Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I know we have some peeps here in Sweden, and I haven't heard a lot about this. I know they were in hysterics about a possible Russian sub in their waters a few years ago, and I am sure Russia does some fly-bys, but what is their worry? At the worst, Russia is just poking them. I highly doubt Russia is ever going to invade them.
Anyone know why Sweden isn't a member of NATO? Seems like an easy decision to be made. I know Sweden has worked alongside NATO on some things.
Meh, it's just a standard leaflet that was distributed regularly during the Cold War being put back into circulation. It's got a bunch of stuff on how to prepare for natural disasters or other major accidents as well, so it's not made too much of a splash.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.
BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.
KTG17 wrote: Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?
Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.
In its defense, despite having pretty advanced military hardware, Sweden doesn't have the population base to make a huge impact in a multi-nation war. It does maintain it's UN commitments, if I remember correctly, however.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.
BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.
They seem like a bully if you don't agree with their politics. They are a strong ally if you do agree, which is how the Ukraine mess got underway. They couldn't agree which was the better ally.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 15:26:45
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
KTG17 wrote: Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?
Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.
That's the SWISS guard, not the Swedish guard. The hint is in the name...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 15:41:15
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
KTG17 wrote: Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?
Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.
In its defense, despite having pretty advanced military hardware, Sweden doesn't have the population base to make a huge impact in a multi-nation war. It does maintain it's UN commitments, if I remember correctly, however.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.
BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.
They seem like a bully if you don't agree with their politics. They are a strong ally if you do agree, which is how the Ukraine mess got underway. They couldn't agree which was the better ally.
From the top of my head, Sweden was heavily involved in the 30 years war (their intervention set it off on a new course) King Charles invaded Russia, and of course, in two world wars, Sweden was selling weapons to anybody who wanted to buy them.
How is that a history of not getting involved?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Better to be prepared than with your pants down at the end of the day.
Sweden are right on some things taking sensible precautions, preperations, and adjustments to make sure you have everything in place should the worst happen is not a bad idea.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
KTG17 wrote: Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?
Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.
In its defense, despite having pretty advanced military hardware, Sweden doesn't have the population base to make a huge impact in a multi-nation war. It does maintain it's UN commitments, if I remember correctly, however.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.
BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.
They seem like a bully if you don't agree with their politics. They are a strong ally if you do agree, which is how the Ukraine mess got underway. They couldn't agree which was the better ally.
From the top of my head, Sweden was heavily involved in the 30 years war (their intervention set it off on a new course) King Charles invaded Russia, and of course, in two world wars, Sweden was selling weapons to anybody who wanted to buy them.
How is that a history of not getting involved?
Russia attacked Sweden, not the other way around. We haven't been at war since the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, that's 200 years of neutrality.
And to answer a previous question: the odds of Sweden aligning with Russia is somewhere between no and nooo, I just mentioned it as a theoretically possible "out".
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Sweden is being like Finland and Switzerland I guess. They just don't want to get dragged into any wars by joining alliances like NATO. I don't think Sweden will ever align itself with Russia though. Not unless the political climate of Russia would suddenly drastically change. Afaik, Sweden does tend to see Russia as a threat. Maybe that is one more reason they never joined NATO? It would turn them into a target if there was ever a war.
Russia attacked Sweden, not the other way around. We haven't been at war since the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, that's 200 years of neutrality.
Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 18:24:59
Sweden has long pursued a policy of neutrality, though there are many in Sweden who argue for joining NATO. The NATO proponents have been more active in the years since the war between Russia and Georgia, and especially since the Russian annexation of Crimea and their war in eastern Ukraine.
In reality, the policy of neutrality hasn't been all that strict, especially in later decades. Indirect Swedish involvement in the Second World War is an interesting and sensitive topic, especially the deal that allowed German troops to travel between Germany and the German-occupied Norway through Sweden. During the Cold War, Sweden was clearly more on the Western side of things, even though official policy was to stay neutral. Sweden's entry into the European Union wasn't very neutral, and the same goes for various agreements signed since then, including a partnership with NATO.
Up until the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden was an active participant in wars on a fairly regular basis, mostly against its close neighbours Denmark, Russia, Poland and several smaller German states. The traditional Swedish animosity toward Russia has its roots here, Russia ended the Swedish Empire with the conclusion of the Great Northern War in 1721, and Russia essentially broke Sweden in half when they conquered Finland in 1809. The second of Sweden's traditional "archenemies", Denmark, was less successful in its wars against Sweden, and large parts of today's southern Sweden historically belonged to Denmark. This, and the fact that Denmark today isn't much of a threat to anybody, is probably why Denmark is seen in such a positive light in Sweden compared to Russia.
Simply put, Sweden's been burned by Russia a number of times, and the fear that it might happen again never went away completely. The fall of the Soviet Union eased tensions, but the recent actions by Putin's regime have been seen as quite concerning by many.
Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.
Can you provide a source for that? The Great Northern War was initiated by a coalition of Sweden's neighbours, Russia, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania, and the goal was to strike when the new king Charles XII was still young and hopefully weak. Both Sweden and Russia were expansionist empires, and finding a pretext for war was easy back then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 19:11:45
Iron_Captain wrote: Sweden is being like Finland and Switzerland I guess. They just don't want to get dragged into any wars by joining alliances like NATO. I don't think Sweden will ever align itself with Russia though. Not unless the political climate of Russia would suddenly drastically change. Afaik, Sweden does tend to see Russia as a threat. Maybe that is one more reason they never joined NATO? It would turn them into a target if there was ever a war.
Russia attacked Sweden, not the other way around. We haven't been at war since the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, that's 200 years of neutrality.
Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.
Bullgak. It's because Carolus was 15 years old and Peter saw an opening. It wasn't just Russia mind you, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania joined in on the attack as well. I'm pretty sure none of these were afraid of Swedish claims on Russian territories.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 20:12:26
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.
Can you provide a source for that? The Great Northern War was initiated by a coalition of Sweden's neighbours, Russia, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania, and the goal was to strike when the new king Charles XII was still young and hopefully weak. Both Sweden and Russia were expansionist empires, and finding a pretext for war was easy back then.
Sweden was controlling several areas that it had conquered from Russia in previous wars, and the Swedish kings had claims on several other areas that were controlled by Russia. At this point, Russia wasn't expanding, it was seeking to retake its areas that it had lost to Swedish expansionism. That is one of the main reasons Russia decided to strike back at Sweden when the tsar sensed weakness. Not that Russia, wasn't an aggressive expansionist empire back then, it was of course. In fact, Russia has always been and still is an aggressive expansionist empire, something which Sweden thankfully has been able to let go. But this war did not start because of Russian expansionism. From a Russian point of view it started as a defensive war.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Sweden is being like Finland and Switzerland I guess. They just don't want to get dragged into any wars by joining alliances like NATO. I don't think Sweden will ever align itself with Russia though. Not unless the political climate of Russia would suddenly drastically change. Afaik, Sweden does tend to see Russia as a threat. Maybe that is one more reason they never joined NATO? It would turn them into a target if there was ever a war.
Russia attacked Sweden, not the other way around. We haven't been at war since the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, that's 200 years of neutrality.
Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.
Bullgak. It's because Carolus was 15 years old and Peter saw an opening. It wasn't just Russia mind you, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania joined in on the attack as well. I'm pretty sure none of these were afraid of Swedish claims on Russian territories.
Denmark, Saxony and many others all had their own issues with Sweden though. Sweden did not exactly make a lot of friends during its empire-building phase...
Damn it. Now I want to play Europa Universalis IV again, but I am too poor to afford all the new DLC. First world problems
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 20:47:11
Sweden was controlling several areas that it had conquered from Russia in previous wars, and the Swedish kings had claims on several other areas that were controlled by Russia. At this point, Russia wasn't expanding, it was seeking to retake its areas that it had lost to Swedish expansionism. That is one of the main reasons Russia decided to strike back at Sweden when the tsar sensed weakness. Not that Russia, wasn't an aggressive expansionist empire back then, it was of course. In fact, Russia has always been and still is an aggressive expansionist empire, something which Sweden thankfully has been able to let go. But this war did not start because of Russian expansionism. From a Russian point of view it started as a defensive war.
I see, you're referring to the Ingrian War, which ended in 1617, 83 years earlier. I don't think it's reasonable to call a war "defensive" if that amount of time has passed since the offence. I'm not trying to take sides in a centuries-old conflict. Even though I'm Swedish I don't approve of the kind of behaviour Sweden engaged in during the time of the Swedish Empire, and neither do I approve of what Russia has been doing during its periods of expansionism. Still, if, for instance, Japan attacked Russia tomorrow trying to take back the Kuril Islands from Russia, you wouldn't call that a defensive war from Japan's perspective, would you? It would clearly be Japanese aggression towards Russia, even though the Soviet Union took them from Japan less than 80 years ago.
KTG17 wrote: Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?
Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.
In its defense, despite having pretty advanced military hardware, Sweden doesn't have the population base to make a huge impact in a multi-nation war. It does maintain it's UN commitments, if I remember correctly, however.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.
BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.
They seem like a bully if you don't agree with their politics. They are a strong ally if you do agree, which is how the Ukraine mess got underway. They couldn't agree which was the better ally.
From the top of my head, Sweden was heavily involved in the 30 years war (their intervention set it off on a new course) King Charles invaded Russia, and of course, in two world wars, Sweden was selling weapons to anybody who wanted to buy them.
How is that a history of not getting involved?
Not to mention the trainloads of Nazi troops Sweden gave access to.
Sweden was controlling several areas that it had conquered from Russia in previous wars, and the Swedish kings had claims on several other areas that were controlled by Russia. At this point, Russia wasn't expanding, it was seeking to retake its areas that it had lost to Swedish expansionism. That is one of the main reasons Russia decided to strike back at Sweden when the tsar sensed weakness. Not that Russia, wasn't an aggressive expansionist empire back then, it was of course. In fact, Russia has always been and still is an aggressive expansionist empire, something which Sweden thankfully has been able to let go. But this war did not start because of Russian expansionism. From a Russian point of view it started as a defensive war.
I see, you're referring to the Ingrian War, which ended in 1617, 83 years earlier. I don't think it's reasonable to call a war "defensive" if that amount of time has passed since the offence. I'm not trying to take sides in a centuries-old conflict. Even though I'm Swedish I don't approve of the kind of behaviour Sweden engaged in during the time of the Swedish Empire, and neither do I approve of what Russia has been doing during its periods of expansionism. Still, if, for instance, Japan attacked Russia tomorrow trying to take back the Kuril Islands from Russia, you wouldn't call that a defensive war from Japan's perspective, would you? It would clearly be Japanese aggression towards Russia, even though the Soviet Union took them from Japan less than 80 years ago.
Yeah it would. A defensive war is still aggressive as well. A war being 'defensive' only refers to the justification for it. It is a bigger version of the pre-emptive strike.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:What do you suppose would have happened if we said no, considering we bordered Germany, Germany and Finland at the time? That wasn't a "request".
No. But that doesn't make what Sweden did right. Other countries did not bow to the Nazis, even if it got them invaded.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/20 01:08:11
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What do you suppose would have happened if we said no, considering we bordered Germany, Germany and Finland at the time?
That wasn't a "request".
While the threat of invasion was clearly there, the agreement was cancelled later (it was secret at first, but later became known to the public, and it wasn't very popular) and Germany didn't invade. Norway and Denmark were of greater strategic importance to Germany than Sweden was, which was why they were occupied in the first place while Sweden wasn't. Sweden is also larger than both of those countries, and would have required many more troops to keep under occupation. Germany was clearly happy to utilise Swedish railways, but that doesn't mean they would've necessarily invaded had Sweden refused.
However we put it, Sweden aided Nazi Germany in a way that was clearly in violation of the official neutrality policy. It probably wouldn't had happened if Sweden had had the military might to actually resist a German invasion, but that doesn't make it non-problematic. It was clearly not something the prime minister Per Albin Hansson or the Social Democratic Party were proud of.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah it would. A defensive war is still aggressive as well. A war being 'defensive' only refers to the justification for it. It is a bigger version of the pre-emptive strike.
With that kind of reasoning, any war is defensive. As I see it, the party that initiates hostilities is the aggressor, and in the Great Northern War that was the Russian-Danish-Saxon-Polish alliance. Sweden has been the aggressor in plenty of other wars, such as the Hats' Russian War (1741-43), which was fought to reclaim territory conquered earlier by Russia (it failed).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/20 01:23:23
It's possible for something to be both distasteful and the least bad option at the same time. Germany didn't invade because they had Zhukov, Konev, and Rokossovsky to deal with by then.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.
KTG17 wrote: Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?
Realistically any conflict where Sweden would want help from NATO is going to be WWIII, and they're going to get "help" from NATO whether they want it or not. It's not like allies really matter in a situation like that, they're dead no matter who they choose to back if the bombs start flying. They're also not bordering Russia like Ukraine is so they're not at as much of a risk for those shenanigans like some other countries would be. I would imagine by staying out of NATO, they keep at least a slightly better relationship with Russia than say the USA does, and if they're like Finland, let's them have access to cheaper/sometimes superior combloc gear, like those MIGs Finland got a ways back.
Joining a group like NATO does have downsides, and by staying out let's them avoid such wonderful things we got up to like the Vietnam war and the War on Terror unless they actually want to join in. It also gives them the freedom to standardize on whatever military equipment they wish, so they don't even necessarily have to use NATO approved rounds like 9mm, 5.56, and .308 if they don't want to.
In addition, just because you're in an alliance like that is no guarantee that they would even get help should some catastrophic conflict kicked off. Poland was Allied with France and Britain at the start of WWII for example and we saw how well that worked for them. No initial help for their invasion, allowed to fight for the allies only to find their country absorbed into the USSR, their fighting essentially being for nothing. We like to think we're better than this kind of thing but let's be honest, if WWIII kicked off and NATO had to make that kind of choice again, countries like Sweden would be the ones most likely thrown under the bus to protect major players like Britain, France, and Germany. So you can't really blame them for being less than enthusiastic to join NATO. Their situation changes little in the worst case scenario and in the most likely scenario, really only drags them into messes they don't want to deal with. If they do decide to get involved in some Podunk brush war, they can always pen a temporary alliance with other countries, so it's not even like they lose out on much.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
KTG17 wrote: Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?
Realistically any conflict where Sweden would want help from NATO is going to be WWIII, and they're going to get "help" from NATO whether they want it or not. It's not like allies really matter in a situation like that, they're dead no matter who they choose to back if the bombs start flying. They're also not bordering Russia like Ukraine is so they're not at as much of a risk for those shenanigans like some other countries would be. I would imagine by staying out of NATO, they keep at least a slightly better relationship with Russia than say the USA does, and if they're like Finland, let's them have access to cheaper/sometimes superior combloc gear, like those MIGs Finland got a ways back.
That's another reason, really: we make (and sell) a bunch of weapons like the JAS-39 Griffon multirole fighter, the Archer self-propelled artillery, and various types of submarines and stealth corvettes (although the subs is currently quite a convoluted history, don't make me go in-depth (no pun intended) on them). There's no pressure on us to overpay for fighters that don't work, and we can (in theory) avoid being entirely reliant on the US military-industrial complex for national defense.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.
Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.
Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.
Yeah no. Up until 1997 (in Swedish, but percentages should be self-explanatory) we met the NATO goal of spending 2% of GDP on the defense. We've obviously halved that since, but the idea that NATO historically has "subsidized" Swedish defense is originally a pathetic attempt by people who don't like the fact that Sweden is more socialist than they would like and successful at the same time to grasp at some sort of straws to avoid having to admit that their ideological assumptions are wrong.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.
Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.
Yeah no. Up until 1997 (in Swedish, but percentages should be self-explanatory) we met the NATO goal of spending 2% of GDP on the defense. We've obviously halved that since, but the idea that NATO historically has "subsidized" Swedish defense is originally a pathetic attempt by people who don't like the fact that Sweden is more socialist than they would like and successful at the same time to grasp at some sort of straws to avoid having to admit that their ideological assumptions are wrong.
I think he is more saying that it was a side benefit of being surrounded by countries that are not hostile. Canada could get away with spending next to nothing on defense and would still be fine, it has one neighbor and the US is not hostile.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.
Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.
Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.
Yeah no. Up until 1997 (in Swedish, but percentages should be self-explanatory) we met the NATO goal of spending 2% of GDP on the defense. We've obviously halved that since, but the idea that NATO historically has "subsidized" Swedish defense is originally a pathetic attempt by people who don't like the fact that Sweden is more socialist than they would like and successful at the same time to grasp at some sort of straws to avoid having to admit that their ideological assumptions are wrong.
I think he is more saying that it was a side benefit of being surrounded by countries that are not hostile. Canada could get away with spending next to nothing on defense and would still be fine, it has one neighbor and the US is not hostile.
But thats the thing, up until the early 90's we spent a lot of money on defence. The idea that Sweden disregarded the military for social programs is just flat out false.
Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts 
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
