order to become a supreme state?

Yes. Norwegian government is inherently interested with the progress of the Norwegian nation. A competent government in Norway would of course seek to improve the economic, political, social, and martial standing of their state. For all intents and purposes, that places in direct competition with all other nations, each of which are correspondingly pursuing their own agendas. Now whether or not Norway can compete with the United States is beside the point. The answer to your question is yes, Norway is competing with the United States, if not aggressively. And that’s whether or not it could ever hope to surpass America.

If you could make leaps in logic anymore massive, you could put on a cape and fight crime.

So now you’re making the argument that Norway’s objective is not self-strengthening? Because if it were, that would translate to proportionate gains in comparison to the United States. The opposition is not necessarily unfriendly or militarily active.

You know that stating your position as fact isn't an argument. Your protestations without evidence to the side, it is ludicrous position to pretend that every nation on Earth is a rival with every other (though I'm sure realpoliticians, in their fevered masturbations about the supreme state), and that nations that do not go around imposing their will on others via immoral means (out of amoral reasoning) place themselves at risk.

It’s not my position. It’s fact. Or do you deny that Norwegian government is predicated for Norway’s benefit?

So it is ludicrous to suggest that every nation on the planet - divided by global, social, financial, political, and ideological strains of every shape and form -, is in direct competition for markets, influence, and ultimately dominance? Interesting that you continually pass off the cost-benefit analysis as having necessarily to do with military expansion or active repression. Again, did it ever occur to you that the imposition of one state’s will or way of life upon another is not necessarily a violent affair? Achievement of the status of “supreme state” does not imply a global offensive of imperial conquest. The United States for instance influences events in Brazil and Australia on a daily basis. That’s representative of our hyperpower status. At what time did our troops land on either country’s soil and raise the Stars and Stripes?

Nations that practice moral government and fail to approach all issues on the cost-benefit basis place themselves inherently at risk. A nation practicing moral government should in your opinion cease all immoral activity – sabotage, espionage, intelligence gathering – at once. But that doesn’t mean their rivals will in fact commit themselves to the same opinions and render the same determinations. It thus allows the playing field to level – or tilt – in their favor. The crux of the argument is that they’re still supporting the destabilization of your state while you’ve abandoned enacting similar policies against them. They increase in strength while you decrease. Risk.

Bullshit Christian sexual morality.

Are you implying that to uphold other ideals and suppress that prejudice would be the most attractive route?

Never mind that morality extends beyond “bullshit Christian sexual” issues. How will you deal with the Biblical notion of “an eye for an eye?” With historical Judeo-Christian (or even Muslim) interpretations of non-chattel slavery? You assume there will be a moral consensus. That imposition of certain positions or outlooks will be unnecessary. That’s patently false. The cost-benefit analysis at the very least acknowledges different mindsets or cultural positions in the decision-making process. You fail to do so.

Those are some of the core ones. Religious bullshit tacks on the rest. That's why church/state seperation is a good thing.

Again, what makes you think each of your morals will be amenable to others without compellation – by force? “Religious bullshit?” So now we’re dismissing the impact of the religious community on practical government?

Let's keep it short. No need to get defensive. We all know your amorality.

Ad-hominem. Your opinion of me has nothing to do with the value of my argument.

Only one nation is the top dog in the world. That being the case, there are hundreds of others that aren't, and of them, a sizeable portion who tell the top dog to shove it's wishes up its ass on a regular basis. Saying that not being 'top dog' is a precursor to intimidation and imposition is nothing but a big fat slippery slope fallacy.

Fallacy? No. Or do you deny that the United States, through all its movements and decisions, impacts the rest of the world on a major basis? Our influence in this time of hyperpower has reached the historical apex. There is no nation on Earth able to ignore American policy.

You also continue to intimate that the cost-benefit analysis is useful only to those in the “top dog” position. That’s patently false. It’s an inherently competitive form of government. It leaves room for “safe” or at the very least “informed” opposition.

Every* nation goes around assisting the oppression of others? When was the last time Denmark tried that?

Denmark has an export industry, no? They possess an intelligence service, yes?

Gobbledygook. A system of morality is as valuable as the results it promotes. This is a red herring, not to mention incomprehensible nonsense.

Bullshit. You argue that moral government is attractive because it fits in with your personal preference to the Enlightenment concepts of “right.” I argue that morals are only useful as tools. You are essentially promoting morality for morality’s sake – that is, “proper” or “cultivated” and “compassionate” behavior because it’s “most humane,” not most useful.

That's artificial excuse making, predicated on the presumption that only one's own people deserve safety/comfort/freedom from repression.

Incorrect. Now you’re demanding I agree with you or my argument suffer a loss of validity. The truth of the matter is that being “deserving” means nothing. Being “empowered” or in a position to “empower” is all that matters.

Since when does the cost-benefit analysis lose usefulness as a result of being designed for the improvement of one specific group or collective over all others?

Why should I take you personally into account? Because it’s “right?” Well, you have it right there, folks. Morality for morality’s sake. Concession accepted.

You said that the cost-benefit analysis is self-moderating because it provides “a certain degree of moral guidance or humanitarian assistance … we generally apply this only to nations with which we enjoy important relations”

Your words.

Yes. Your argument?

I know. Got nothing to do with self-moderating, an obviously false claim.

Absolutely to do with self-moderating. You continue to imply that the cost-benefit analysis only supports oppressive, immoral behavior. That’s false. It accommodates all forms of behavior – including that of the amoral and moral sort.

They willingly took part in the destruction of the Jewish people as part of German society. From there, it's pretty much hair splitting to suggest that on the issue of genocide they were opposed to it, or even felt that bad about it.

Taking part does not imply approval or personal hurt. That’s the absolute largest crock of bullshit I’ve ever heard.

You oppose the war in Iraq because you believe it’s immoral. But your government supports it. Are you this personally responsible for John Howard’s – and thus your country’s - behavior? No.

Profitable/attractive to the *few*, not the whole. That's my problem with it.

It’s useful for the whole. Any practitioner is immediately put into the best position possible. The Norwegian example stands out. They might not be able to triumph, but it’s their best realistic option.

Did they do anything morally repugnant?

Because one particular family member was German, he was probably drafted into the Gestapo or SS. That implies he might have received orders to kill Jews or other “undesirables.” But the alternative to obedience was being shot himself – or worse, having his family pay the price for “political unreliability.”

You're suggesting that Germans are a homogenous group?

I’m suggesting that in order to become a “national mindset,” it had to be embraced by a large majority.

Wrong. It was a vague claim made without evidence, and the media, in its inimitable fashion, picked Kornet-E as the weapon, simply because *two* Abrams had been knocked out by Iraqis in pick up trucks toting RPGs. They couldn't even decide what weapon it was. First it was a 'wire guided' missile that they called the Kornet (wrong), then it was an RPG. Hell, it may well have been the many other ATGM kinds Iraq already had in inventory.

And you believe absolutely that there was no Russian involvement of any questionable type in Iraq? Or did it escape you that Putin was negotiating with Hussein mere months before the invasion began?

The French government, or a private French company? Keep in mind that American defense contractors sold China military secrets throughout the 1990s. That doesn't mean the government did it.

The French and Russians generally monitor arms sales more heavily than their American counterparts. Most sales are subject to government oversight. I believe that was the case in the French situation, and given that Russian laws are even more detailed, probably in that situation as well.

No, because the border is impossible to close completely. This was a point brought up on the news about Syria turning away Iraqis trying to get in- if they went along the roads, yes, but the entire border isn't patrolled.

Well that’s a blanket excuse if ever I heard one. “The Syrians tried so hard! Thousands of people just got past – with Syrian papers!”

Is that what we're talking about? I was contending the factuality of the Kornet claim, which is zero

We’re talking about application of the cost-benefit system in today’s world.

No, but the war would've been over a helluva lot quicker.

At what cost to the Swedes? You expect that they should sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the rest of the world? That’s hardly reasonable. It’s also indicative of your inability to recognize certain self-serving traits in the human being.

As Edi already pointed out, Finland was not a lapdog of the Third Reich.

Finland might have been the least-compliant member of the Axis satellite network, but that hardly means Berlin was regularly denied. Remember, most Axis allies regularly rebuffed Hitler’s demand that they kill Jews. Mussolini, Antonescu, and the Bulgarian leadership to name just a few.

No, the crux is that Sweden was holding a big warner brothers anvil over the third reich's head and didn't drop it. It was pure cowardice that cost millions of lives.

Millions of foreign lives – in return for hundreds of thousands of Sweden’s own sons and daughters. It’s an irrational, unrealistic analysis of the situation – with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and a strong dose of fantastic moral leanings.

A very limited time, but that would have meant cutting our own throat, had such events come to pass.

Wouldn’t it have meant doing so – and much more certainly – if otherwise? After all, who’s to say the Soviets would have stopped along with the Swedish shipments of iron ore?

What do you mean? I suppose the Germans in northern Finland could have moved against Sweden, but they had other objectives in the east, in the direction of Murmansk. Hitler did take advantage of Finland's location for the duration of the war, we provided him with a willing non-German front against the Soviets from 1939 to 1944, because the Soviet Union decided to attack us. If it had not, Finland would have stayed out of the war entirely.

Red herring. Sweden takes priority over all other objectives – even those in Russia. It’s impossible to fight without that ore.

As I recall, the invasion of Norway was rather uncontested on the seas, and it's within spitting distance of German ports anyway. The troops moving to Finland didn't come all at once, and again, they were moving in uncontested waters.

Germany was occupying Denmark. Sweden was even less of a jump across the Baltic than Norway. You’re also forgetting that even if the Baltic were closed, transporting thousands of men through Norway would still have been possible. Not to mention that mining is dangerous and uncertain in the first place. This doesn’t even take into account the Finnish route – which would have inherently been open (assuming you still wanted to preserve independence from the Soviets).

The Finnish invasion route would not have been available. Germany needed Finland pretty badly, and demanding the right of using our territory to attack Sweden would have been a sure way to alienate us to a great extent. From Norway, yes, but that's the most difficult route to invade Sweden because of the geography.

Swedish mines – assuming they were laid properly and well in advantage, without Germany detection or suspicion – could have wrecked significant damage, but not ultimately prevented seaborne invasion anyway. You’re also assuming Hitler wouldn’t have slackened support for Finland by relegating troops to other fronts in a rage at being turned down over Sweden – as he would have been prone to do.

Swedes could have mined large amounts of coastline without cutting off the supply route to Leningrad. The southern coastal area and Kattegat are the most problematic areas in that respect, something I'm hardly going to argue.

And western Swedish shores?

No, not defeat, I'm not fool enough to suggest that, but make it far more costly time and material wise for the Germans than your initial prediction seemed to indicate.

Sweden shouldn’t be any more costly a conquest than France or European Russia. Merely more time-consuming – if the Swedes perform “up to snuff” in the first place. I agree that victory wouldn’t be immediate, but I’m also uncertain of a very lengthy campaign.

I know they weren't considering what we'd say about it afterward, but what I meant is that some business interests in Sweden were a little enthusiastic in providing that material to the Germans. The Swedes as a nation did as they had to.

If I were a Swedish business owner, I’d be enthusiastic too. It’s profit.

The heel-dragging around Kosovo (and Bosnia before that) was considered an outrage rather universally here. The problem with military deployment of European forces is that virtually all of the European militaries outside the British one are feared toward defense of their own territory, not force projection outside it, and the Balkans are not the easiest of terrains. I can't really speak for other countries, but Finland is not tolerant of human rights abuses if we can do something about it. Being as small as we are, our voice doesn't carry all that much weight if it comes to a confrontation.

Finland is intolerant of human rights abuses because of a large population of voters who favor the “moral” approach. Acknowledging the realities of government, certain politicians must inherently make concessions to their constituents. But even that can be shoved aside in case of international cost-benefit issues. See Denmark’s forced suppression of protestors against the Chinese in 1997.

Yes, you named a couple of divisions, conveniently ignoring what the consequences of sending them off to the ass end of Finland from the combat zone would have been to the developments of the war. Remember, Finland was not out for an outright war of conquest, but to defend its own territories. The aspirations for a Greater Finland that would have incorporated a rather big tract of Soviet Karelia was not shared by the populace at large. It's hardly an ad hominem to point out that there your argument is not sound, and you made it in a highly offensive way, so don't start crying about being insulted for it. You all but called my people Nazi Germany's puppets, and if that doesn't warrant severe insults in return, I don't know what does.

A few brigades? It’s a case of “choose your poison.” Either you pull some units from fighting the Soviets – and you implied that enough could have been spared to take Leningrad – or risk not being able to fight at all if Swedish exports don’t resume.

I’m not the one launching all the ad-hominem arguments. The fact of the matter is that Finland was under the German thumb. Joining Hitler on the basis of wanting to restore old territorial claims is one thing, but he was still Hitler. Acknowledge that your nation has done some things that were at least morally questionable.

No, they weren't in such a position, but we are not talking about Bulgaria and Italy, so I'm going to ignore this red herring.

Of course it’s relevant. Finland wasn’t the only one denying the Germans full compliance.

Your argument might be convincing if Finnish troops had participated in the attack on Lenigrad in the first place, which they did not. Of course Finland put serious pressure on the Soviet flanks, especially north of Lake Ladoga, but that was ultimately the Soviet Union's own doing. When you attack someone, they tend to respond, and they just caught the backlash for what they did in 1939-40. If it inconvenienced their defense of Leningrad, that's just too bad.

Pressure on the flanks makes the German drive all that much easier.

What, the Isthmus theater? Sorry, but it still does not work. Troops were indeed shifted from the Isthmus theater, iirc, but they went to the Karelian army, which needed those troops. Sending troops a 1000 km away to the north would have put them out of operating radius if there was a quick need to transfer them back (as later happened). Besides, helping invade Sweden would have cut us off from vital supplies, spelling our own doom, and was thus not a viable option anyway

Swedish exports would not certainly have been available. Never mind that it’s German’s opinion that really makes all the difference here.

Again, class. More shortly.

[Axis Kast]

What, the Isthmus theater? Sorry, but it still does not work. Troops were indeed shifted from the Isthmus theater, iirc, but they went to the Karelian army, which needed those troops. Sending troops a 1000 km away to the north would have put them out of operating radius if there was a quick need to transfer them back (as later happened). Besides, helping invade Sweden would have cut us off from vital supplies, spelling our own doom, and was thus not a viable option anyway.

Then how could you credibly make the claim that Finns could have feasibly signed Leningrad’s death warrant? Besides – we’re talking about a handful of brigades; Home Guard units if necessary.

Had Germany chosen to invade Sweden, Finland wouldn’t exactly have been in a grand old position either.

Yes, you do, but you act as if moral considerations never enter into the equation in politics, when they in fact do. Those people are people like the rest of us, and most of them have something of a moral code they live by. They might not be able to accommodate it in full when making decisions, but to the extent they can, they do it, and when that's the case with the people making the decisions that matter, you are no longer operating only on a cost-benefit analysis base.

Moral dilemmas of course enter into politics. That does not imply one should govern on a moral basis. You also ignore the fact that politicians regularly ignore moral compunction – French ties to the Iraqi government in January, for instance. When nations follow a specifically moral path it is always for the sake of profit elsewhere. Morality as a tool, if you will. Never do we see moral government for its own sake.

The fact that the US actively condones visible human rights abuses by its allies (e.g. Israel and Turkey, and it has even tried to pressure the EU to accept Turkey despite those violations) while condemning them elsewhere actually cops it even more flak than usual from those who care about human rights and offends them even more, so there is no visible cost-benefit at all. In China's case, yes, that might be the case, but there is no visible gain for supporting Israel, and a clearly visible gain in stopping to do so, or at least pressuring them to cease in their violations of human rights. This also torpedoes your argument about visible human rights abuses not being likely to occur. They already do, so your argument is worthless.

Flak from the human rights advocates is almost never comparable to the benefit of shielding Israel or others from retaliation by the United Nations.

No visible gain for supporting Israel over the long term? How about a key ally in the intelligence community and a useful proxy with which to compromise Arab opponents such as Syria or test front-line weapons at someone else’s expense?

Strings of visible human rights abuses on the scale of mass murder. Vympel was earlier attempting to imply that a cost-benefit analysis would likely result in horrific slaughter of the disabled.

Are you also implying that we should seek more uniformity in our condemnations in order to engender popularity for the American nation from a moral perspective? You seem to ignore that America hardly stands alone in these respects.

Only in your imagination do I believe that. In fact, I have often recognized publicly the fact that it is no surprise at all that the US tends to have a habit of not giving a fuck about what happens to the people of other nations if American interests are at play, and I have also said that it is not morally acceptable. You can stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Immoral but not unjustifiable.

[Oberleutnant]

I’m not the one launching all the ad-hominem arguments. The fact of the matter is that Finland was under the German thumb. Joining Hitler on the basis of wanting to restore old territorial claims is one thing, but he was
still Hitler. Acknowledge that your nation has done some things that were at least morally questionable.

What should have we done? The Moscow peace treaty signed in March 1940 did not magically change Soviet Union's expansionist policy towards Finland. Our midget nation was still an open wound, and Stalin had plans to resolve the situation by attacking Finland later in the summer 1940. Soviet airplanes routinely violated Finnish airspace and even shot down a Finnish civilian airplane over Baltic Sea.

Fortunately our government and military recognised the threat of possible Soviet invasion and began to immediately act. New equipment was bought from various countries and rangers were sent behind the Soviet border for intelligence gathering missions. One problem still remained: Finland was practically isolated from outside help. The Baltic countries and Norway were occupied, Allied powers were not greatly interested of helping Finland and Sweden was too fearful of Germany.

However, there was Germany who was willing to sell Finland top-quality military equipment and trade Petsamo nickel for food. In the summer 1940 Hitler had quite clearly stated to Molotov, the Soviet foreign minister that he would not let Soviets to attack Finland. The Finnish-German co-operation that had flourished couple decades earlier was revitalized.

The way I see it Finland chose the best possible way in 1940. It was either them or us. Had the Soviets not attacked in 1939, situation would have been different. Was our decision morally questionable? Perhaps so, but you know what? I rather have more dead Soviets than Finns.

[Axis Kast]

The way I see it Finland chose the best possible way in 1940. It was either them or us. Had the Soviets not attacked in 1939, situation would have been different. Was our decision morally questionable? Perhaps so, but you know what? I rather have more dead Soviets than Finns.

We are in total agreement. I question none of Finland's perrogatives during the war.

[Oberleutnant]

"Besides – we’re talking about a handful of brigades; Home Guard units if necessary."

What "Home Guard units" are you talking about?

[Axis Kast]

No nation deploys all of its combat troops to the front.

There are necessarily forces rotating temporarily to behind-the-lines positions or units committed entirely to garrison duty.

[Oberleutnant]

Okay, it was just your choice of words ("Home Guard") that caught my attention, because the members of the Finnish home guard, the Civil Guard, were fully integrated into the Army during the war. The number of Finnish soldiers that were not serving on the front lines varied heavily during the Continuation War.

During the initial attack phase from summer 1941 to winter 1942, the Finnish Army was fully mobilised. After suitable lines had been reached, Mannerheim gave the order to stop the attack. The Finnish supply lines were already operating at their limits, I believe, so logistics would have been a big problem if "we" had proceeded further. The following time period from winter 1942 to summer 1944 was very quiet in the Finnish front, at least for ground forces. Emphasis was on deep penetration raids behind enemy lines and commando attacks against important targets such as Soviet supply depots, railroads, etc. At this point the Finnish military command made an error and sent too large share of the soldiers to work on farms away from the front lines (food situation was very bad). When the massive Soviet offensive began in the summer 1944, front lines were undermanned, creating almost a catastrophical situation.

[Axis Kast]

Define "fully mobilized."

Are you implying that there were at no time any elements of the Civil Guard larger than company or regimental strength behind the front?

[Oberleutnant]

Of course not everyone was serving in the front line, but every suitably aged Finnish male with military training (half a million men) was in his pre-designated wartime unit, ready to move out when the order came. When Finnish army began its “blitzkrieg” in June 1941 after Soviet planes had first bombarded Finnish cities, there certainly were no soldiers working on farms or building fortifications. This is what I meant by "fully mobilised".

Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough, but there were no seperate Civil Guard units on the front lines or at the home front. Civil Guards were just ordinary people who participated Civil Guard activities on their free time. When the war broke out, they were, of course, usually better trained than "typical soldiers" and they often served as NCOs.

[Axis Kast]

Perhaps it's a matter of my choice of words.

Are you attempting to make the argument that no units were left in garrison positions and that no units were ever moved off the front lines during the war?