Stupid Letters to the Editor

[Oberleutnant]

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).

In addition to the work on farms, some soldiers were sent back to receive additional military training as well. When the situation permitted it, men were occasionally allowed to make short visit their families, etc. When the army was on the move, continously engaging the enemy on multiple fronts (summer 1941 - winter 1942, summer 1944, and autumn 1944), some units were on the front lines all the time. The training of new conscripts also continued during the war, though I'm pretty sure it differed a lot from peace time.

In Winter War, which was a much shorter conflict, there were some units which never moved off the front line.


Sorry if I'm not making much sense, but it's way past midnight here at the moment.

[Oberleutnant]

To make sure I wasn’t simply spouting shit, I browsed through my grandfather’s diary that he kept during his military service in 1940-1944.

It’s been a long time since I read it last time, but upon a quick look it seems that his unit continued uninterrupted advance for four months from June 1941 to October 1941. They rested for some time and were assigned to various non combat duties near the front line, such as road construction (dirt roads on Soviet side were in piss poor shape, as you may know).

After the attack phase was over they resided in their wooden fortifications on the front line. Soviets attempted few assaults in small numbers, but for the most part the enemy simply fired mortars and used snipers or inconsistent MG fire. My grandfather also did a few patrols in the area.

It would seem that a typical leave away from the front lines lasted for about two weeks, and there were perhaps two or three of them per year.

This continued until the summer 1944 when the Soviet attack began and his unit had to begin retrating. A month later situation had calmed a bit, but before this the fighting had been very intense.

[Oberleutnant]

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?

To put it shortly: no.

However, as my examples hopefully show, Finnish soldiers served long periods of time in the front lines, but for the most part between 1942-44 things were relatively quiet. I hope this matter is settled now?

[Axis Kast]

You're missing the point.

I wanted to know if you're attempting to argue that the whole Finn army never left the front lines during the war. I assume not.

[Edi]

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.

Will you get it through to your fucking head that Finland was NOT an Axis satellite? No alliance, though Finnish and German interests did happen to coincide after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. We weren't rpoviding the Germans with troops unlike Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and some other satellite states that had made alliances with them.

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.

Vympel, you're going to lose this one. You are correct from a purely moral standpoint, but in selling iron to the Germans, the Swedes were essentially acting in preemptive self-defense, because they would have been invaded if they had not. Immoral actions in self-defense are justified, even if not morally correct.

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?

Would you try speaking in plain English instead of gobbledygook? My point was exactly that if the Swedish iron shipments here would have stopped (as they would have had we joined in an attack on them), that could only have helped the Soviets, who would have been coming at us nonetheless, so it would not have been possible for us to attack Sweden in support of a German invasion.

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.

So, those troops would have been sent out of Finland by the shortest route possible, and that's through northern Norway. They could attack Sweden from there.

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).

What are you smoking? We would not have needed to allow German troops to move through Finland to attack Sweden, because Germany needed Finland to prevent Soviet expansion on the Baltic more than it would have needed Finland's help in invading Sweden. They could not afford to cut us off militarily.

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.

What other fronts? There'd have been no German troops in Finland, that's true, and no such pressure toward Murmansk, but we didn't even push too badly in that direction because of political ramifications vis a vis the Allies. Hitler's whole conquest of Russia plan would have required the taking of Leningrad and cutting the Soviets off from the Baltic, so there would not have been an elimination of that front. Geographical reality makes your whole ludicrous scenario impossible. Hitler might have been an egomaniac, but he, and especially his military commanders and advisors, were not that stupid.

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?

Check the map for the name of Kattegat. That's the name of the straight between Sweden and Denmark, i.e. the Swedish western coast. What part of that is too hard to understand?

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.

Yes, profit. But at what cost in suffering? Not everyone is like you. There has been a rather strong tradition of humanistic values in Scandinavia, and the Swedes have not been known to be all that bloodthirsty even when they were a superpower (pre-19th century). Sweden has had a lot of domestic laundry to do about WW2 in the past couple of decades, and they haven't been very happy about some of the stuff their country did back then.

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.

I remember that, it was a disgrace. It'd not be happening here, and if it did, the government would be out of office by the next month. You also conveniently forget that those politicians also share the moral values of the constituency to a very great extent, so your argument is meaningless. Just because they get into power does not magically make those values vanish and turn them into soulless robots.

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.

You really are fucking stupid. Finland had enough troops on the Isthmus to cut off any chance of the Soviets supplying Leningrad, because it was surrounded by German forces. Finnish forces would not have been able to take Leningrad, but they could have enabled the Germans to do so if that had been the choice of the Finnish High Command. The Germans were not pleased that we chose not to help them in that. Instead, those troops were used on the north Karelian front and some disposed of as Oberleutnant detailed. You're just too fucking stubborn in persisting in your fantasy argument about Finland having enough spare troops lying around idle to help in the hypothetical invasion of Sweden.

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.

Under the German thumb? Will you fucking tell me how that was possibly the case? There was cooperation because of coinciding interests, nothing more, and the moment those interests no longer coincided, that cooperation stopped, as demonstrated by Mannerheim's refusal to help defeat Leningrad on the Isthmus front and cut off the Murmansk railroad on the Karelian front, despite German insistence and pressure to do so. We were attacked by the Soviet Union, without provocation, first in 1939, and a second time in 1941, and were only defending our own territory, or taking back territory that had been illegally taken from us. If Hitler was bent on invading the Soviet Union, that was none of our business and we didn't have anything to do with it as such. Where the fuck is the morally questionable part of the equation? I refer you to the Kirkuk thread (that link leads to the post that begins the relevant debate) where I and the Duchess had a long, drawn out argument over this selfsame issue. If you insist on rehashing that, I'm going to come down on you fucking harshly, and it'll be completely gloves off, unlike in that thread. I have respect for the Duchess, but none for you.

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.

You will kindly point out to me where Bulgaria and Italy denied Germany compliance on such significant levels as Finland did (the Leningrad and Murmansk railroad issues in addition to the Jew issue) and escaped without consequences. Or otherwise you will kindly shut the fuck up with your red herring.

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.

Keep digging your own grave, fucktard. We were acting in self defense of our sovereign nation. Where is the wrong in that? If it coincidentally happened to help the Germans, that's not my fucking problem, it was Stalin's. If he'd not attacked in 1939 in the first place, we'd have sat out the war and the Soviets would not have had us to contend with. It was Stalin's own doing, and I'm not going to shed a single tear over the millions of Soviet dead that his attack on my country resulted, both directly as casualties against our troops and indirectly because he had less troops to use against Germany.

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.

Swedish exports were available to us because they were our friends. If we were enemies, they would not have been. What is so fucking hard to understand about this? Yes, German opinion would be important in the hypothetical scenario, but not as important as you think because they needed us just as badly if not more than we needed their help, to curb Soviet expansion to the Baltic where they could threaten Germany from the north. We had more leverage, which is why we got away with not helping take Leningrad, for example. End of story.

Edi

[Oberleutnant]

Even if Finland had decided to participate the invasion of Sweden, our people would have been rather reluctant to attack their closest friend, to say the least.

[Vympel]

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.

So any state that cuts military funding is incompetent now?

For all intents and purposes, that places in direct competition with all other nations, each of which are correspondingly pursuing their own agendas.

No one's saying that you can't better the position of your own nation. The question is HOW you do it.

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.

And Norway has been so disadvantaged as a nation in its non-aggressive, non-oppressive 'competition' with the United States that it places itself at risk?

So now you’re making the argument that Norway’s objective is not self-strengthening?

No, I'm saying it's a leap in logic to go from 'self-strengthening' to an 'implied' long range goal of 'surpassing' the United States. For fuck's sake, for the sake of a decent debate, LEARN what logical fallacies mean.

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.

And this goes back to the game question that I asked earlier. Who the hell is keeping score? What is this, an international dick measuring contest, with the masses as the measuring tape?

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

Leap in logic. Arguing that Norwegian government is is for Norway's benefit does not mean that it threatens the United States.

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?

Dominance and influence? Absolutely. You may find this hard to believe, but not every nation entertainst the fevered wanking of becoming a superstate, or conducts itself on the international arena to make that happen. A

Interesting that you continually pass off the cost-benefit analysis as having necessarily to do with military expansion or active repression.

That's exactly what it leads to.

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.

You give me one example of a supreme state that did not achieve that through violence and repression

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?

Violently and repressively? No. Not on my moral alert meter. If you think a nation can become a hyperpower through anything other than violence and oppression and encouraging violence and oppression, then you're incredibly naive.

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.

Strawman. Sabotage, espionage and intelligence gathering are not necessarily harmful enough to other people directly to warrant ceasing activity. What's more, you continue with your fucking annoying strawman that a 'moral' government cannot be tempered with self-interest.

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.

And I don't give a fuck about strength in relation to others, certainly not to the extent that I will engage in violence and repression of others to further my own goals.

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?”

Do tell me the last time the Biblical notion of "an eye for an eye" was enacted on the international decision making level, Kast

With historical Judeo-Christian (or even Muslim) interpretations of non-chattel slavery?

What?

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.

Why don't you tell me what part bullshit sexual morality has to play in international decision making? Your limp examples of irrelevant issues aside, there ARE core principles that there already is consensus on- ever heard of the UN Charter?

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?

The differences between varying cultures morality does not come into play on the international level.

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

I was just entreating you to keep it short, please.

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?

Impacts it how? There are some impacts that are certainly not 'immoral'. Others obviously are: violence and repression.

Our influence in this time of hyperpower has reached the historical apex. There is no nation on Earth able to ignore American policy.

Really? Look at Iraq: the world flipped the US off- the great hyperpower. This is besides the point. No one's going to argue that putting up tariffs is 'immoral'. What *is* immoral is violence and repression of others, and that's what amoral cost/benefit analysis allows.

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.

Where did I intimate that?

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

Oh, that's oppression and violence now

Bullshit.

No wonder you think it's bullshit. You don't even fucking know what morals are.

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.

And as I'll say for the very last time, minimizing harm and maximizing good is INHERENTLY USEFUL, idiot. 'Morality for morality's sake' is once again, incomprehensible nonsense, and of NO RELEVANCE to the debate.

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.

Fundamental difference in opinion. No point in keeping this stuff up.

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?

Because a specific group is smaller than the whole of humanity perhaps?

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.

Concession to what, you dumbass? Just because you think it's invalid because you're a moral self-interested bankrupt means I've conceded to nothing.

Yes. Your argument?

I see your skill in following a point hasn't improved. That statement of yours I just quoted was FALSE. The US provides no humanitarian or moral guidance to Turkey or Israel. It arms them and assists their repressive policies on the Palestinains and Kurds, respectively.

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.

How the hell is that 'self-moderating'? You've already proclaimed that it will only use morals as tools.

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

Look everyone! The Nuremburg defense! "i was just following orders" isn't an excuse!

You are clearly ignorant of German society in the Nazi period. Jews were seen as inhuman scum of the Earth, not fit to be treated like you would treat dogs. It's the worst revisionist bullshit to pretend that the Germans gave a shit whether the Jews were killed or not- most didn't care one whit, and probably though good riddance to boot.

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.

I would be if I went over there and fought.

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.

I'm sure the masses killed and oppressed by it would agree how useful it was for them ....

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 don't even know?

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

You think there was an 'Ostpolitik' survey?

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?

Of course not. The Kornet missile claim, however, irks me, because it's obviously false.

The French and Russians generally monitor arms sales more heavily than their American counterparts.

Source?

Most sales are subject to government oversight.

So are American arms sales.

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.

There's no 'Russian case'.

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!”

What part of 'long border' don't you get? You think Syria is looking to put itself in the crosshairs any more than it already is?

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

So bringing up examples of it (which undoubtedly exist) mean exactly what?

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.

Yes, I expected them to not kowtow to a genocidal aggressor state. Unresonable, I know.

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.

See Edi.

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.

20/20 hindsight? What moron couldn't see the writing on the wall for Germany? As if the Swedes didn't know how valuable their ore was to Germany, what would happen if they halted it, and furthermore, the military situation!

[Vympel]

Vympel, you're going to lose this one. You are correct from a purely moral standpoint, but in selling iron to the Germans, the Swedes were essentially acting in preemptive self-defense, because they would have been invaded if they had not. Immoral actions in self-defense are justified, even if not morally correct.

To me, it's hard to think of an example that does the Sweden/Germany example justice, but hell- even the Soviet Union only supplied Germany because it was going to be ready for war in 1943 (IIRC), and was buying time. If Sweden had any plans like that, my take on it would be different.

[Axis Kast]

Will you get it through to your fucking head that Finland was NOT an Axis satellite? No alliance, though Finnish and German interests did happen to coincide after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. We weren't rpoviding the Germans with troops unlike Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and some other satellite states that had made alliances with them.

“Finnish and German interests did happen to coincide after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union” to the tune of military cooperation, you mean? Let’s not mince words. Berlin was sending directives to Helsinki; the Whermacht was operating from Finn soil. And whether or not we might consider the entire exercise justified on any level, you can’t evade the fact: Finland was a party to Operation: Barbarossa and thus the German war effort. Petsamo nickel went to the German war machine. The Finns did help constrict Leningrad. Their actions were predicated on their orbit to the German sphere. Thus they suffered satellite status.

And “providing the Germans with troops?” That’s semantics. You can’t argue that Germans were organized in and deployed from Finland during the war. Finns served alongside – if not directly under – the Whermacht. Whether or not it was self-defense against the Soviets, you were Hitler’s allies.

Vympel, you're going to lose this one. You are correct from a purely moral standpoint, but in selling iron to the Germans, the Swedes were essentially acting in preemptive self-defense, because they would have been invaded if they had not. Immoral actions in self-defense are justified, even if not morally correct.

Bingo.

Would you try speaking in plain English instead of gobbledygook? My point was exactly that if the Swedish iron shipments here would have stopped (as they would have had we joined in an attack on them), that could only have helped the Soviets, who would have been coming at us nonetheless, so it would not have been possible for us to attack Sweden in support of a German invasion.

Who says for certain that Swedish ore would still have flowed to the Finns after a German invasion? Perhaps for two or three months – if at all, depending on how long organized, meaningful resistance holds up -, but probably no longer.

So, those troops would have been sent out of Finland by the shortest route possible, and that's through northern Norway. They could attack Sweden from there.

What were we arguing here again? Or is this just a purely tactical consideration?

What are you smoking? We would not have needed to allow German troops to move through Finland to attack Sweden, because Germany needed Finland to prevent Soviet expansion on the Baltic more than it would have needed Finland's help in invading Sweden. They could not afford to cut us off militarily.

What other fronts? There'd have been no German troops in Finland, that's true, and no such pressure toward Murmansk, but we didn't even push too badly in that direction because of political ramifications vis a vis the Allies. Hitler's whole conquest of Russia plan would have required the taking of Leningrad and cutting the Soviets off from the Baltic, so there would not have been an elimination of that front. Geographical reality makes your whole ludicrous scenario impossible. Hitler might have been an egomaniac, but he, and especially his military commanders and advisors, were not that stupid.

German troops were already operating from Finnish soil. The entire front was technically under German supervision.

You also ignore the fact that Hitler regularly short-handed his allies. Note that my statement included the words, “slackened support.” He might have sought a punitive redeployment in order to increase the direct burden of combat with the Soviets on Finland’s own troops.

What other fronts? South, Central, or the Baltic.

Check the map for the name of Kattegat. That's the name of the straight between Sweden and Denmark, i.e. the Swedish western coast. What part of that is too hard to understand?

The shortest place to lay mines would be between Skagen, Denmark and Goteborg, Sweden. That still leaves the territory to Goteborg’s north (there’s a coastal strip) undefended.

Not to mention that Germany could have launched a seaborne invasion from a more easterly route.

Don’t forget that ships laying mines in the immediate vicinity would have been seen to be impeding trade and committing suspicious activity warranting engagement.

Yes, profit. But at what cost in suffering? Not everyone is like you. There has been a rather strong tradition of humanistic values in Scandinavia, and the Swedes have not been known to be all that bloodthirsty even when they were a superpower (pre-19th century). Sweden has had a lot of domestic laundry to do about WW2 in the past couple of decades, and they haven't been very happy about some of the stuff their country did back then.

In suffering to whom? As you’ve pointed out, Sweden had no clear choice. And profit was the best remedy in that situation. At least remaining quasi-independent had its dividends. That’s not so say we don’t condemn or disapprove of such activity in hindsight. At the time, it made the most sense – and was probably justified quite roundly.

remember that, it was a disgrace. It'd not be happening here, and if it did, the government would be out of office by the next month. You also conveniently forget that those politicians also share the moral values of the constituency to a very great extent, so your argument is meaningless. Just because they get into power does not magically make those values vanish and turn them into soulless robots.

Your quote: “Out of office by the next month.”

Keep in mind that moral behavior is also amenable to business and development. A morally sound world is a profitable world. It’s unlikely that your government seeks to employ moral doctrine merely for the sake of being “good” rather than promoting a generally welcome stability.


More later ...

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

U.S. supported despots in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Algeria, South Africa, Zaire, Egypt, South Korea, South Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, China, Iraq, Iran, Greece, Turkey, Italy, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Teeheehee.

[Axis Kast]

You really are fucking stupid. Finland had enough troops on the Isthmus to cut off any chance of the Soviets supplying Leningrad, because it was surrounded by German forces. Finnish forces would not have been able to take Leningrad, but they could have enabled the Germans to do so if that had been the choice of the Finnish High Command. The Germans were not pleased that we chose not to help them in that. Instead, those troops were used on the north Karelian front and some disposed of as Oberleutnant detailed. You're just too fucking stubborn in persisting in your fantasy argument about Finland having enough spare troops lying around idle to help in the hypothetical invasion of Sweden.

“Enabled the Germans to do so” implies that the Finns had sufficient resources for offensive action, even if only minor. Oberleutnant discussed “disposal” of men in terms of demobilization; he’s not yet made any kind of argument at all about garrison or other troops deployed behind the front.

Under the German thumb? Will you fucking tell me how that was possibly the case? There was cooperation because of coinciding interests, nothing more, and the moment those interests no longer coincided, that cooperation stopped, as demonstrated by Mannerheim's refusal to help defeat Leningrad on the Isthmus front and cut off the Murmansk railroad on the Karelian front, despite German insistence and pressure to do so. We were attacked by the Soviet Union, without provocation, first in 1939, and a second time in 1941, and were only defending our own territory, or taking back territory that had been illegally taken from us. If Hitler was bent on invading the Soviet Union, that was none of our business and we didn't have anything to do with it as such. Where the fuck is the morally questionable part of the equation? I refer you to the Kirkuk thread (that link leads to the post that begins the relevant debate) where I and the Duchess had a long, drawn out argument over this selfsame issue. If you insist on rehashing that, I'm going to come down on you fucking harshly, and it'll be completely gloves off, unlike in that thread. I have respect for the Duchess, but none for you.

“Didn’t have anything to do with it as such?” German troops participating in the invasion of Russia were quartered on and fought from Finland’s own soil – under Dietel, no less. Whether or not you make an appeal to self-defense, Adolf Hitler was still coordinating with Helsinki. You were in a position not distant from that of Sweden, which, for the sake of its own well being, was forced into at least tacit cooperation with the Reich. “Come down on me harshly?” Bullshit. It’s one thing to acknowledge that Finland needed the Germans, but it’s another to suggest that you pursued only a moral policy at all. Or hadn’t you heard that part of Romania’s justification for Barbarossa included the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina? Now I grant credit where credit was due; Mannerheim was more responsible than most to the concept of neutrality – but that does not mean Finland exits the war smelling utterly of roses.

You will kindly point out to me where Bulgaria and Italy denied Germany compliance on such significant levels as Finland did (the Leningrad and Murmansk railroad issues in addition to the Jew issue) and escaped without consequences. Or otherwise you will kindly shut the fuck up with your red herring.

Bulgaria, Romania, and Italy tempered and slowed their persecution of local Jewish populations without running to much into trouble. While they weren’t quite as successful as the Finns – largely by virtue of having been fully occupied -, their attempted contributions to domestic human rights are still recorded events in history.

Keep digging your own grave, fucktard. We were acting in self defense of our sovereign nation. Where is the wrong in that? If it coincidentally happened to help the Germans, that's not my fucking problem, it was Stalin's. If he'd not attacked in 1939 in the first place, we'd have sat out the war and the Soviets would not have had us to contend with. It was Stalin's own doing, and I'm not going to shed a single tear over the millions of Soviet dead that his attack on my country resulted, both directly as casualties against our troops and indirectly because he had less troops to use against Germany.

Finland is open to the same charge as Sweden: the logical road you were obliged to take in defending your nation from occupation is open to moral criticism no matter the other justifications involved. Self-defense only takes you so far so well; the point remains that Barbarossa was that much more effective because Helsinki afforded Germany both men and materiél.

Swedish exports were available to us because they were our friends. If we were enemies, they would not have been. What is so fucking hard to understand about this? Yes, German opinion would be important in the hypothetical scenario, but not as important as you think because they needed us just as badly if not more than we needed their help, to curb Soviet expansion to the Baltic where they could threaten Germany from the north. We had more leverage, which is why we got away with not helping take Leningrad, for example. End of story.

The question is whether that ore would be available at all two or three months into the invasion. The answer is probably no.

I acknowledge that Finland had more leverage than perhaps all other Axis powers, but that’s not to say other reactions might have occurred as a result of Mannerheim’s refusal to cooperate. Hitler could always have sought a less favorable shifting of forces from the Arctic Front, relegating more troops for action in the Baltic states instead.

And now for Vympel …

So any state that cuts military funding is incompetent now?

Isn’t there some term about those who take a given argument and blow it up beyond all proportion?

It’s one thing to lower military funding, Vympel, and another to abolish or cripple it.

And Norway has been so disadvantaged as a nation in its non-aggressive, non-oppressive 'competition' with the United States that it places itself at risk?

Non-aggressive and non-oppressive on what levels? The Norwegian intelligence apparatus is still active; their companies are no less active than those of greater Europe. Keep in mind that Oslo can’t exactly persecute any kind of overtly hegemonistic or violent activity on account of the United Nations and a number of exceedingly more powerful neighbors from a military perspective. That does not however mean that its domestic institutions fail to profit at others’ expense anyway.

If the basic question is whether Norway would be in a more enviable position if, say, they possessed a former overseas empire or network of post-Cold War client states (as the United States or Great Britain), then the answer would be yes.

No, I'm saying it's a leap in logic to go from 'self-strengthening' to an 'implied' long range goal of 'surpassing' the United States. For fuck's sake, for the sake of a decent debate, LEARN what logical fallacies mean.

I know what logical fallacies mean; you’re just stalling for time.

Explain to me how America’s continued growth in strength on the international level is enviable from the point of view of any other nation. Do you disagree that proportionate increases of power by any other country inherently reduces the weight of instability levied upon them by American action? The more powerful a nation, the better able to chart and independently prosecute its own destiny.

And this goes back to the game question that I asked earlier. Who the hell is keeping score? What is this, an international dick measuring contest, with the masses as the measuring tape?

What don’t you understand about perpetual rivalry and competition for a finite quantity of resources?

Leap in logic. Arguing that Norwegian government is is for Norway's benefit does not mean that it threatens the United States.

Certainly it does. Norway’s self-strengthening is inherently to our detriment. For the second time, it’s all about range and depth of impact. A proportionately stronger Norway inherently retards our influence.

Dominance and influence? Absolutely. You may find this hard to believe, but not every nation entertainst the fevered wanking of becoming a superstate, or conducts itself on the international arena to make that happen.

I disagree. There’s a difference only in ability to achieve that objective – some have no chance, like Norway, for example. All profitable behavior leads to an increase in power. An increase in power is an increase on the road to hegemony. Norway might not actively desire global hegemon – or at least state as much -, but that’s where it’s technically headed. I’d also be careful of disavowing on Norway’s behalf any desire for influence and hyperpowerdom.

That's exactly what it leads to.

But in our society, such factors would be tempered by pre-existing influences – the UN for instance, and other far more powerful nations.

You give me one example of a supreme state that did not achieve that through violence and repression.

The cost-benefit analysis is not inherently violent.

You also seem to suggest that only the hyperpower practices repugnant activity; more often than not, the hyperpower isn’t the greatest offender even at its apex.

Strawman. Sabotage, espionage and intelligence gathering are not necessarily harmful enough to other people directly to warrant ceasing activity. What's more, you continue with your fucking annoying strawman that a 'moral' government cannot be tempered with self-interest.[/qutoe]

Now you’re placing personal opinion over a moral template. Sabotage can involve the death and dismemberment of dozens or even hundreds. Action based on credible intelligence is sometimes no different in outcome.

A moral government can be tempered with self-interest, but that’s not for what you’ve been arguing.

And I don't give a fuck about strength in relation to others, certainly not to the extent that I will engage in violence and repression of others to further my own goals.

Then you are naïve. You are clearly acknowledging deficiencies in the selfsame form of government for which you advocate. Your “moral government” can apply only to a powerful nation in a stable framework.

Do tell me the last time the Biblical notion of "an eye for an eye" was enacted on the international decision making level, Kast.

You know my argument, Vympel: you’re selecting certain morals over others with the express assumption that those under your government will agree and remain compliant all of the time.

What?

The Bible sanctions non-chattel slavery.

Your limp examples of irrelevant issues aside, there ARE core principles that there already is consensus on- ever heard of the UN Charter?

You mean that ridiculous kowtowing to public perceptions regularly flung to the wayside by all involved?

Irrelevant issues? Don’t assume everybody has a Western outlook. You persist in constructing a moral ideal applicable only to yourself. It’s illegitimate. Your system fails from the point of universal application.

The differences between varying cultures morality does not come into play on the international level.

Is that so?

See, Islamofascism. See, Maoist Communism. See, European Socialism.

Impacts it how?

On economic, political, diplomatic, cultural, and even military levels.

Really? Look at Iraq: the world flipped the US off- the great hyperpower. This is besides the point. No one's going to argue that putting up tariffs is 'immoral'. What *is* immoral is violence and repression of others, and that's what amoral cost/benefit analysis allows.

Do you really believe that Iraq – which prepared for war and came before the UNSC – ignored the United States?

Your argument over morality has no effect. From the point of view of the Iraq issue, it’s a red herring. Not to mention a ridiculous appeal to emotion.

Where did I intimate that?

You continue to intimate that the United States has goals ultimate goals fundamentally different from those of other nations.

Oh, that's oppression and violence now.

I’d call intelligence-gathering activity inherently oppressive. The objective is to gain the upper hand over those on whom you gather data. You also seem to ignore that Denmark’s corporate activities might just be unwelcome in certain areas from a moral perspective – in Africa or East Asia, for example.

No wonder you think it's bullshit. You don't even fucking know what morals are.

Ad-hominem.

And as I'll say for the very last time, minimizing harm and maximizing good is INHERENTLY USEFUL, idiot. 'Morality for morality's sake' is once again, incomprehensible nonsense, and of NO RELEVANCE to the debate.

Explain to me how disavowing all violence and repression is useful rather than good.

It’s of absolute relevance. Your system is useless in reality because it relies on the actions of others to function properly or at all.

Fundamental difference in opinion. No point in keeping this stuff up.

That could be said of this whole argument; after four pages, I’m patently exhausted.

Because a specific group is smaller than the whole of humanity perhaps?

That doesn’t mean that cost-benefit government is any less useful.

Concession to what, you dumbass? Just because you think it's invalid because you're a moral self-interested bankrupt means I've conceded to nothing.

You admitted that you wish to practice moral behavior solely because it’s “right.”

I see your skill in following a point hasn't improved. That statement of yours I just quoted was FALSE. The US provides no humanitarian or moral guidance to Turkey or Israel. It arms them and assists their repressive policies on the Palestinains and Kurds, respectively.

We’ve told Sharon to restrain himself before; we’ll do it again. We’ve condemned Israel before; we’ll do it again.

How the hell is that 'self-moderating'? You've already proclaimed that it will only use morals as tools.

Whether or not it’s intended, certain policies – such as providing humanitarian aid – are also moral policies.

You are clearly ignorant of German society in the Nazi period. Jews were seen as inhuman scum of the Earth, not fit to be treated like you would treat dogs. It's the worst revisionist bullshit to pretend that the Germans gave a shit whether the Jews were killed or not- most didn't care one whit, and probably though good riddance to boot.

Most Germans didn’t become involved. There was an apathy involved, but not necessarily approval. That does not imply there wasn’t opposition. Or are you now going to make the claim that everybody who didn’t stand up to Stalin in Soviet Russia is also responsible for the gulags?

I would be if I went over there and fought.

I disagree. If you were a soldier, you’d have no choice. But that’s beside the point. Did the average German fight for the Whermacht and kill Jews with his or her own hands? No. You’re dodging the same bullet you accuse them of failing to stop.

I'm sure the masses killed and oppressed by it would agree how useful it was for them.

Not the words, “the whole.” In any society there are those that suffer. This is fact.

You don't even know?

The man never wrote home; we have only knowledge that he was drafted. He later died on the Russian front. What the hell are you getting at?

You think there was an 'Ostpolitik' survey?

You think politicans able to carry out such plans or promote such ideals got into office without popular acclaim?

Source?

It’s a universal truth. European socialism and Russian democracy inherently enjoy more oversight than does the American government. That is especially true in Russia’s case. I believe the government must pre-approve all arms sales.

So are American arms sales.

Not to the same degree as their Russian counterparts.

There's no 'Russian case'.

Do you deny that Russia violated the UN sanctions between 1991 and 2003?

What part of 'long border' don't you get? You think Syria is looking to put itself in the crosshairs any more than it already is?

The fruits of their efforts are certainly evident … Syria’s security forces sure did a credible job.

So bringing up examples of it (which undoubtedly exist) mean exactly what?

What was the original question again?

Yes, I expected them to not kowtow to a genocidal aggressor state. Unresonable, I know.

Is that sarcasm?

20/20 hindsight? What moron couldn't see the writing on the wall for Germany? As if the Swedes didn't know how valuable their ore was to Germany, what would happen if they halted it, and furthermore, the military situation!

Again, you seem to imply that Sweden should have lived up to your moral standards and that for not doing so they forfeit credibility and good standing. Bullshit. Sweden’s responsibility is to itself. And even if you disagree with that philosophically, it’s evidently their take on things practically. This is a prime example of why your system is nothing but pure fantasy.

[Vympel]

And now for Vympel …

So any state that cuts military funding is incompetent now?

Isn’t there some term about those who take a given argument and blow it up beyond all proportion?

It’s one thing to lower military funding, Vympel, and another to abolish or cripple it.

Why? There's some nations that clearly don't need a powerful military at all. Peacekeeper contingents by some are seen as the absolute limit.

Non-aggressive and non-oppressive on what levels? The Norwegian intelligence apparatus is still active; their companies are no less active than those of greater Europe. Keep in mind that Oslo can’t exactly persecute any kind of overtly hegemonistic or violent activity on account of the United Nations and a number of exceedingly more powerful neighbors from a military perspective. That does not however mean that its domestic institutions fail to profit at others’ expense anyway.

Profiting at the expense of another is not by necessity immoral.

If the basic question is whether Norway would be in a more enviable position if, say, they possessed a former overseas empire or network of post-Cold War client states (as the United States or Great Britain), then the answer would be yes.

It's not the basic question.

I know what logical fallacies mean; you’re just stalling for time.

Stalling for time? What, by typing

Explain to me how America’s continued growth in strength on the international level is enviable from the point of view of any other nation. Do you disagree that proportionate increases of power by any other country inherently reduces the weight of instability levied upon them by American action? The more powerful a nation, the better able to chart and independently prosecute its own destiny.

And you're still avoiding the problem. It is not necessarily implied by looking after you're own nation that you are looking to surpass others. That is called a leap in logic, and paranoia to boot.

What don’t you understand about perpetual rivalry and competition for a finite quantity of resources?

Maybe that not everything under the sun is justified in pursuit of those resources?

Certainly it does. Norway’s self-strengthening is inherently to our detriment.For the second time, it’s all about range and depth of impact. A proportionately stronger Norway inherently retards our influence

Saying it does because it does is not an argument.

I disagree. There’s a difference only in ability to achieve that objective – some have no chance, like Norway, for example. All profitable behavior leads to an increase in power. An increase in power is an increase on the road to hegemony.Norway might not actively desire global hegemon – or at least state as much -, but that’s where it’s technically headed. I’d also be careful of disavowing on Norway’s behalf any desire for influence and hyperpowerdom.

More gargantuan leaps in logic. Making your nation more prosperous is now necessarily a move towards global hegemony.

But in our society, such factors would be tempered by pre-existing influences – the UN for instance, and other far more powerful nations.

What good is tempering military adventurism and oppression if it only applies to the weak and not the strong?

The cost-benefit analysis is not inherently violent.

Of course it is. i just asked you for an example of the ultimate goal of amoral realpolitik which hadn't gotten there that way didn't I?

You also seem to suggest that only the hyperpower practices repugnant activity; more often than not, the hyperpower isn’t the greatest offender even at its apex.

True, but not particularly relevant to the debate.

Now you’re placing personal opinion over a moral template. Sabotage can involve the death and dismemberment of dozens or even hundreds.

Then it's immoral.

Action based on credible intelligence is sometimes no different in outcome.

And it'll depend on the circumstances of the situation.

A moral government can be tempered with self-interest, but that’s not for what you’ve been arguing.

How so? That's the strawman you've been putting up from the get go, and which I have disputed in almost every post.

Then you are naïve. You are clearly acknowledging deficiencies in the selfsame form of government for which you advocate. Your “moral government” can apply only to a powerful nation in a stable framework.

Nonsense. Plenty of nations do not actively participate in such activites and get along just fine, and certainly not the most powerful.

You know my argument, Vympel: you’re selecting certain morals over others with the express assumption that those under your government will agree and remain compliant all of the time.

You were the one who brought it up. Don't use the example if it doesn't fly.

The Bible sanctions non-chattel slavery.

And non-chattel slavery is practiced by who now?

You mean that ridiculous kowtowing to public perceptions regularly flung to the wayside by all involved?

Yes that. You've already appealed to national consensus of ostpolitik. The UN charter is a clear indicator that all signatories to it have converging views on what is acceptable international behavior.

Irrelevant issues? Don’t assume everybody has a Western outlook. You persist in constructing a moral ideal applicable only to yourself. It’s illegitimate. Your system fails from the point of universal application.

They *are* irrelevant. From an international decision making standpoint, where you're deciding how to conduct yourself in relation to other nations? How is anti-homosexuality sentiment relevant?

Is that so?

See, Islamofascism.

Please leave trendy-among-neocon buzzwords at the door. Give me an example of an 'islamo-facist' state.

See, Maoist Communism.

Oh yes, they totally bunked rules of international behavior

Let's just take these two unsavory system examples for a second. What kind of bullshit opinion is it to cite totalitarian/ authoritarian regimes (already known for a total lack of morality) and use them as an excuse for why acting just fucking like them is internationally acceptable? Any moron would agree that these states are hardly welcome in the international system and certainly wouldn't be supported as they are now if some governments had a few more principles- they would be more pariahs than they are now (look at the Pakistan regime- certainly not one worthy of US support).

See, European Socialism.

*wipes tear from eye*

What exactly is European Socialism?

On economic, political, diplomatic, cultural, and even military levels.

And some of those levels have nothing to do with immoral behavior. Edging out another country of a sweet deal above the table is an entirely different matter from shipping attack helicopters to a known human rights violator.

Do you really believe that Iraq – which prepared for war and came before the UNSC – ignored the United States?

How is that at all relevant to what I just said? Do you read replies, or just rant?

Your argument over morality has no effect. From the point of view of the Iraq issue, it’s a red herring. Not to mention a ridiculous appeal to emotion.

Still ranting. You completely ignored what I said.

You continue to intimate that the United States has goals ultimate goals fundamentally different from those of other nations.

No, I use the United States as an example. In its maximum power it is the most obvious one.

I’d call intelligence-gathering activity inherently oppressive. The objective is to gain the upper hand over those on whom you gather data.

Do you condone some sort of bullshit 'all sinner's are equal in my eyes' view of morality? Is shoving in a line to get in a movie and shooting someone in the face are the same thing? You seem incapable of grasping the concept of levels of harm.

You also seem to ignore that Denmark’s corporate activities might just be unwelcome in certain areas from a moral perspective – in Africa or East Asia, for example.

That all depends on whether there is actually anything going on.

Ad-hominem.

Statement of fact. And, just to reiterate about logical fallacies, an ad hominem is putting an insult in place of an argument, not putting it in the argument full stop.

Explain to me how disavowing all violence and repression is useful rather than good.

It’s of absolute relevance. Your system is useless in reality because it relies on the actions of others to function properly or at all.

You argue it's *useful* because it helps you out. When I argue it's not as useful because actually having some fucking scruples helps MORE people out, you call that 'morality for morality's sake'. The illogic is melting my brain

That could be said of this whole argument; after four pages, I’m patently exhausted.

Well this is my last post anyway.

That doesn’t mean that cost-benefit government is any less useful.

Of course it's less useful. It's useful to less people than actually having some standards of acceptable behavior.

You admitted that you wish to practice moral behavior solely because it’s “right.”

No, because it has the best consequences for all, rather than some.

[quote
We’ve told Sharon to restrain himself before; we’ll do it again.[/quote]

While sending billions in aid every year.

We’ve condemned Israel before; we’ll do it again.

If you think 'condemning' is making a toothless statement about 'stop that, Israel!' while slipping em more cash is a condemnation ...

Whether or not it’s intended, certain policies – such as providing humanitarian aid – are also moral policies.

That's hardly self-moderating. It's an unintended side effect, and hardly on the level of what actually having scruples would give you.

Most Germans didn’t become involved.

Patently false. Hitler's antisemtic ideas were popular even before he was elected, and the persecution and eventual slaughter of the jews bares that out amply. It wasn't carried out by a few, it was the majority!

There was an apathy involved, but not necessarily approval. That does not imply there wasn’t opposition. Or are you now going to make the claim that everybody who didn’t stand up to Stalin in Soviet Russia is also responsible for the gulags?

There is fucking ample, in your face evidence to tell you what the Germans thought of the Jews by the privations they inflicted on them from 1933 onwards. If you can find similar evidence of approval of the gulags, bring it forward, of course you won't, because Stalin's terrorizing affected the entire population and was so traumatic that the moment he dropped dead the USSR disavowed him.

I disagree. If you were a soldier, you’d have no choice. But that’s beside the point. Did the average German fight for the Whermacht and kill Jews with his or her own hands? No. You’re dodging the same bullet you accuse them of failing to stop.

It is already well-established that a soldier has a responsibiltiy to refuse an immoral order. Just following orders will never be an excuse, and keeping your mouth shut isn't acceptable either if you know it's going on.

Not the words, “the whole.” In any society there are those that suffer. This is fact.

And of course, trying to minimize such suffering is just stupid, because it's 'fact' and we're better off leaving those human refuse where they are, right?

The man never wrote home; we have only knowledge that he was drafted. He later died on the Russian front. What the hell are you getting at?

So why bring it up?

You think politicans able to carry out such plans or promote such ideals got into office without popular acclaim?

As an exercise, perhaps you'll tell me where Bush had 'realpolitik' plastered all over his election campaign?

It’s a universal truth. European socialism and Russian democracy inherently enjoy more oversight than does the American government. That is especially true in Russia’s case. I believe the government must pre-approve all arms sales.

How is it a universal truth?

Not to the same degree as their Russian counterparts.

There are degrees of government oversight? Where do you get this stuff? Jeez, do you have any evidence?

Do you deny that Russia violated the UN sanctions between 1991 and 2003?

I wouldn't be *surprised* if they had, though I'd just like to see the evidence. I'm just disputing the Kornet claim, which is out and out bullshit.

The fruits of their efforts are certainly evident … Syria’s security forces sure did a credible job.

What, by telling Iraqis to get stuffed when they tried to cross the border?

What was the original question again?

As an aside, I disputed the Kornet claim.

Is that sarcasm?

Indeed it is.

Again, you seem to imply that Sweden should have lived up to your moral standards and that for not doing so they forfeit credibility and good standing. Bullshit. Sweden’s responsibility is to itself.

And look where it's decision got millions of people. Dead.

And even if you disagree with that philosophically, it’s evidently their take on things practically. This is a prime example of why your system is nothing but pure fantasy.

No, it's a prime example of why amoral decision making is entirely unacceptable.

[Axis Kast]

Why? There's some nations that clearly don't need a powerful military at all. Peacekeeper contingents by some are seen as the absolute limit.

If you’re looking at a nation such as Norway, with no overseas commitments, few concerns about internal security, the benefit of a European Union mutual defense clause, and the overarching shield of NATO, it’s quite easy to see the financial impetus – and common sense – behind military cutbacks. Some nations don’t need a powerful or large military, but that’s not to say they don’t have national security constant in mind.

Profiting at the expense of another is not by necessity immoral.

Qualify that statement. I fail to see your argument.

It's not the basic question.

It’s one of the questions.

You attempt to argue that Norway, despite failing to oppress any of its immediate neighbors, is in a decent financial and political position, correct? But you must also recognize that Norway is incapable of pursuing such aggression on blatantly physical levels. The United States was excused by the Cold War and a unique requirement for preemption after September 11th. Norway has no such impetus to conquer, occupy, or dictate. You do yourself a disservice to suggest that Norway is free of oppressive tendencies however. As I’ve pointed out before, their intelligence apparatus is fairly active.

And you're still avoiding the problem. It is not necessarily implied by looking after you're own nation that you are looking to surpass others. That is called a leap in logic, and paranoia to boot.

Paranoia? Perhaps. But calling the kettle black doesn’t dismiss the argument.

Think about it logically. Politics is inherently zero-sum. When one wins, it is always at the expense of another. No two nations ever reap the same benefit. One nation’s proportionate rise in power and influence is another’s bane. By looking after one’s own nation, you are prosecuting self-empowerment. The success of that effort will improve your nation’s standing on any number of levels, thus affording greater influence – and impact, unwelcome or otherwise – elsewhere in the world.

Maybe that not everything under the sun is justified in pursuit of those resources?

There is no justice in the world of foreign policy. You are setting self-enforced limitations with which not all will agree and to which not all will abide.

Saying it does because it does is not an argument.

This is not a legitimate response to my point. See above.

More gargantuan leaps in logic. Making your nation more prosperous is now necessarily a move towards global hegemony.

Absolutely it is. The United States is a hegemon in part because its actions carry significant reverberations throughout the world, welcome or not. By pursuing one’s own interests, one inevitably improves one’s own power – and thus one’s own influence and ability to force others to respond or take heed.

What good is tempering military adventurism and oppression if it only applies to the weak and not the strong?

It decreases anarchic factors. You also ignore that hegemony is inherently self-moderating. The successful hegemon looks to avoid or preempt the larger conflict. Remember that all, in seeking to eliminate the hyperpower, are technically cooperating in its downfall. The cost-benefit analysis takes the consequences of each and every action into account and is thus self-moderating. Aggressive militarism is not necessarily the best policy in all – or even most – cases.

Of course it is. i just asked you for an example of the ultimate goal of amoral realpolitik which hadn't gotten there that way didn't I?

Let me then amend my earlier statement.

Amoral realpolitik – and thus the cost-benefit analysis – leaves room for violent behavior. Assumption of hyperpowerdom has historically required the exercise of military muscle. Hyperpowerdom is impossible without aggressive – and thus military – behavior. It does not however necessarily imply that mass slaughter will occur indiscriminately. In today’s world there are, for instance, a number of organizations (of which the United Nations is merely one example) that inherently moderate the actions of operative superpowers. And that’s without having also taken into account that every action inspires a reaction. Too aggressive a policy will result in outright opposition – even by lesser powers – that the cost-benefit practitioner would inherently wish to avoid.

Keep in mind that this acknowledgement does not damage my argument whatsoever. Realpolitik – whether or not amoral – is still the most attractive form of government from all points of view. Don’t forget that even those seeking a “beneficial” or “good” society will continue to do so under the cost-benefit system; it’s merely more flexible to boot.

Then it's immoral.

Exactly. So you’d end such activity – which is considered in many circles a form of pre-emptive self-defense - under a moral government, no?

How so? That's the strawman you've been putting up from the get go, and which I have disputed in almost every post.

You’ve argued that moral government will repudiate sabotage, intelligence-gathering (for the most part), and amoral behavior in general. You’ve argued that the only time military aggression and/or cost-benefit behavior are permissible is when the existence of the state itself is directly threatened. But you also made the statement that Sweden was unjustified for pursuing the continuity of its own independence even in the fact of Nazi hegemony. So which is it? Would you, in Sweden’s position, have fought the Germans – and lost - for the sake of moral scruples, or sat tight and preserved your relative autonomy?

You also ignore the fact that the cost-benefit analysis still leaves room for a general maintenance of stability in the world predicated – if unintentionally - on moral behavior, if enforced. The hegemon – or superpowers – clearly prefer what you’d term “moral” institutions (democracy, for example) because they promote stability, contentment, and the least level of anarchic tendencies. That does not however mean that government is moral per se, merely that certain outcomes of the cost-benefit system happen to be as such. It’s the closest your outlook and desire can function compatibly with reality.

Nonsense. Plenty of nations do not actively participate in such activites and get along just fine, and certainly not the most powerful.

Government is always about self-service. Again, the intelligence apparatus of all nations are consistently at work performing what you might call provocative, amoral, immoral, or hostile activities across the globe. Don’t forget that there’s moral to repugnant activity than merely the invasion of your neighbor – which isn’t often an option for most. It doesn’t mean that they follow moral government per se, merely that most of the outcomes of their decision-making process are compliant with moral schemes.

You were the one who brought it up. Don't use the example if it doesn't fly.

Since when does my argument “not fly?” You’ve admitted you “don’t care” what goes on outside your borders. Your entire system is predicated on safety and stability ensured by (A) others or (B) an unrealistic expectation of international apathy.

And non-chattel slavery is practiced by who now?

Syrians. Lebanese. Moroccans.

Yes that. You've already appealed to national consensus of ostpolitik. The UN charter is a clear indicator that all signatories to it have converging views on what is acceptable international behavior.

That does not mean they actually hold those views; merely that they wish them enacted. Again, you’ve neglected to consider that moral precedent puts strain on the United States and other superpowers to constrain themselves and thus inherently modifies and lessens their impact elsewhere. The UN Charter is a tool rather than a universal agreement. It’s also only useful to the extent that it can be enforced. See, Iraq. See, Serbia.

They *are* irrelevant. From an international decision making standpoint, where you're deciding how to conduct yourself in relation to other nations? How is anti-homosexuality sentiment relevant?

Again, what makes you so absolutely certain that all nations will agree on standards of moral behavior or moral law? Some nations believe homosexuality inherently immoral and oppress that portion of their population. How will you deal with such issues?

This all ties back into the notion of universal application. How will you oblige it? How will you force others to abandon the road to self-empowerment?

Please leave trendy-among-neocon buzzwords at the door. Give me an example of an 'islamo-facist' state.

Afghanistan. Iran.

Let's just take these two unsavory system examples for a second. What kind of bullshit opinion is it to cite totalitarian/ authoritarian regimes (already known for a total lack of morality) and use them as an excuse for why acting just fucking like them is internationally acceptable? Any moron would agree that these states are hardly welcome in the international system and certainly wouldn't be supported as they are now if some governments had a few more principles- they would be more pariahs than they are now (look at the Pakistan regime- certainly not one worthy of US support).

If a totalitarian or authoritarian regime enjoys a greater range of options than my own government, I am inherently at risk.

Again, you assume that everybody will embrace the moral system. Are you implying that if the world were following your proposed form of behavior, Communist China and dictatorial Pakistan would be subject to sanction and diplomatic isolation? How exactly will you enforce “moral government?” How will you enforce a uniform system of morality and ethical decision-making? How will you suppress nationalism and the desire for self-service above global outlooks?

What exactly is European Socialism?

European governments tend to have a socialistic flare – certainly moreso than the laissez-faire United States. Their belief of a government’s responsibility is inherently different. That can tie into moral responsibility to the people as well.

And some of those levels have nothing to do with immoral behavior. Edging out another country of a sweet deal above the table is an entirely different matter from shipping attack helicopters to a known human rights violator.

Is it? And will most countries prosecute their financial objectives above-the-table? Probably not. There is no actual way to oblige them to do so – especially morally.

You also forget that the Israeli situation is sticky (those attack helicopters are generally used for targeted strikes), but that’s beside the point. This happens to be a policy for which you personally advocate. What if, in a given democracy, others don’t see Israel as having committed aggression worthy of attention?

Do you deny that moral behavior can take place on cultural, economic, political, and military levels? Do you deny the long-term effects of economic competition can sometimes prove detrimental for a given society? Unemployment and other long-term factors lead to instability, anarchy, and could potentially result in unrest. Not every decision or situation is clear-cut.

How is that at all relevant to what I just said? Do you read replies, or just rant?

You said that Iraq had ignored the United States.

Still ranting. You completely ignored what I said.

I acknowledge that it’s immoral. But that’s all you’ve put forward. The problem is that it’s not an argument. Oppression can be self-serving. From that point of view, it’s attractive.

Your demand that all participate in moral government is an appeal to emotion and “goodness.” It’s a ridiculous attempt to buck human nature and ignores the fact that all will never agree.

No, I use the United States as an example. In its maximum power it is the most obvious one.

But you ignore the fact that other nations pursue their own best interests as best they can in comparison to the United States.

Do you condone some sort of bullshit 'all sinner's are equal in my eyes' view of morality? Is shoving in a line to get in a movie and shooting someone in the face are the same thing? You seem incapable of grasping the concept of levels of harm.

So now we’re making comparisons? How is poising a water supply or leaking confidential data that allows a shift in elections or government really all that different from targeted assassination or general political repression? In the long term, all of these are on the same level of immorality. Some – the leaks, for instance – would help propagate others – political repression.

That all depends on whether there is actually anything going on.

Denmark’s corporations function worldwide, just like those of most other nations.

Statement of fact. And, just to reiterate about logical fallacies, an ad hominem is putting an insult in place of an argument, not putting it in the argument full stop.

It’s an attempt to boost your position by claiming that I personally am morally bankrupt. That has no bearing on the actual issues at hand.

You argue it's *useful* because it helps you out. When I argue it's not as useful because actually having some fucking scruples helps MORE people out, you call that 'morality for morality's sake'.

It’s more useful from my own point of view. I seek the most self-gratifying route possible at all times. Government worldwide – since the dawn of civilization - has traditionally followed the same outlook.

Helping others is sometimes useful to me – for instance, promulgating democracy opens more markets to my nation – and sometimes not – scaling back on repressive tendencies against some can potentially result in the rise of an alternative powerbroker in a given region.

You’ve been suggesting until now that moral government is preferable because it’s “good.” But if you’re going to make the new argument of mere utility, you’ve going to have to acknowledge that your position is ultimate fantasy. Moral government would help more, but to a lesser extent. Few will accept that outcome.

Of course it's less useful. It's useful to less people than actually having some standards of acceptable behavior.

I’m not worried about the majority though. Usefulness is determined on an individual basis – from nation to nation or group to group. As Adam Smith pointed out, the best result comes when the individual works to his own profit.

No, because it has the best consequences for all, rather than some.

Again, that’s not a concern of mine – or of most people on the planet. It’s a utopian notion ultimately impossible to achieve.

While sending billions in aid every year.

You implied that we’ve done nothing. Never mind that we prop the Egyptian and Saudi militaries as well.

That's hardly self-moderating. It's an unintended side effect, and hardly on the level of what actually having scruples would give you.

Self-moderating from the point of view that not everybody is sure to be trampled underfoot by the cost-benefit analysis as you’ve been suggesting? Yes. The blatant and regular violations of all that is good and well is rather unlikely. It just doesn’t make practical – or profitable – sense. Now you’re correct in saying it’s an unintended side-effect – but that’s not to say it isn’t self-moderating despite that fact.

Patently false. Hitler's antisemtic ideas were popular even before he was elected, and the persecution and eventual slaughter of the jews bares that out amply. It wasn't carried out by a few, it was the majority!

Antisemetism was popular, yes. That doesn’t mean a majority of Germans wanted to kill Jews as a matter of course. Hitler wasn’t elected merely as a result of his anti-Semitic policies. The persecution and slaughter imply that a majority was able to usurp power by engaging in activity conducive to that of a police state. The average German could not resist with any certain hope of effecting change.

There is fucking ample, in your face evidence to tell you what the Germans thought of the Jews by the privations they inflicted on them from 1933 onwards. If you can find similar evidence of approval of the gulags, bring it forward, of course you won't, because Stalin's terrorizing affected the entire population and was so traumatic that the moment he dropped dead the USSR disavowed him.

Resignation and the inability to stop something doesn’t imply approval. There’s a difference between being unable to stop something and actively aiding the slaughter.

So the Germans haven’t disavowed Hitler? A small minority in both countries still raise up Hitler and Stalin – but those who love Stalin in Russia far outnumber those who love Hitler in Germany to this day.

It is already well-established that a soldier has a responsibiltiy to refuse an immoral order. Just following orders will never be an excuse, and keeping your mouth shut isn't acceptable either if you know it's going on.

So again you imply that the Soviet people are just as guilty for the gulags as the entire German population for the Holocaust.

Did it ever occur to you that following orders promotes stability and reduces anarchy? If I suddenly take the initiative to refuse certain orders in a given situation, I place others – expectant of my compliance – at risk and open the door for additional breakdown of the command structure. It’s a sufficiently complex issue that we’ll have to agree to disagree. Now obviously there are certain situations in which anyone would abstain – but you must understand also that it has to do with fear of being turned on yourself. If I can’t effect change, why become a martyr? Because it’s “right?” That’s not a hell of a lot of consolation – even if Vympel will hold me up twenty years down the line in some silly little political message board debate.

And of course, trying to minimize such suffering is just stupid, because it's 'fact' and we're better off leaving those human refuse where they are, right?

Trying to minimize it in one’s own nation is one thing. Seeking to minimize it worldwide is quite another. Again, self-profit comes into play here.

So why bring it up?

Because I’m not ashamed.

As an exercise, perhaps you'll tell me where Bush had 'realpolitik' plastered all over his election campaign?

Qualify this question in relation to the argument.

How is it a universal truth?

Their governments are established on rather different foundations.

There are degrees of government oversight? Where do you get this stuff? Jeez, do you have any evidence?

Putin has oversight over certain agreements made by Russian companies.

What, by telling Iraqis to get stuffed when they tried to cross the border?

By patrolling the damn borders actively.

Indeed it is.

So you’re still criticizing Sweden’s self-preservation? If you were in Stockholm, you’d absolutely have bargained away your freedom and security in order to oppose Hitler?

And look where it's decision got millions of people. Dead.

And millions of Swedes. Free. A key example of profit or government for the few. You can’t change human nature no matter how much you try, Vympel. It speaks a great deal about you that you expect others to die for your moral positions. At least as much – if not more – than you claim it speaks about me that I expect them to die for my immoral positions.

No, it's a prime example of why amoral decision making is entirely unacceptable.

That’s only from your point of view. And you’re clearly a minority on that issue. Sweden’s actual actions are testament to that.

[Edi]

“Finnish and German interests did happen to coincide after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union” to the tune of military cooperation, you mean? Let’s not mince words. Berlin was sending directives to Helsinki; the Whermacht was operating from Finn soil.

Berlin did not send directives, it sent suggestions and requests. Whether those were heeded or granted was decided by Finnish political leadership. Wehrmacht did operate from Finnish soil, yes, helping in our defense. What of it?

And whether or not we might consider the entire exercise justified on any level, you can’t evade the fact: Finland was a party to Operation: Barbarossa and thus the German war effort. Petsamo nickel went to the German war machine. The Finns did help constrict Leningrad. Their actions were predicated on their orbit to the German sphere.

Those actions were predicated on the need to defend Finland from Soviet aggression, and if you think there was anything else behind it, you're suffering from serious delusions. But then again, it was obvious from your first post that you were utterly delusional. What part of the events of late 1939 did you skip over in your historyu books, especially the parts about us getting invaded without provocation despite serious efforts at negotiating a peaceful solution?

Thus they suffered satellite status.

Define what you mean by satellite status. My definition is that a satellite is under the control of whoever they orbit, and Finland was not under German control.

And “providing the Germans with troops?” That’s semantics. You can’t argue that Germans were organized in and deployed from Finland during the war. Finns served alongside – if not directly under – the Whermacht. Whether or not it was self-defense against the Soviets, you were Hitler’s allies.

Informal allies of convenience, for the purposes of defending Finland against the Soviets, so what the fuck is the problem? What is morally wrong in defending against unprovoked aggression? Hitler's help to Finland is one of the few (and quite possibly the only) good things he did. That we fought alongside Germans when their goals (conquest) coincided with ours (self-defense/reclaiming illegally taken territory) is not in dispute. If you want to make that cooperation into a morally questionable problem, it's your burden to show why it was so given what the circumstances were.

Who says for certain that Swedish ore would still have flowed to the Finns after a German invasion? Perhaps for two or three months – if at all, depending on how long organized, meaningful resistance holds up -, but probably no longer.

You mean the Germans would have completely cut us off after completing their invasion, when they needed us to be capable of fighting? You're delusional.

German troops were already operating from Finnish soil. The entire front was technically under German supervision.

That's a completely unfounded claim. Yes, German troops were here, in very limited numbers, but the Finnish High Command was never subordinate to them, so you can shove your claims about German supervision up your ass where they came from.

You also ignore the fact that Hitler regularly short-handed his allies. Note that my statement included the words, “slackened support.” He might have sought a punitive redeployment in order to increase the direct burden of combat with the Soviets on Finland’s own troops.

What other fronts? South, Central, or the Baltic.

He might have, yes, and we would have had to use more troops to defend the northern parts of the front, but it could have been done. And if those troops had been sent to the Baltic front, they'd hardly have been off the Soviets' backs.

The shortest place to lay mines would be between Skagen, Denmark and Goteborg, Sweden. That still leaves the territory to Goteborg’s north (there’s a coastal strip) undefended.

This nitpick of a nitpick is relevant how? Would they mine just one place, or maybe actually do something effectively, meaning the whole western coast. If you expect me to name every fucking cape and bay on the Swedish west coast that should be minded, keep waiting.

Not to mention that Germany could have launched a seaborne invasion from a more easterly route.

No shit? Do you think I don't realize this?

Don’t forget that ships laying mines in the immediate vicinity would have been seen to be impeding trade and committing suspicious activity warranting engagement.

Quite possibly, yes, but has it occurred to you that it is possible to engage in that activity at night, with lights off, and thus escape detection? That's how the Finnish Navy mined the coast of Estonia, and the Soviets had no idea until nearly their whole fucking convoy evacuating from Tallinn was sunk in the minefields.

In suffering to whom? As you’ve pointed out, Sweden had no clear choice. And profit was the best remedy in that situation. At least remaining quasi-independent had its dividends. That’s not so say we don’t condemn or disapprove of such activity in hindsight. At the time, it made the most sense – and was probably justified quite roundly.

Yes, they did have a justification, one that was quite acceptable at the time. It still does not remove the moral problems associated with it, as has been pointed out. In your world, where profitable = moral, the distinction has no meaning, for me and Vympel the difference is quite profound.

Your quote: “Out of office by the next month.”

Keep in mind that moral behavior is also amenable to business and development. A morally sound world is a profitable world. It’s unlikely that your government seeks to employ moral doctrine merely for the sake of being “good” rather than promoting a generally welcome stability.

Which is best done by seeking the overall good for the greatest possible number of people, and not trampling on them. You can stop with that tautological refrain you've been spouting for pages.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

Berlin did not send directives, it sent suggestions and requests. Whether those were heeded or granted was decided by Finnish political leadership. Wehrmacht did operate from Finnish soil, yes, helping in our defense. What of it?

Semantics. Finland cooperated to the degree that it is today remembered as a member of the Axis Powers. Whether or not it was justified, Hitler was involved. Romania can make the same claim to self-defense. Remember northern Bukovina and Bessarabia? Finland didn’t come out of the war smelling of roses. But we digress; this isn’t about blame. Back to more relevant matters.

Define what you mean by satellite status. My definition is that a satellite is under the control of whoever they orbit, and Finland was not under German control.

Finland’s actions were always in response to or in tune with German activity. During the war, Finland could not escape the Reich’s clear European hegemony.

Informal allies of convenience, for the purposes of defending Finland against the Soviets, so what the fuck is the problem? What is morally wrong in defending against unprovoked aggression? Hitler's help to Finland is one of the few (and quite possibly the only) good things he did. That we fought alongside Germans when their goals (conquest) coincided with ours (self-defense/reclaiming illegally taken territory) is not in dispute. If you want to make that cooperation into a morally questionable problem, it's your burden to show why it was so given what the circumstances were.

It was preemptive invasion; not all of Finland’s conquests were those once lost to the Russians. But again, I didn’t come here to argue whether or not Helsinki chose the correct road in 1939.

You mean the Germans would have completely cut us off after completing their invasion, when they needed us to be capable of fighting? You're delusional.

No. Assuming the fighting in Sweden took months, how soon do you think Finland would see that ore? Especially if production was down and the Germans required the lion’s share for their own war machine.

That's a completely unfounded claim. Yes, German troops were here, in very limited numbers, but the Finnish High Command was never subordinate to them, so you can shove your claims about German supervision up your ass where they came from.

Mannerheim was in nominal command; it was Dietel’s front for all intents and purposes. You cannot deny that the Germans were more or less orchestrating the campaign. It was periphery to their overarching objectives.

He might have, yes, and we would have had to use more troops to defend the northern parts of the front, but it could have been done. And if those troops had been sent to the Baltic front, they'd hardly have been off the Soviets' backs.

Hitler would have shifted certain units in Finland down to the Baltic area. That hardly implies the Soviets would have immediately done the same; no, at first, the burden would have been squarely on Helsinki’s shoulders. He wasn’t beyond such activity, you know. The Reich consistently short-handed allies (including Finland) on an economic level as a result of Hitler’s merchantalist worldview.

This nitpick of a nitpick is relevant how? Would they mine just one place, or maybe actually do something effectively, meaning the whole western coast. If you expect me to name every fucking cape and bay on the Swedish west coast that should be minded, keep waiting.

You’re ignoring my argument.

Sweden wouldn’t have been able to fully mine and thus defend its coast without intervention from Germany before the task was complete. There would have been clear avenues open for invasion.

Quite possibly, yes, but has it occurred to you that it is possible to engage in that activity at night, with lights off, and thus escape detection? That's how the Finnish Navy mined the coast of Estonia, and the Soviets had no idea until nearly their whole fucking convoy evacuating from Tallinn was sunk in the minefields.

It’s a bit more difficult once you’re talking about the whole of Sweden’s coastline and certain areas adjacent to German-controlled Denmark or Poland. German boats – and shore stations – are out there as well.

Yes, they did have a justification, one that was quite acceptable at the time. It still does not remove the moral problems associated with it, as has been pointed out. In your world, where profitable = moral, the distinction has no meaning, for me and Vympel the difference is quite profound.

Profitable = moral? No. My argument is that morals shouldn’t enter into the equation save as expedients, that is all.

Which is best done by seeking the overall good for the greatest possible number of people, and not trampling on them. You can stop with that tautological refrain you've been spouting for pages.

You are correct only from a technical point of view. Unfortunately, today’s world is such that only small portions of any given population or certain players in any given region actually qualify as deserving of our immediate attention. While eventual transformation of the entire globe is attractive on some levels, it is not necessarily a pursuit with which we can or should currently concern ourselves. Do not forget that you’re making a very general pronouncement. It is always dangerous to prosecute such agendas too faithfully.

Remember: if my ultimate goal is self-strengthening of a particular nation state (above all), then there is little I should technically wish to do for great swaths of the global community. Creating a global network of consumers with generally stable governments is one thing and creating a globe of healthy competitors another.

[Edi]

Semantics. Finland cooperated to the degree that it is today remembered as a member of the Axis Powers. Whether or not it was justified, Hitler was involved. Romania can make the same claim to self-defense. Remember northern Bukovina and Bessarabia? Finland didn’t come out of the war smelling of roses. But we digress; this isn’t about blame. Back to more relevant matters.

We might be remembered as one of the Axis powers, but it does not change the truth. Hitler's being involved does not automatically turn the defense of Finland against Soviet aggression immoral, as you seem to imply. He was a monster who killed millions, but if nothing else, the single good thing Nazi Germany did was help us retain our independence when everyone else gave us the finger and ignored requests for help. Your own country was allied with Stalin, yet did that make American actions in WW2 immoral? No, it didn't, and it cuts both ways in this case.

As for the smelling of roses part, we came out of the war smelling a lot cleaner than many other countries. We fought a successful (in the final analysis) war of defense against unwarranted aggression and retained independence, and we did not commit atrocities. Again, what part of our conduct was immoral and condemnable?

Define what you mean by satellite status. My definition is that a satellite is under the control of whoever they orbit, and Finland was not under German control.

Finland’s actions were always in response to or in tune with German activity. During the war, Finland could not escape the Reich’s clear European hegemony.

I don't get that seemingly fundamental disconnect in your brain that makes you ignore everything I say. You have it utterly backwards. Finland's actions were always in response to Soviet activity, and practically always diametrically opposed to it because they wanted to wipe us out. Given that Germany was diamterically opposed to the Soviet Union for its own reasons, it's no surprise there was cooperation. If the enemy of my enemy is willing to help me when my survival is at stake, I'll bloody well take that help, thank you very much. We could not escape being on the border of the Soviet sphere of influence, but we did manage to stay on that border instead of being swallowed up unlike our less fortunate southern neighbors. That would have been bloody difficult without German help.

It was preemptive invasion; not all of Finland’s conquests were those once lost to the Russians. But again, I didn’t come here to argue whether or not Helsinki chose the correct road in 1939.

You turned this into such an argument, and I'll keep hounding you until you give up your unsupported claims. The preemptive invasion line is just more bullshit. The Soviet Union invaded in 1939 and failed in early 1940. In 1941 hostilities resumed after Soviet bombing of Helsinki, and we took back the territories lost in the 1940 treaty. The adventures outside our old borders never enjoyed general support and there were outright refusals to cross the old border. Those people were court-martialed and either jailed or shot. It does not change the fact that Finnish advances into Soviet territory came only after we had been attacked. It was not preemptive.

You mean the Germans would have completely cut us off after completing their invasion, when they needed us to be capable of fighting? You're delusional.

No. Assuming the fighting in Sweden took months, how soon do you think Finland would see that ore? Especially if production was down and the Germans required the lion’s share for their own war machine.

Not quite that straightforward. We would of course see a drop in shipments, but they'd hardly cut us off because of the situation. You also disregard possible deals between Sweden and Finland where they would give control of the northern parts of the country (where a lot of those mines are) to Finland in exchange for protection from the Germans. Of course, in that scenario Finland would have replaced Sweden as the iron supplier to Germany.

That's a completely unfounded claim. Yes, German troops were here, in very limited numbers, but the Finnish High Command was never subordinate to them, so you can shove your claims about German supervision up your ass where they came from.

Mannerheim was in nominal command; it was Dietel’s front for all intents and purposes. You cannot deny that the Germans were more or less orchestrating the campaign. It was periphery to their overarching objectives.

"Nominal"? What part of "Finland was a sovereign, independent naton, with its own military" did you not understand? Dietel's forces in Finland were numerically far smaller than the Finnish military, operated on their own, and had no jurisdiction over Finnish troops whatsoever, unless those troops were directly subordinated to them by the Finnish High Command (as was done in some cases to prevent chain of command conflicts at the front). German and Finnish militaries cooperated to an extent in planning (a given since both Finnish Army and Wehrmacht troops were present) and execution, but cooperation stopped after Finnish objectives were achieved. Finland was a peripheral front for Germany specifically because we were independent and did not require significant troop contributions (but rather material support) to keep the Soviets at bay. If the Germans had managed to take Leningrad, they'd have pushed north to cut off the Murmansk railroad and gotten their northern objectives that way (because Finnish refusal to heed their demands prevented achieving it from the west).

Hitler would have shifted certain units in Finland down to the Baltic area. That hardly implies the Soviets would have immediately done the same; no, at first, the burden would have been squarely on Helsinki’s shoulders. He wasn’t beyond such activity, you know. The Reich consistently short-handed allies (including Finland) on an economic level as a result of Hitler’s merchantalist worldview.

I know. This is also something that we could have handled, albeit it would have put more pressure on us.

You’re ignoring my argument.

Sweden wouldn’t have been able to fully mine and thus defend its coast without intervention from Germany before the task was complete. There would have been clear avenues open for invasion.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm quite well aware of how difficult the task is and that avenues of invasion would be open (a given, because the Swedish navy was not large enough to mine the whole coastline).

Quite possibly, yes, but has it occurred to you that it is possible to engage in that activity at night, with lights off, and thus escape detection? That's how the Finnish Navy mined the coast of Estonia, and the Soviets had no idea until nearly their whole fucking convoy evacuating from Tallinn was sunk in the minefields.

It’s a bit more difficult once you’re talking about the whole of Sweden’s coastline and certain areas adjacent to German-controlled Denmark or Poland. German boats – and shore stations – are out there as well.

I'm aware of the difficulties. I'm saying that the Swedes would have been capable of hindering and slowing an invasion that way, not preventing it. Their coastline is not nearly as accommodating as ours is in that respect. Invading Finland from the sea would be one bitch of a task...

Profitable = moral? No. My argument is that morals shouldn’t enter into the equation save as expedients, that is all.

As you wish. It does little to alter the perception.

Which is best done by seeking the overall good for the greatest possible number of people, and not trampling on them. You can stop with that tautological refrain you've been spouting for pages.

You are correct only from a technical point of view. Unfortunately, today’s world is such that only small portions of any given population or certain players in any given region actually qualify as deserving of our immediate attention. While eventual transformation of the entire globe is attractive on some levels, it is not necessarily a pursuit with which we can or should currently concern ourselves. Do not forget that you’re making a very general pronouncement. It is always dangerous to prosecute such agendas too faithfully.

I'm not ignoring realities. You assume I would do so in order to pursue an ideal, when this is not a case. I think everyone who is out for their own interests (long term ones anyway) should seriously concern themselves with that pursuit when they can do so. In the case of the US, it is not a matter of capability, it's a matter of will and interest. Both of those two seem to be seriously lacking right now.

Remember: if my ultimate goal is self-strengthening of a particular nation state (above all), then there is little I should technically wish to do for great swaths of the global community. Creating a global network of consumers with generally stable governments is one thing and creating a globe of healthy competitors another.

This is where your view detaches from reality. In order to have a global network of consumers, you needs must have a global network of healthy market economies with good productivity, and the basic requirement of that is competition and the possibility for advancement. Hence you must have competitors in order for it to happen. You just ignore the possibility that competition can be economic in nature, it does not need to be military. Of course, in the case of nations like China and India, it will be military as well, at least in their neighborhoods.

If, on the other hand, your goal is simply to remain completely unrivaled at the top, then it's in your interest to keep the other guys trodden down or too scared to do anything, but we've already seen what that results in.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

We might be remembered as one of the Axis powers, but it does not change the truth. Hitler's being involved does not automatically turn the defense of Finland against Soviet aggression immoral, as you seem to imply. He was a monster who killed millions, but if nothing else, the single good thing Nazi Germany did was help us retain our independence when everyone else gave us the finger and ignored requests for help. Your own country was allied with Stalin, yet did that make American actions in WW2 immoral? No, it didn't, and it cuts both ways in this case.

As for the smelling of roses part, we came out of the war smelling a lot cleaner than many other countries. We fought a successful (in the final analysis) war of defense against unwarranted aggression and retained independence, and we did not commit atrocities. Again, what part of our conduct was immoral and condemnable?

Perhaps you have the logic working backwards. The truth does not change Finland’s being remembered as an Axis power. Smelling better at the end of the war? Granted. Of roses? No. Vympel’s old argument can at times function in relation to your country: more could have been done to dissuade or hinder the Nazis. But again, this discussion is unimportant. Had I been in power, I’d have done very little different for all of the obvious reasons you’ve thus far cited.

I don't get that seemingly fundamental disconnect in your brain that makes you ignore everything I say. You have it utterly backwards. Finland's actions were always in response to Soviet activity, and practically always diametrically opposed to it because they wanted to wipe us out. Given that Germany was diamterically opposed to the Soviet Union for its own reasons, it's no surprise there was cooperation. If the enemy of my enemy is willing to help me when my survival is at stake, I'll bloody well take that help, thank you very much. We could not escape being on the border of the Soviet sphere of influence, but we did manage to stay on that border instead of being swallowed up unlike our less fortunate southern neighbors. That would have been bloody difficult without German help.

But during the war – for reasons of its own -, Finnish policy was more or less bound to address that of Germany. Hitler’s activates were as universally consequential as Stalin’s.

You turned this into such an argument, and I'll keep hounding you until you give up your unsupported claims. The preemptive invasion line is just more bullshit. The Soviet Union invaded in 1939 and failed in early 1940. In 1941 hostilities resumed after Soviet bombing of Helsinki, and we took back the territories lost in the 1940 treaty. The adventures outside our old borders never enjoyed general support and there were outright refusals to cross the old border. Those people were court-martialed and either jailed or shot. It does not change the fact that Finnish advances into Soviet territory came only after we had been attacked. It was not preemptive.

Finland seized former territories occupied by the Soviet Union – and then set off to conquer certain outstanding border territories in a preemptive attempt to blunt the next Red Army offensive. That’s fact. But again, I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. I’m not questioning the morality or practicality of Finland – just pointing out the lay of the land, so to speak.

Not quite that straightforward. We would of course see a drop in shipments, but they'd hardly cut us off because of the situation. You also disregard possible deals between Sweden and Finland where they would give control of the northern parts of the country (where a lot of those mines are) to Finland in exchange for protection from the Germans. Of course, in that scenario Finland would have replaced Sweden as the iron supplier to Germany.

And if German troops in Finland under Dietel cut off northern territories in Sweden from easy access to the rest of your country? I guarantee you that productivity within those mines would decrease – Germany would inevitably take the lion’s share of ore, if not absolutely all of it. So Germany compels Sweden to surrender the ore fields to Finnish control – are you implying Mannerheim would also have held out against Hitler, knowing invasion was eminent?

"Nominal"? What part of "Finland was a sovereign, independent naton, with its own military" did you not understand? Dietel's forces in Finland were numerically far smaller than the Finnish military, operated on their own, and had no jurisdiction over Finnish troops whatsoever, unless those troops were directly subordinated to them by the Finnish High Command (as was done in some cases to prevent chain of command conflicts at the front). German and Finnish militaries cooperated to an extent in planning (a given since both Finnish Army and Wehrmacht troops were present) and execution, but cooperation stopped after Finnish objectives were achieved. Finland was a peripheral front for Germany specifically because we were independent and did not require significant troop contributions (but rather material support) to keep the Soviets at bay. If the Germans had managed to take Leningrad, they'd have pushed north to cut off the Murmansk railroad and gotten their northern objectives that way (because Finnish refusal to heed their demands prevented achieving it from the west).

Germany and Finland cooperated in part in moving toward Murmansk. Finnish forces putting pressure on Leningrad operated as part of a set-piece offensive envisioned by Hitler himself. Dietel at times had direct control – whether or not it was a courtesy – over Finland’s own defense forces – even if he didn’t use them to stereotypical offensive ends.

I'm not ignoring realities. You assume I would do so in order to pursue an ideal, when this is not a case. I think everyone who is out for their own interests (long term ones anyway) should seriously concern themselves with that pursuit when they can do so. In the case of the US, it is not a matter of capability, it's a matter of will and interest. Both of those two seem to be seriously lacking right now.

The cost-benefit analysis exists for self-empowerment first and foremost. While attempts to bring order, stability, and limited or marginal prosperity to other parts of the globe are at times evidenced, these are generally initiated on account of economic rather than moral intentions. It is never in the United States’ – or any other hegemon’s – best interest to aid and abet another major nation achieve its full potential.

This is where your view detaches from reality. In order to have a global network of consumers, you needs must have a global network of healthy market economies with good productivity, and the basic requirement of that is competition and the possibility for advancement. Hence you must have competitors in order for it to happen. You just ignore the possibility that competition can be economic in nature, it does not need to be military. Of course, in the case of nations like China and India, it will be military as well, at least in their neighborhoods.

If, on the other hand, your goal is simply to remain completely unrivaled at the top, then it's in your interest to keep the other guys trodden down or too scared to do anything, but we've already seen what that results in.

We’re looking for what you might call a “happy medium” in cases like these.

Assuming the United States desires a competent, productive Indian subcontinent, we will then help make it so – but only to a certain degree. There’s a point that the assistance needs to stop and the contingency plans fall into place. There’s a certain combination of financial influence – if not outright manipulation – and direct intimidation – blunt oppression or repression – involved. In cases such as those, any link to moral behavior is purely circumstantial. Stability and basic security for profit’s sake, if you will. Just because it happens to be better for all involved doesn’t mean there’s still an ultimate winner. The zero-sum rule, you see. In any given situation, only one emerges the winner – whether or not others reap independent (but naturally lesser) benefits of their own. It’s in the hegemon’s best interest to encourage a moderately profitable but easily-destabilized state, dominated by its own interests and saturated with its own influence, money, and agendas. There are clear differences between “healthy market economies with good productivity” and “potential superpowers.” At best the hegemon should work to create regional players – local power brokers – rather than strong competition able to gain superpower status independently (or at all). When it does have contact with those nations, it’s generally after the fact or because some outside demands compel it. Our relationship with China, for instance, has nothing to do with desire on our part for a strong Eastern superpower but everything to do with the fact that our markets have become intertwined with their own. It doesn’t mean that because our ties with the People’s Republic are today profitable that we hope others will spring up within the next century. In this case, perhaps it’s best to leave off with one rule in mind: some things must come in moderation, after only careful consideration. Intrastate cooperation is inherently one of them.

[Edi]

We’re looking for what you might call a “happy medium” in cases like these.

Just because it happens to be better for all involved doesn’t mean there’s still an ultimate winner. The zero-sum rule, you see.

Economics is not a zero-sum game, something you apparently forget here.

In this case, perhaps it’s best to leave off with one rule in mind: some things must come in moderation, after only careful consideration. Intrastate cooperation is inherently one of them.

I'm not disagreeing with this assertion, only a fool lets his guard down, but it doesn't mean that you have to try maximally screwing everyone else over every chance you get.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

Economics is not a zero-sum game, something you apparently forget here.

Incorrect. Economics is a zero-sum game. There are degrees of success. While two parties may conclude deals considered mutually desirable, one always “trumps” the other.

I'm not disagreeing with this assertion, only a fool lets his guard down, but it doesn't mean that you have to try maximally screwing everyone else over every chance you get.

Everyone else (at all times)? No. Some (much or all of the time)? Yes.