Churchill quote
Johan Arve
did he say it?
Best Regards,
Johan Arve
Molly Frost
In answer to your question as to whether or not Churchill called Sweden
"that small coward country", I've never read that quote anywhere to my
knowledge. I'm not saying he didn't say it but it doesn't sound like
Churchill. As you know he was very frustrated at the beginning of the war
that all of the smaller countries did not band together against the Nazis
and he warned each of them, saying something to the effect that those
countries who feed the crockadile the most would hope that the crockadile
would eat them last.
Frost
Matt Handi
Paul Courtenay
surprising that he was later awarded a Nobel prize, which was presented to
his wife in 1953 by the King.
Paul Courtenay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johan Arve" <johan...@gmail.com>
To: <Church...@googlegroups.com>
Peter Adler
As a Swede, born one year after the war ended, I must admit that I feel
uncomfortable whenever the Swedish "neutrality" during the war is brought
up. It is indeed a very dismal chapter of our national history. What is even
more depressing: The doctrine of "neutrality" has been the fundament of
Swedish foreign politics during more than four decades of socialistic rule
in our country. It has alienated our country from the other western
democraties (we are not members of NATO) from a military perspective but has
raised no obstacles when it comes to supporting totalitarian (leftist)
regimes all over the world.
If Churchell is cited correctly, I am inclined to agree with him.
Best regards
Peter Adler
----- Original Message -----
From: "Molly Frost" <molly...@nctv.com>
To: <Church...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Churchill quote
>
Paul Sparling
You are being too hard on your country. Remember only Britain, the
British Commonweath, and France went to war as a result of another country
(Poland) being attacked. Correct me if I am wrong, but all other countries
on the Allied side only went to war when they themselves were attacked
including the USSR and the United States. Others who remained neutral until
attacked were Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belguim, Greece, Norway, Luxemburg,
Yugoslavia, and Finland. Those that were not attacked and remained neutral
are also many; Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. Quit being so hard
on yourself.
Paul Sparling
Peter Adler
The facts you remind me of are certainly correct. The reason that I put
"neutral" between citation marks stems from the fact that the Swedish
government allowed iron ore from the mines in the remote northern parts of
our country to be shipped on Swedish trains to the Norwegian port of Narvik
to supply the German war industry with badly needed raw material during the
war. Also, a German infantry division (Division Engelbert) was permitted to
use Swedish railways for transportation of troops to fortify the German
forces in Norway.
Is there a "Churchillian" aspect on this shameful "neutral" policy ?
No doubt. Following the same "survival instinct" Great Britain could have
signed a non-aggression treaty with the nazis. However, they did not - in
spite of the fact that prominent members of the War Cabinet (e.g. Lord
Halifax) did advocate this as an emergency solution after Dunkirk. The
reason: The stubborn resistance to this idea from one single person: Winston
Spencer Churchill.
I may be hard on my native country, but I know that the prosperity we
enjoyed during the first decades after WWII was partly the result of being
spared from the horrors and destruction of war. Is that a heritage to be
proud of?
All the best
Molly Frost
Your answer was great and correct. Thank God there are people like you who
understand history!
Molly Frost
You are a wise man.Thank God for people like you! You should be proud of
your heritage to have avoided a world war and all the hell that went with
it. I wish the world could learn from you guys!
Johan Arve
Churchill's frustration.
And that Wikipedia article is why I'm asking. I wanted to check if its
correct. :)
Johan Arve
Alex Calvo
Molly Frost <molly...@nctv.com> wrote:
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail.
Johan Arve
for ten days and then the Germans could have mined the Iron with
impressed slave labour. Since we limited the exports they could have
taken more than they bought from a neutral Sweden.
The importance of the exports are also rather overstated. The export
was about 10 mil tons and their own production in 1943 was 50 mil tons
and they had resources they didn't use.
Peter Adler
Of course I realize that military resistance would have been futile for
Sweden during WWII. The piece of contrafactual history presented by Johan is
indeed plausible. Still I remind you, that similar arguments were raised to
keep Great Britain from destruction by a bilateral truce with Hitler. When
common sense duels with heroism, the latter is often bound to lose.
Churchill´s England during WWII is an exception from this rule.
Needless to say, heroism in most cases comes at a very high price. The toll
on the British people during the war was gruesome. Was it worth it ? Well,
who is to answer that question? Probably only those who paid the price.
Since I am a lecturer in rhetorics, I have found that cowardly behaviour has
a rhetoric - even a logic - of its own. You do not try to stop e.g. a rape
because "the perpetrator might be armed". You do not run after the mugger,
because "that is the task of a policeman". Trying to grab hold of the
burglar is often considered "a foolish daredevil´s game".
Cowards calculate while heroes act by instinct. During the ordeal of his
life, Churchill followed his instinct. The Swedish leaders calculated. This
was not their Finest Hour...
Peter Adler
Sweden
Johan Arve
They were indeed unfortunate in that the German war machine received
the iron ore it wanted to make both arms and butter. In the
contrafactual in which Sweden cancelled its contracts with and imposed
an embargo on trading with Germany, thus joining the war, I've been
arguing that the effect might well have been negligent.
I say that with keeping in mind that 1) the Germans started the war
with enough iron ore for a years arms production and 2) consumption of
iron in the civilian sector was large and 3) the Soviets were selling
iron ore to Hitler prior to 1941 and 4) the Germans had deposits of
iron of their own that they could've invested in to make up any
shortfall.
I'm not certain that the paradigm of courage/instinct vs
cowardice/calculation the question is the right one to apply here,
since the decisions were made by politicians responsible for their
respective peoples and their welfare. I would argue that calculation
should be connected to responsibility and instinct to its opposite.
When we look on Churchill's and Per Albin's decisions they were both made in the
best interests of their own country in mind.
If Churchill had given Hitler the peace the latter asked for in 1940
would have made Germany dominant for the forseeable future which was
decidedly bad news for the British. As long as there was still hope
that the US would enter the war, staying in the war was both the
intelligent and moral decision.
If Per Albin had failed to maintain Sweden's neutral status we would
have been occupied by the Germans. The consequences of that can
actually be estimated: Sweden like Greece was dependent on imports to
feed itself. Greece lost 10% of its population due to the onerous
German occupation. So we are talking about 700.000 dead to which the
more than 100.000 civilians that we did manage to save must be added.
Since we have brought up the subject of courage vs cowardice, I think
this is an excellent opportunity to get up close and personal. To his
death my father was convinced that if the Germans had come he would
have ended up in Auschwitz. I'm not quite as certain as he was, but I
do think his opinion had a basis.
Furthermore I want to inform you that I am by nature and ingrained
habit a far to aggressive person. The only times that a crime has
been committed in my presence I helped stop the perpretator. I've
stood up to bullies since I was 15 years no matter what the odds and
will continue to do so until I die.
rsl...@aol.com
Perhaps Churchill said "cowed" and not "coward". If so, the sentiment
takes on an entirely different meaning, that is more historically
accurate.
I have looked for the quote myself and have not found it yet. We are
all
waiting for for someone to find the source, if any. It could be a
misquote, or a misattribution, or just wrong.
Rich Lowry
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: johan...@gmail.com
To: Church...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:26 AM
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Churchill quote
Johan Arve
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Cecilia White
PETER,
AS USUAL, IT'S A PLEASURE TO READ YOU. DO KEEP ON DRAWING CONCLUSIONS!
From: "Peter Adler" <peter...@paprom.se>
Reply-To: Church...@googlegroups.com
To: <Church...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Churchill quote
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 13:40:22 +0200