|
Too bad Scandinavia always looks hideous in Paradox games, both the map colour and the flag.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Sweden's rap sheet in defense pacts is kinda bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:
Sweden is a weak and pathetic nation today. They tried to get Norway to take some of the "refugees" they have invited. We ofc said NO, gently caress you dumb swedes!. They are not a member of NATO. So fuckings dumb. They thought that the rest of Scandinavia would help them if they got under attack. Again we said; NO, gently caress you dumb swedes. And all is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Heinz Hynkel posted:Again we said; NO, gently caress you dumb swedes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
poo poo, and here I thought that Finland's little brother complex towards Sweden was bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Arguably, Sweden and Switzerland were the only countries that actually "won" WWII. So much winning. SAD!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Sweden can be great again. Heinz Hynkel posted:Sweden is a weak and pathetic nation today. They tried to get Norway to take some of the "refugees" they have invited. We ofc said NO, gently caress you dumb swedes!. You need to be very careful my friend 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Arguably, Sweden and Switzerland were the only countries that actually "won" WWII. So much winning. SAD!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
One could argue that Japan lucked out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:One could argue that Japan lucked out. I don't know, they were well on the way of controlling every non-colonized inch of their side of Asia before pearl harbor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Except for, you know, the US. ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Was on the winning side and massively expanded their economy, military and global influence and power. Don't know how that isn't a massive victory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Was on the winning side and massively expanded their economy, military and global influence and power. Don't know how that isn't a massive victory. They also worked with the nazis and aided them in the invasion of Norway. For the whole war they sold the nazis iron and aided the nazi war machine. To this day they also got nobles. There is so much wrong with Sweden. Its actually hard to start describing it. I think that the reason that Sweden got nazi-gangs today is their refusal to deal with their crimes in ww2. gently caress Sweden!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Heinz Hynkel posted:A bloo bloo Get a load of this guy
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Both France and Britain were sympathetic to the Danish position, and Austria wasn't super enthusiastic about the war, presumably because Austria realized Prussia was making a real play for dominance in Germany. Actually, that might have partly have been part of the equation for France and Britain too. Had the war dragged on, a negotiated peace would not have been out of the question, which would have served the two-fold purpose of making it clear that Denmark couldn't stand on its own, and showing who its natural ally was. I've played enough Paradox games to know they made the right choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Heinz Hynkel posted:They also worked with the nazis and aided them in the invasion of Norway. For the whole war they sold the nazis iron and aided the nazi war machine. To this day they also got nobles. While I agree with this I was talking about America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
uncop posted:I don't completely understand the Nato=safety argument for Norway in particular. Norwegian geography is wildly advantageous against a Russian ground invasion. Nato doesn't protect from nukes and Nato installations are in fact what attracts them. While Nato definitely does protect from naval assaults, naval assaults are hazardous business that can be prepared against, and Russia doesn't have inexhaustible Baltic sea resources as it has ground forces. And in the case that Russia were to attack Norway through the rest of Finnoscandia, Nato would act whether you liked it or not, because Russia winning would hurt Nato's strategic position too much. Russia has cold weather too. Most estimates of how long we could hold out against Russia I've seen are measured in hours. If we had warning of the invasion, and managed to send our forces there it would still be a fighting retreat in an effort to buy our NATO allies time. There is no scenario where Norway holds off an invasion on its own, even if we are quite good at blocking and mining our mountain roads / loving with the signs or whatever. I would also be vary of a defensive pact with Sweden, you guys have kind of a lovely record when it comes to helping your neighbors out. thotsky fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Hynkel's sentiment make a lot of sense if you completely disregard Finland and literally everything else going on at the time. Which I figure he might (because he is dumb). Biomute posted:I would also be vary of a defensive pact with Sweden, you guys have kind of a lovely record when it comes to helping your neighbors out. Not to be that guy, because I honestly don't care that much, but comparared to what and whom, exactly? Looking around the neighborhood (Denmark and Norway's records respectively) I'm not exactly blown away here. Cake Smashing Boob fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Arguing for or against a military alliance or for that matter for or against increased military spending in terms of "winning a war with Russia" is missing the point. No Scandinavian country can "win" an actual full scale war against a world power determined to attack it in any meaningful sense of the word, neither alone (impossible to win for very obvious reasons) nor with the help of NATO (if that actually happens everybody loses). The only purpose of having a military around these parts is deterrence, or making whoever's in Kreml think that "today is not the day we're ready to realize some harebrained imperialistic idea or other". If you have to use it because Putin thought he wanted whatever it is he wants more than he cares about the consequences you're trying to imply exist, you've already lost. Game over, no continues, you don't get to insert credit. The purpose of the NATO alignment is making more deterrent with less money, but if Trump suddenly starts making noises about "gently caress those European freeloaders anyway", well, now you're standing there with your pants down. If it seems paradoxical or silly to spend money on something you have absolutely no intention of ever using, that's because it is. It's an advanced form of doublethink, though - you have to think you're willing to use it for it to be effective. Military logic, ladies and gentlemen. e: then again a lot of thinking these days circles around "low intensity conflicts" and the like so I guess the military really wants to do poo poo TheFluff fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Also, re: people being salty about Sweden's lack of support in WW2, I really don't think you understand how laughably useless any such help would've been in April 1940, or at least not how laughably useless the Swedish cabinet believed such help to have been (and they had pretty good reasons to believe what they did). The German invasion of Norway was tied together with shoestrings, duct tape and wishful thinking, but the Swedish cabinet didn't really know that, and didn't even start mobilizing until after the attack had already started. The Swedish army in 1940 was not mechanized to any meaningful degree, so it was transported by means of trains, horses and walking. Mobilization and getting mobilized formations to where they needed to go near the Norwegian border took so loving long that resistance had for most practical purposes already ended by the time it was nearing completion. As far as cooperation with the Nazis goes, see for example here for an extensive discussion. As far as Finland goes, see here for a loooong summary of the diplomatic background and previous union discussions, and here for a summary of the help actually provided during the Winter War. also, rädda danmark TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Looking forward to the brave fjellmøjahædin taking on the full force of the Russian military while Denmark predictably pulls a Glistrup. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Swedens actions and lack of actions during WWII are defended by the notion that they did what was best for their country, that they could not afford to take a principled stance lest they get involved in the war. I'm not going to insist that this is cowardly and that silence implies consent, but it does make me vary of entering a defensive pact with Sweden, especially if, like TheFluff seems to say, these depend on the countries involved signaling that they mean business.
thotsky fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:While that might be the case, it is evidence that Sweden is the least trustworthy country in the world, unable to honor a defensive pact even when it was a clear path to STORMAKT glory. Unlike glorious Denmark: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Unlike glorious Denmark:
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Also, re: people being salty about Sweden's lack of support in WW2, I really don't think you understand how laughably useless any such help would've been in April 1940, or at least not how laughably useless the Swedish cabinet believed such help to have been (and they had pretty good reasons to believe what they did). The German invasion of Norway was tied together with shoestrings, duct tape and wishful thinking, but the Swedish cabinet didn't really know that, and didn't even start mobilizing until after the attack had already started. The Swedish army in 1940 was not mechanized to any meaningful degree, so it was transported by means of trains, horses and walking. Mobilization and getting mobilized formations to where they needed to go near the Norwegian border took so loving long that resistance had for most practical purposes already ended by the time it was nearing completion. As far as cooperation with the Nazis goes, see for example here for an extensive discussion. Yeah, pretty much. Staying neutral was the best choice out of a bunch of bad ones. Regarding the transition traffic: The Swedish Navy also let the German boats join Swedish convoys during the submarine war in the Baltic and there were some coordination with regards to laying of minefields, as far as my History of the Swedish (Coastal) Navy says. The submarine warfare in the Baltic is one of those things not really mentioned in the typical WWII history. Quite interesting and Sweden was basically in war with Soviet, since Soviet was more or less practicing unrestricted submarine warfare. On the other hand, the Soviet Baltic navy was pretty much kept close to Leningrad by the minefields.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Russia has cold weather too. Most estimates of how long we could hold out against Russia I've seen are measured in hours. If we had warning of the invasion, and managed to send our forces there it would still be a fighting retreat in an effort to buy our NATO allies time. There is no scenario where Norway holds off an invasion on its own, even if we are quite good at blocking and mining our mountain roads / loving with the signs or whatever. How is Russia going to resupply its invasion force, given that the Russian blue-water navy consists of a baby carrier and a couple of vintage cruisers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:How is Russia going to resupply its invasion force, given that the Russian blue-water navy consists of a baby carrier and a couple of vintage cruisers? That Russian carrier belching out pillars of pitchblack smoke will never not be the funniest thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Arguably, Sweden and Switzerland were the only countries that actually "won" WWII. So much winning. SAD! That was pretty funny  edit: where's the Trump smiley?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Not to mention how they lack the institutional knowledge to even operate the drat thing properly. To paraphrase somebody way back in the ME-thread; the spirit of the man admiral Kuznetsov probably awoke and continued his WW2 duties - killing fascists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 09:20
|
|
so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
|
Ligur posted:edit: where's the Trump smiley?  ;sad;
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Ligur please fill us in on the state of the world
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
http://www.etc.se/ledare/nar-hogern-tystnar-da-vet-man-att-de-har-gjort-bort-sig
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Sweden loving rules and anyone itt saying anything else just got mad little brother syndrome. except icelanders i like icelanders
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Also, re: people being salty about Sweden's lack of support in WW2, I really don't think you understand how laughably useless any such help would've been in April 1940, or at least not how laughably useless the Swedish cabinet believed such help to have been (and they had pretty good reasons to believe what they did). The German invasion of Norway was tied together with shoestrings, duct tape and wishful thinking, but the Swedish cabinet didn't really know that, and didn't even start mobilizing until after the attack had already started. The Swedish army in 1940 was not mechanized to any meaningful degree, so it was transported by means of trains, horses and walking. Mobilization and getting mobilized formations to where they needed to go near the Norwegian border took so loving long that resistance had for most practical purposes already ended by the time it was nearing completion. As far as cooperation with the Nazis goes, see for example here for an extensive discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
eightpole posted:Sweden loving rules and anyone itt saying anything else just got mad little brother syndrome. Look at this guy
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
eightpole posted:except icelanders i like icelanders I don't get why everyone incests on icelandics being great, but I guess they have great family values? Have to love the country and the booze though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I don't get why everyone incests on icelandics being great, but I guess they have great family values? Have to love the country and the booze though. Freudian slip?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Freudian slip? Yea, sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Oh man did I ruin a clever pun just now 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Oh man did I ruin a clever pun just now You're already dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:43
|
|