"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." Marin Luther King, Jr
She was absolutely not right. The USA funded and equipped the wehrmacht. Britain was defeated in WWII and its empire dismantled. As seen to by FDR, Truman and Ike. Read some history.
Margaret Thatcher was by far the best leader the world has ever seen to this day! A person with strong values, a grace and dignity, a solid backbone and oceans of common sense! Period. Look at the idiots who rule the world today.. 🇸🇪 by the way
As a swede I like the moral point that Thatcher is raising against Sweden´s neutral policy during WWII. But before she claimed Britain as the best country in the world for it's position during WWII, she should also have reflected on the consequences of Britain's colonial history.
12 Years later: Britain was the first imperial country to initiate decolonisation. First big power to forbid slave-trade and actively sought to end it by force. It was the first big power to try to stop Nazi Germany and realizing the Peace of our time was a big mistake and bad move.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender
Sweden's most overrated journalist. She thinks that she can ask what ever she wants, because she is SOO charming.. At least she thinks so herself, and that she is extremely clever...bla.. bla...😣
Mrs Thatcher is making a mistake when she said that Norway and Denmark stod up to the Germans. They were neutral in WW2 just like Sweden. Difference was that they were attacked, but they could make much about it after being occupied. US and UK deserves credit though for crushing Hitler.
And because Sweden was neutral it allowed people in Norway and Denmark a means of escape. Almost all of the jewish people in Denmark managed to escape to Sweden, and about half of them in Norway, something that would not have been possible if Sweden too were occupied.
The UK and France had guaranteed Polands independence and were bound to come to their aid. There were no 'standing up to tyranny'. Before that Germany had not really invaded any nations with force.
@killerbee2k In my book, what you just said qualifies as "moral superiority". Acknowledging other people's greatness, and downplaying your own in a question like this is admirable.
Dabrowski kritiserar nazismens tankar om överlägsenhet och att man anser sig bättre än andra. Jag anser det är helt legitimt att kritisera Thatcher för att använda sig av liknande retorik. Det är konstigt att anse sig bättre än nazisterna genom att använda sig av liknande tankegångar som dem.
As is clear, you'll need to DEFINE "better" if you want an answer to this question. As Thatcher points out, it is a FACT that those other countries were better att opposing the thread from the very thing the interviewer dislikes.
Thatcher praises Canada, Usa and Britain for their effort on the Normandie beaches, but before the D- day, how long had USSR kept Germany at bay? And who made the biggest sacrifices during WWII? Ussr. If Thatcher is so eager to praise the allies, she should mention which people made the biggest sacrifices of all.
@@kevindare3113 The western Allies were only able to land in Normandie because of the huge losses that the germans had suffered on the Eastern front. Further more, the USSR were launching their own offensive at the same time, operation Bagration, which encircled and destroyed a whole german army group and reached Warszawa in the same time it took the western Allies to first land in Normandie and then liberate Paris.
I'm so ashamed to be Swedish when it comes to this. I'd be proud to be British or anything else if I were when it comes to this. If my country is supposed to be neutral then we'd better do it well and not be chicken scared of other countries. If I look back on the history of Sweden I kind of find that What this country didn't have, in times of need, was a strong leader like either Thatcher or Juan Carlos I. Someone who supported the glorious developement basically
You are poorly informed. Sweden did what Norway failed to do...standing up for it's neutrality while providing substantial support to its neighbors. As for Thatcher as a "strong" leader .... In the wake of joining the EEC she got the financial means to bring the UK up to standards after decades of decay....Backed up by European ( German ) financial investments major corporations invested in the UK, primarily to gain access to the European market. Mercedes, Siemens, Peugot, BMW, Lidl , Honda, Nissan are just a few of those corporations.
If Sweden had been invaded like many of the other neutral countries, Sweden would not have been able to save 300,000 people from the nazis and her own population would also have been subjected to the nazis genocide. Nor would Sweden had been able to help rebuild Europe after the war.
We were absolutely no match for Germany at all and we were forced to provide them with ore just like GB or USA were forced to enter the war to begin with but we also secretly provided the allies with weapons almost to the point where we were invaded by Germany, at least to my knowledge. That said, I wish we had done more and I agree with you.
@killerbee2k For some countries perhaps that's empirically proven. For Sweden it's the opposite. We were in contant wars between 1500-1800 with Denmark, Russia, Preussia etc. Only when we shifted policy to a more neutral one we got lasting peace.
Which clearly explains why he conquered France, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands. All east of Germany, or ... oh well. I'm sure he would like peace after having subdued most of Europe. A peace on his terms would have been nice. This really only makes M. Thatchers point stronger. England might have had a choice, same choice as Sweden had but they choose to fight for freedom, not only theirs, but for entire Europe. For that we owe them for ever.
Well, brittain lost india, they were defeated in america. And they were humiliated by the german army in ww2, until america and russia entered the Picture. And in ww1 they were losing the war until germany was screwed by that agreement.
Jealousy gets you nowhere!! Like other european countries who had empires, funny that nobody ever mentions them, the world evolves. You need to get over the Empire mantra!
@123Usch How come they used the swastika even though it comes from India? "He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but where there is planing, there are shavings flying,. "
We do not take any offense. We are currently discussing that we would like to apologize to Thatcher on the behalf of Sweden for appearing so leftist like this PC interviewer.
well i agree that all countries should stay out of war but being one of the world's largest arms manufacturers doesn't exactly equate to staying out of war. Being peace loving and looking out for number 1 are two different things.
@Livikri Norway and Denmark actually declared themselves neutral but got invaded by Germany anyway. Sweden probably would have been invaded too if they hadn't played a double role (leading to a lot of discussable activities ofc). The question Tatcher is trying to avoid is how her apparent belief that her people is better then others is any different from If one wants to drag all this down to a really low level one can say that Sweden actually have won wars against Russia which the US never has.
@Hirnlego999 How come he did the Roman salute? Or had the flags like the Romans? Germany was called third reich guess wich was the first reich? Holy Roman Empire
I did learn about the non- aggression pact between Germany and Soviet. I also learned about rhetorical abuse, which you are using by calling me "dear". I learned that people who are short on valid and insightful arguments tend to abuse others with words.
Sweden's neutrality can be discussed from a moral point of view; they both sold steel to Germany and transported german soldiers to Soviet. But fact remains that Sweden also became an important hiding place for refugees and resistance movements from Norway, Denmark, Germany etc. A lot of jews survived since they came to Sweden during the war.
+Dunkin Donut Sweden let germans soldiers travel to Norway through Sweden, don't try to make Sweden into an ally of Norway in the war, it helped the nazis.
The Norwegian king and his family fleeing occupied Norway from the German foreces during WW2 was refused entrance to Sweden and sent away at the border! He never forgave Sweden and the swedish parliament for that, neither has his children or grandchildren.
@@chrisaq1 Ignorance talking...... Norway wanted their independence from Sweden,and they got it without blood sheed. Sweden had no reasons whatsoever to team up side by side with Norway. Since Norway failed to demonstrate their intentions to defend it's neutrality by allowing British navy to mine Norwegian waters and room it's waters at will their fate was sealed--totally self inflicted. Another important factor...none of the allied powers would have benefited from a Nazi occupied Sweden. Do your homework prior to form an opinion
@@chrisaq1 Sweden only allowed unarmed german soldiers on leave to travel through Sweden on their way back and forth between Germany and Norway. That traffic started one month after the norwegian army had surrendered. There were no armed german troops allowed to travel to Norway through Sweden. The only armed german soldiers allowed to travel through Sweden travelled FROM Norway, to Finland who were fighting on the same side as the germans against the USSR. The german force allowed to travel from Norway to Finland consisted of 1 infantry division and that would be the extent of german soldiers travelling through Sweden. Meanwhile Sweden helped norwegian troops during the german invasion, saved 60,000 norwegian refugees, trained and equipped 15,000 norwegian "police troops" and let the norwegian resistance establish bases on the swedish side of the border.
It is one thing to have flaws, it is another to make out that you don't have any. I live in Sweden and the perception of Sweden from the outside is totally false. Its like a very annoying person who paints himself in glorious colors to all and sundry yet is in complete denial that he has faults like the rest of us. Wouldn't you want to knock that person down a peg or two?
Well, not exactly. England actually declared war on Germany. What is often forgotten is that Sweden had entered the war, Sweden would have to enter on the Axis-side. Finland was attacked by the "allied" i.e the Soviet Union, and Finland fought with the Germans. Why should Sweden had enter the war on the Allied´s side? So Sweden stood between German occupied Norway and Finland attacked by the Soviet Union and who was allied with the Germans.
Förklara gärna vad det är för skillnad på t.ex Danmarks agerande jämfört med Sveriges och varför de skulle ha mindre skam för vad dom skedde under 2VK...
@@filipgrasberg9333 Du får nog läsa på lite tycker jag. Både Danmark och Sverige var neutrala, skillnaden var ju att Tyskland invaderade Danmark. Att de sen bara gjorde motstånd i två timmar innan de gav upp kanske de inte ska vara stolta över.
Sure all of those were better at standing up against Tyranny than Sweden, but Sweden couldn't stand up to tyranny, then Britain would have bombed us. It's sad that insetad of Stina there isn't somebody interviewing Thatcher that understand the Swedish position and the awfulness of war. They could for instance say that Britain while fighting the Germans fought a restrained war, not a full out war, until they could find themselves on the winning side when the US joined the war,.
If people try to convince themselves that Sweden is a flawless country they are waaaaaay out of the line of truth. We have millions of problems, some small, some bigger, however, with that ticking in my mind I can still not agree at all with what FlawlessCock said a year ago. He seems to hate us so much that the rational thinking seems to have come to an end. If it is as you say, then yes the outside perception is false, very false. /A 16 year old Swede with a shitload of selfdistance
Låter fortfarande inte som neutralitet, en gång är en gång för mycket. Blev det något av med kriget mot Sovjet? Jag hävdar inte att det svenska folket var "neutralt", utan regeringen under den tiden.
I think it was one thing to attempt to maintain diplomacy at a point when it wasn't certain how things were going to pan out but another to turn a blind eye when you knew what was happening. Trade unions are not the temples of solidarity for the working man that they are often seen to be although I wouldn't condone Thatcher's activity in this respect. Human politics has evolved in all the wrong ways such that we only see two extremes and settle for something slightly left or right of the middle.
Political picture of the modern world completely other calls, problems have cardinally changed, have appeared. All of us have changed the sights. If in those days the Aristocracy was afraid to politicize. That now the situation has changed. Now the new leader of world value who could unit all of us is necessary for us
Didn't you learn about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in school - dear? Obviously not, but intellectual shortcomings CAN be overcome! Don't give up hope!!!!
@stevenadler They did not, read your history before you come with smart comments. They (GB and Fracen) declared war on Germany, when Germany invaded Poland, Great Britain and France made it clear that unless Germany pulled back their troops from Poland, they would declare war on Germany. They did not have to go to war, they did just honor their alliance with Poland. which ofcourse the empire and France did't "have to" in any way. But they ( and France) honored it based on principles.
As if the allies' bombings over millions of civilians in Japan and Germany wasn't blood- thirsty? Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the soviets methods in war, but their accomplishments and sacrifices should be known.
most likely not, Hitler petioned Brittain for peace several times during the war but brittain did not accept. Hitler never had any intention of occupying brittain, he only wanted to unite the german speaking world and conquer land to the east
(SE) I really don't know if Stina's intention of the interview was to cover WW2 only. Thatchers it was for sure. To humiliate the guest and her home land. Most of the comments here also seems to be limited to history, and in particular this part. And it is History! However history is more than these six years. How about Britains behavior in centuries before? Should I mention the millions of slaves from colonies around the globe? Shall I not be talking about british military interventions in Africa, Asia and other places. And where did allied England hide when nation of Russia killed most of Swedish young boys and finally took half of our land (now Finland)? And so fort ... Btw I'm not going to tell the story about when the allied French battleship was sunk in harbour killing thousends of allied French soldiers. Sunk by Thatchers proud nation in 1940. Do you really know about this?? Skammen har fått ett ansikte!
Did you even look at russians number of deaths and wounded ?? Russias 126,875 dead or missing[18][F 9] 188,671 wounded, Mother russia 998,100 men 2,514-6,541 tanks 3,880 aircraft Finland 337,000-346,500 men 32 tanks 114 aircraft We are not maybe a hero of WW2 but we fought well with the little resources we had.
@TheStevenBlue No I'm not joking. Nazis considered Jews, if not subhuman, at least to be parasiting on the German people. Hitlers main enemies were Jews and Communists, not slavic people. I'm not defending any of the two ideologies though. I'm just fed up with the good vs bad narrative.
She is 100% right concerning Sweden and the UK (concering Nazi Germany). England did turn a blind eye to Hitler sevral years but they had a limit, Poland, and when he passed that point they fought back (also at bad odds). Hitler was defeated by the Soviet Union though. D-Day only won the war in Hollywood...
You are assuming that they would've destroyed each other. How do you know this if I may ask? What's to say that if the germans didn't have to fight on two fronts that they wouldn't have defeated the soviets?
think of the brittish lives that could have been saved if it werent for involvment in the war and think of the lives that could have been saved if Hitler nd Stalin destroyed each other, that means there would never have been a cold war
I think the worst thing in all this is how the Swedes sold out the Norwegians - come in Germany, i think you'll find what you need just over there....oh and take your shoes off will you?
(contin.) Hitlers. the British has done a lot of awful things by just saying that they have the right to do it as we are a better people then they are (colonization). No people is better then any other, Britain has a dark past with their colonies, Sweden has also done a lot of awful things, for example they made quite some money from slavery. THe Swedish government did what they thought was best for their country, so did Hitler and so did Churchill.
Britain declared war, not the other way around. Sort of true. Indeed, but Norway was "the neutral ally" in WW1, and started on the same leaf in ww2, and whatever they did, they always tried to help the UK and the allies. America knew the war was coming, and they prepared to join. Google "destroyers for bases" or "Pan-American Security Zone". Also observe that Japan attacked after US cut of oil supplies. Diplomacy is complicated. Sweden- a wonderful country, but ww2 is a black mark
....Britain did not win that war. If WW2 was a Hollywood production the UK would most likely get an Oscar for "best supporting actor" nothing more. Soviet sacrifices? Sure, but without being supported with material and resources from the US.... the outcome would have been somewhat difference. So who won the war? Europe did, thanks to the US, and in particular Germany who swiftly transformed in to a modern democracy and the most important economy in Europe. Meanwhile the UK fell behind...and behind.....
Yes it's nice to hedge your bets, isn't it? That way you can join whoever wins. By the way, you failed to mention that Russia invaded Poland too only two weeks after Germany did so. Nobody is claiming that the world is black and white. But the fact remains, there were countries who fought naziism and there were ones who aided the nazism. Unfortunately,as Stina says, she can't say that Sweden were in the former group.
Sweden stayed neutral in the ww2, and because they wanted to stay neutral, they supported hitler by sending swedish made artillery and clothes for the german soldiers. So, sweden bribed themselves out of trouble. Kissing ass is a mean word to use, but that was what the polititians were doing back then. People in sweden today shouldnt take any offense by this, its not thier fault or wanting.
We also sent a whole lot of food, weapons and volunteers to Finland so we didn't directly enter the war but supported our friends instead. Also, I don't think we knew about the horrors of concentration camps just like most Germans didn't until the war was over. Had most of Europe known this, Germany would have been overwhelmed. At least I hope so, I have high hopes for humanity :P
@Livikri Yes I'm a Swede. No, I'm not embarrassed, why would I be? I see that you are a Norwegian and don't even know your own countrys history during WW2. You should read up a bit about it. Most smaller countries were neutral in the beginning of WW2. Yes, Norway too.
@Stuenestoppen2 Point being, GB wasn't so friggin great and that is precisely the point which Stina made, and of course it doesn't sink inside Margaret's head who looks at her own country in a too good light. Very few countries, if any can be truly called exceptional if examined closely. The British aren't better either. I don't mind if Sweden is dragged down for its fault, an honest look at policies past and present is essential to correct mistakes.
The only thing embarrassing about Sweden during WW2 is that we did not join the axis. Atleast we should have provided a safe haven for our german friends after the war like some south american nations did.
