Quote:
Originally Posted by Gideon
Today we have hindsight, we know what happened in Germany at the time, and when extermination of people began. Contemporary leaders didn't have that knowledge.
|
The same excuse can be applied to Germans, who fought on the frontline and have never seen the einzatzgruppen' massacres till the moment of retreat and journey through the ashes and rotten bodies. And to the German civilians who have never seen KZ in their cozy Bavaria.
Quote:
What was known at the time was that jews where persecuted, what was known was that Hitler wanted them gone, one way or the other, as he wanted other groups gone, and it was known what dreams he had of Lebensraum in the East. Present day Poland was already under nazi rule, a future part of the Lebensraum.
Soviet and swedish leaders had basically the same knowledge about Germany, and both countries traded with Germany, as did the US. Trade only stopped when war was declared.
So the Soviet Union can't take any moral credit, they did what they could, they didn't do what they should.
|
Well, all this enough reasonable, but one catch. Sweden supported Nazis till the end, following it's national interests and making business. Considering the lack of information about disgusting deliberate crimes against humanity, let's say it was relevant. Sweden chose that side in the game and safely enjoyed as beneficiary of the war business. Why Germany was scapegoated as incredible criminal nation, and lost everything, while Sweden saved all benefits of war? If Reich had won, USSR, the US and Brits would have lost their economical assets, human lives and so on. But such marauder nations as Sweden always only win in all wars. In another word, for Sweden every war is good, reliable safe mechanism to enrich oneself. The bigger, the better. Which, in turn, lifts up the question about real initiative role of so-called "neutral" European countries in Hitler's global advanturism.