The History Department of Yale University must be beaming with pride.

What's the take-away here? Is it that Sweden is neutral and has and army while Switzerland is neutral and does not have an army?

Bush held to his view.

It never seemed to end well whenever Commander Bunnypants held to his view.

Dumbest.President.Ever. Even after being told, the pig-headed freak said, ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.'' My God.

This is awesome on so many levels. Any takers on the over/under before O'Reilly starts denying key parts to the story?

O'Reilly was on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where he used The Paris Business Review to back up his point. There is no Paris Business Review, and never was. The silly twit made it up, not realizing, I guess, that they would actually fact check him.

Ann Coulter made up Canada's support for the Vietnam War on the CBC, too. Same outcome.

I doubt if they would dare to come to Toronto now.

Ah, reality! It is fun to see him screw up his face when he is cornered and to hear her drone never change when she is cornered.

Technically, Sweden was neutral in WWII. But tell that to the Danes. They'll tell you Sweden made a deal with the devil, and in exchange for not being invaded, agreed to provide steel and industrial products to Germany. Swedish people will insist they had no love for the Nazis, and many individuals helped emigres from occupied countries. It's no surprise that Israel would be happy to have help from Sweden, since there was certainly no ideological alliance, but not everyone considered them neutral.

Careful Steve, O'Reilly might get mad at you for calling him a conservative. He's a "moderate", remember?

Anyways, getting shown up by Jessica Alba is pretty hilarious.

Tell a Norwegian that Sweden was neutral in WWII. He'd punch you in the face.

Alba is pulling this one out of her ass. She clearly meant Switzerland and is pretending that she said Sweden on purpose just to pretend that she's smart. It's a lie compounded on an error.

That's all well and good, but i think we can safely assume Alba meant Switzerland even though she's technically not wrong. For no other reason that, when making the neutrality analogy, Switzerland is the obvious go-to.

That's all well and good, but i think we can safely assume Alba meant Switzerland even though she's technically not wrong. For no other reason that, when making the neutrality analogy, Switzerland is the obvious go-to.

Nonsene. Alba is Danish on her mother's side, so she is well aware of which is which. When she said Sweden, she meant Sweden.

For no other reason that, when making the neutrality analogy, Switzerland is the obvious go-to.

Not if your family is from Denmark. You'd obviously reference your neutral neighbor and fellow Scandinavian country.

Who knew that knowing Jessica Alba was part Danish would come in handy someday? I mean, seriously.....

Hell, O'Reilly can't tell loofahs and falafel apart.

Fine one to complain.

You do not want to invade Switzerland - an amazing number of people have got guns and military training there, and they have figured out every which way to use the land in defense of their country.

As to Sweden - again a plethora of guns, excellent artillery, and world class in creating small, portable anti-armour and anti personnel munitions. Some of their fire guidance systems for ordinary artillery is awesome, in impact and precision.

And should you ever wonder why there are so many straight stretches of nicely paved roads in more remote places, you will be passing one of the auxiliary runways created for their airforce - runways equipped with fuel and munitions storage facilities.

Don't go there, unless you have a very large army. Small but vicious, these countries.

This story was told to me by one of the senators in the Oval Office that December day, Joe Biden. Lantos, a liberal Democrat, would not comment about it. In general, people who meet with Bush will not discuss their encounters. (Lantos, through a spokesman, says it is a longstanding policy of his not to discuss Oval Office meetings.)

If it had been anyone but Biden, I might have bought the story without question.

Sweden was putatively neutral in WWII but made billions by shipping iron ore and finished steel to the Third Reich.

Switzeland might be the "obvious go-to", but I believe the take-away from this is that, even when given a gracious "out", our former Commander-in-Chief was pretty ignorant of world affairs/history!

Switzerland does have an army. Call it the "National Guard" if you want, but every Swiss person calls it the army.

The question is whether it sends its army abroad--and the answer is, indeed, no. It's strange that people have such an ingrained idea of what an army does (an American idea?) that they can't get their head around the possibility that a country could have an army but regard its function as defending the country, not projecting power abroad (and not humanitarian missions either; Switzerland's neutrality is not morally unproblematic).

Germany, though not neutral, actually has much the same idea--driven by guilt at World War II, of course. Failure to appreciate this causes massive confusion and resentment.

Actually, Switzerland has a small military force akin to a national guard as well. An exchange student I knew in grad school served. I think he called it the Panzerhowitzer. At the time, service was mandatory as well. Besides, they don't advertise their pocket knives as the Swiss ARMY knife just to sound tough.

Sweden was neutral during WWII, and as a Norwegian I should know. Sweden was a refuge for many Norwegians who fled German occupied Norway, many of whom were sent on to the UK, where they joined the allied forces.

Sweden, however, has strong historical connections to Germany, with many of the Swedish noble families being of German descent, many of them Prussian.
For this reason, Sweden assisted both Germany and the Allies during WWII. German soldiers headed for the north of Norway were in rail transit through Sweden. And both the allies and the Germans got crucial Swedish steel and special parts, such as ball bearings, from Sweden. British planes would land in Sweden and bring out ball bearings.
Had the German adventure in the Soviet Union gone better, then it's not improbable that the strong pro-German forces in Sweden had managed to get the country to abandon its neutral status -- but as things went, they managed to get the "best" of both worlds.

Post-war, Swedes got busy rewriting some of the chapters of their pro-German bent. A lot is emerging now, with documents being opened after having been sealed.

And an Air Force too. Unless those Swedish Saab fighters used in the car commercials are flown Swedish Girl Scouts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen

@danp

Tell that to the Danes? Don't understand - what is true, is that the Danish people collaborated in sending nearly all Jews in Denmark to Sweden, where they were saved from the Germans ...

Tell a Norwegian that Sweden was neutral in WWII. He'd punch you in the face.

Alba is pulling this one out of her ass. She clearly meant Switzerland and is pretending that she said Sweden on purpose just to pretend that she's smart. It's a lie compounded on an error.

The belligerence of imaginary Norwegians aside, the fact remains that Sweden declared itself neutral in World War II, and stayed that way by dealing with both sides in such a way as to avoid getting its ass kicked by the Axis or the Allies. That neutrality may be the sort that doesn't endear itself to one's neighbors, but it's still true.

Oh, and Bill O'Reilly is an honorless thug.

Mike K: If it had been anyone but Biden, I might have bought the story without question.

Because you've got such a solid record of accepting criticism of Bush when you remove your face from his crotch long enough to read these threads.

SteinL - But Jews weren't the only people who hated the Nazis. The non=Jewish Danes who lived under the occupation, were not all grateful that Sweden had made this "neutrality" deal with Germany.

Stefan: Nonsene. Alba is Danish on her mother's side, so she is well aware of which is which. When she said Sweden, she meant Sweden.

Perhaps, but i sincerely doubt it. Why not say Paraguay...that was neutral too! I've transcribed a few Jessica Alba interviews for work and listening to her talk for 3 hours...she's a bit of a pinhead. A cute one though.

It's interesting to note the different reactions to the two situations. Obviously, both Bush and Alba confused Switzerland and Sweden, but while Bush is ridiculed for his confusion, Jessica is given the benefit of the doubt, just because she's in a feud with O'Reilly.

A few points: Just because O'Reilly is a jerk doesn't make Jessica Alba is a brilliant student of history. You can criticize him without having to defend her silly comment.

If you look at what she actually said, "Be Sweden about it", that would only make sense if Sweden were primarily known for its neutrality.
But Sweden is more known for blondes and Swedish meatballs than its strategic military decisions in the middle of last century. The fact that it actually was neutral in WWII is irrelevant. Sweden doesn't represent neutrality in the public mind the same way that Switzerland does.

This is all perfectly obvious and noncontroversial when Bush says it; why can't we just admit that Jessica Alba slipped up too?

Why not say Paraguay...that was neutral too!

Um, because the country next door to Paraguay wasn't invaded by the Nazis?

"The non=Jewish Danes who lived under the occupation, were not all grateful that Sweden had made this "neutrality" deal with Germany"

So....What exactly is your point?
that they were not really neutral because they didnt join the allies????

makes no sense

The non=Jewish Danes who lived under the occupation, were not all grateful that Sweden had made this "neutrality" deal with Germany.

What were their options? Take a look at the map. It was either declare neutrality, or be invaded and occupied by Germany. Considering that the US also chose to remain neutral for over two years until the moment Hitler declared war, without being at all in the same danger that Sweden was, Americans don't really have much of a leg to stand on when being critical here.

Remember, too, that Denmark (and Norway) also chose to remain neutral. Germany ignored their respective neutrality and invaded, so it didn't protect them, but it's not as if the Danes and Norwegians had made that different a choice than the Swedes did. They all did pretty much everything to avoid getting invaded that they could have.

Remember, too, that Denmark (and Norway) also chose to remain neutral.

As did Finland.

Perhaps, but i sincerely doubt it. Why not say Paraguay...that was neutral too!

Because Paraguay isn't Denmark's next door neighbor and a fellow Scandinavian country? Are you honestly this dense or are you making a special effort here?

The only "historical" reference that came to mind for me was from Catch-22 and the plan to row to Sweden to get out of the war.

Brett, why would Alba say Paraguay when Stefan's point is that her family is from Denmark thus giving her a plausible reason to know what she's talking about at least in this context? Talk about a non sequitur! Admitting this doesn't mean believing that Alba's some kind of genius, only that she has a reason for hearing this particular fact. I'm not an Alba fan but I'm disturbed by the automatic assumption that she's a liar.

Oh yes Sweden has an army for sure. Even the Chinese know that:

"Sweden mulls military service for women
( 2003-06-27 10:13) (Agencies)

A female Swedish soldier who serves in NATO's Stabilisation Force is shown in this undated file photo. [www.nato.int]

The government in Sweden, one of the world's leaders in equal rights for women, ordered the armed forces Thursday to consider introducing mandatory military service for females.

The Defense Ministry said it was part of a move to make Scandinavian country's military more efficient, as well as more egalitarian.

"It's important that the work for equality continues intensively within the armed forces," Defense Ministry spokesman Magnus Edin said.

He stressed that the government had not taken an official stance on mandatory service for women, but said it wants to boost the number of women in the armed forces.

Women are allowed to perform military service, but aren't required to. It is mandatory for men, although less than a third of the Scandinavian country's eligible 19-year-olds are actually drafted each year because of budget cutbacks. Sweden has a population of 8.9 million."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-06/27/content_241471.htm

"If you look at what she actually said, "Be Sweden about it", that would only make sense if Sweden were primarily known for its neutrality."

It's not? Sweden hasnt fought a war since 1814
and yes they had oportunities both in Baltic disputes and general european conflicts
It's famously neutral

"Sweden doesn't represent neutrality in the public mind the same way that Switzerland does"

Maybe you need to hang out with a different public?

I can't imagine how uncomfortable it must feel, being in a crowded room with the President and having him display such ignorance and then cling to it after being corrected. That must have been frightening to realize that we were really led into wars by such an incompetent. Thank God is part of the past.

As did Finland.

Actually, no. Finland was a de facto Germany ally in the war, and when Germany invaded the USSR in 1941 Finland also invaded and for over three years the Finns and Germans fought side by side against the Russian.

However, while Finland was allied with Germany, it was never at war with the Western Allies (Britain, France, the US, etc). In late 1944 Finland and the USSR signed a peace treaty, and the Finns then turned on their former German allies in the so-called Lapland War of 1944-45.

Sweden doesn't represent neutrality in the public mind the same way that Switzerland does.

What? To whom? What an idiotic argument.

When I think of Sweden during WWII — with all the caveats about ore and ball bearings included — I think of Raoul Wallenberg, who was able to save thousands of Hungarian Jews because of his country's neutrality.

I'm not aware of his Swiss counterpart, even as I know they too were neutral.

O'Reilly, choleric on a point he got wrong was schooled by someone who was right, but to some, that's just proof of her stupidity. Weird.

Sweden doesn't represent neutrality in the public mind the same way that Switzerland does

Look, just because you're not well-educated doesn't mean that everyone else has the same lack. I know that conservatives are only able to fit in one fact at a time, but some of us are honestly able to keep up with a wide range of references.

I thought the point was that few expect Jessica Alba (a TV and movie actor) to express thoughtful and well-informed ideas about world affairs, while many would expect Bill O'Reilly (a high profile news commentator and pundit) to do so. The expectation would be that Alba would look good in a bathing suit and O'Reilly would have insight into world affairs. That the starlet got it right and the pundit got it wrong tell us oh-so-much about the quality of thinking that gets you a job on Fox News. (And vice versa does NOT apply to the second sentence--given the option of viewing Mr O'Reilly in a bathing suit, I'd choose Ms Alba as my thesis advisor!)

Switzerland did business with Germany during World War II also. The fact is that both Switzerland and Sweden were neutral during World War II, but neither nation had a problem with making profits off the hostilities. Jessica Alba, bless her heart, was correct and Bill O'Reilly is a pinhead.

jefft452 - I'm not sure where your confusion is. My first comment at 3:54 was that many Danes do not consider Sweden neutral, because they sold steel and industrial products to Germany.

What were their options? Stephan

I agree with everything in your 4:40 comment. I'm just saying that many Danes feel that selling steel to the Nazis while Denmark was being occupied was a betrayal. And again, I am not judging who was right or wrong here. I'm merely pointing out that not everyone would agree that Sweden was neutral.

The fact is that both Switzerland and Sweden were neutral during World War II, but neither nation had a problem with making profits off the hostilities.

Just as when the US was neutral during WWII Prescott Bush, grandfather to our disgraced former president, had no problem with making profits off the Nazis.

I'm merely pointing out that not everyone would agree that Sweden was neutral.

Yes, but similarly not everyone would agree that Bush is a lying sociopath. And yet the facts are the facts, despite certain people's emotional reluctance to acknowledge them.

From Wikipedia: "Today, the total manpower available to the Swedish Armed Forces when fully mobilized is said to consist of about 321,500."

And some of them are women. And some of these women serve in Afghanistan.

Crikey, Bush was an embarassment.

Another point for Swedish sensibilities: "The greatest statesman of our century

Actually, no. Finland was a de facto Germany ally in the war, and when Germany invaded the USSR in 1941 Finland also invaded and for over three years the Finns and Germans fought side by side against the Russian.

Right you are. But now I see that Finland allied with Germany after the Winter War of 1939-41 in which Finland was attacked by the Soviets. I learned a lot today. Mmmm, maybe someone will give me a cookie.

Whoever said this: If you look at what she actually said, "Be Sweden about it", that would only make sense if Sweden were primarily known for its neutrality.
But Sweden is more known for blondes and Swedish meatballs than its strategic military decisions in the middle of last century. The fact that it actually was neutral in WWII is irrelevant. Sweden doesn't represent neutrality in the public mind the same way that Switzerland does.

said my thoughts a lot better than me. So Stefan, you can think I'm being dense (or whatever inane insult you spewed), but since I sincerely doubt Jessica Alba was harkening back to her danish roots (like you are suggesting), I'm going to safely assume she meant switzerland and is covering her tracks. Quit thinking like a history major and try to replace your brain with the mind of the general retarded public's.

Wow. Not only did one person say this without apparent embarrassment:

But Sweden is more known for blondes and Swedish meatballs

...but a second person is now actually on record wishing he'd said it.

This thread rocks.

I love how Brett exhibits exactly the same behavior as Bush did in the Lantos anecdote. When corrected, Brett, like Bush, merely closes his eyes and repeats his mistake, thinking that repetition alone will make it true and betting that everyone around him will be too embarrassed by his idiocy to correct him.

Unluckily for him, I feel no such embarrassment....

So Stefan, you can think I'm being dense (or whatever inane insult you spewed),

It was dense. You did get at least that right.

but since I sincerely doubt Jessica Alba was harkening back to her danish roots (like you are suggesting), I'm going to safely assume she meant switzerland and is covering her tracks.

Huh. I sincerely doubt that you sincerely doubt that, and I'm going to safely assume you are only desperately spinning in order to cover up O'Reilly's blunder.

Switzerland did business with Nazi Germany, too. However, Switzerland was never an empire like Sweden tried to be hundreds of years earlier, which might be why Switzerland has a better reputation.

O'Reilly could claim that Sweden is only "military non-aligned in peace, aiming for neutrality in case of war in its immediate surroundings" (current status), and since its not war anywhere close... it's just military non-aligned and not neutral.

I'm quite sure O'Reilly isn't aware of this. Moreover, it's a quite thin line between "military non-aligned" and "neutral" so if I had to give a point to anyone I'd give it to Alba.

Stefan,

I'm not covering for O'Reilly's blunder, I think he's a complete moron. I'm simply stating that, in popular culture, the go-to country for analogy is switzerland. Switzerland is famous for its alps, perhaps chocolate, banks, and its neutrality. Sweden on the other hand, is not famous for its neutrality, although its been historically neutral. So, AGAIN, moron, I sincerely doubt that Jessica Alba meant Sweden in her simple statement about neautrality. If she did in fact mean Sweden, then her analogy is an epic fail as who ever uses Sweden as a symbol of neutrality. I could be completely wrong about that, but I'd like to see some examples. In my 29 years of living, I've heard people reference Switzerland countless times, but never Sweden in this manner. And whoever compared me to Bush is a complete ahole. Because my statement is opinion, i never blundered a fact.

Most Americans couldn't find Sweden on a fucking map, even if you told them it was in northern Europe. It amuses me there are some on this thread who actually believe (without apparent embarrassment, to borrow a phrase), that Americans would also know Sweden was neutral during World War II.

America voted twice for the stupid asshole who doesn't believe Sweden has a fucking army.

What the fuck does that tell you?

It amuses me there are some on this thread who actually believe (without apparent embarrassment, to borrow a phrase), that Americans would also know Sweden was neutral during World War II.

You are probably right. Everyone is as stupid as you.

Regarding the off topic WWII-neutrality discussion.

At the beginning of WWII Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ALL declared neutrality. The US also declared neutrality.

Because Denmark was too close to Germany and Norway had good fjords for hiding submarines in they were attacked by the Germans, plus they were easy targets. Sweden was not as strategically crucial and stronger militarily, therefore it wasn't attacked. Just like Switzerland it didn't make sense to spend precious military resources attacking.

"I'm not sure where your confusion is. My first comment at 3:54 was that many Danes do not consider Sweden neutral, because they sold steel and industrial products to Germany�…� many Danes feel that selling steel to the Nazis while Denmark was being occupied was a betrayal. And again, I am not judging who was right or wrong here. I'm merely pointing out that not everyone would agree that Sweden was neutral."

But neutrality is not a mater of opinion, it’s a legal state. If they refused to sell steel to Gremany but continued to sell it to Britain they wouldn’t be neutral

(FDR got around this and didn’t refuse to sell to Germany, he just required all belligerents who purchased war material ship them in their own hulls, which Britian could do but Germany could not)

It amuses me there are some on this thread who actually believe (without apparent embarrassment, to borrow a phrase), that Americans would also know Sweden was neutral during World War II.

Really? I'm an American, and I knew it.

And look, it doesn't matter if the majority of Americans knew it, it would only matter if Jessica Alba herself knew it. And, given that she's partly Scandinavian, that doesn't seem like an epic stretch.

Or is the new standard that you can only make statements referencing tropes so well known that even the dumbest Americans know them? Are we really dumbing down that much? (Well, based on this thread, perhaps yes....)

jefft452 - OK. If you define the word "neutral" as a "legal state", I would agree that Sweden was neutral. I'm not sure whether Sweden traded with Allies during this period, but using your definition, that that wouldn't matter in determining whether they were neutral. On the other hand, I would also argue that "neutral" also has a more generic non-legal definition. It is only by using this definition that Danes would dispute Sweden't neutrality.

Mike K: If it had been anyone but Biden, I might have bought the story without question.

Because you've got such a solid record of accepting criticism of Bush when you remove your face from his crotch long enough to read these threads.

Posted by: shortstop

Having memory troubles again ? Those drugs catch up with you eventually. I've had lots of disagreements with Bush. In fact, I believe I've commented here that the only thing I really agreed with him about was Iraq.

He was wrong not to veto spending, wrong on immigration reform and wrong on Medicare D.

"So, AGAIN, moron, I sincerely doubt that Jessica Alba meant Sweden in her simple statement about neautrality.."

Look, Sweden was neutral, Jessica Alba was right and Bill O’Riely was wrong.
It really is that simple.
I don’t know why people argue that despite the fact that she was correct, she was still wrong because she couldn’t have known what she demonstrated that she knew.

I only assume that the thinking process is “If I didn’t know something then its not common knowledge�
Many things that I don’t know are common knowledge, for example I don’t know who Jessica Alba is but it appears that everyone else does

Swedish neutrality is common knowledge, they wouldn’t even join NATO
"I could be completely wrong about that�
Yeah, you could
�but I'd like to see some examples. In my 29 years of living, I've heard people reference Switzerland countless times, but never Sweden in this manner."
Maybe you need to hang around with different people
For an example of someone referring to Sweden as an example of neutrality I’ll site Jessica Alba, but I guess the people you hang around with don’t know as much as she does

Brett: Switzerland is famous for its alps, perhaps chocolate, banks, and its neutrality.

Don't forget watches and cuckoo clocks. I feel like we're in one of those "Big Wide Wonderful World" videos they show first graders.

Screamin' Demon: America voted twice for the stupid asshole who doesn't believe Sweden has a fucking army.

Yes, indeed. Mike K is probably the only one in this thread who voted for him even once, however. So your point...kind of isn't one.

Mike K: Having memory troubles again ? Those drugs catch up with you eventually.

Aw, it's been 20 years since I did drugs, Mike. How long has it been since you had an artery-clogging doughnut? Ten minutes? (Mike K, whose diet is so bad he managed to get gout in the 21st century. Dementia, Mike welcomes you!)

In fact, I believe I've commented here that the only thing I really agreed with him about was Iraq.

You certainly did make that comment here. Since it followed years of defending Bush on myriad indefensible moves, we take it with the same seriousness we take all your after-the-fact attempts at rewriting your own embarrassing history.

Re: the Swedes aren't known for being neutral.

I seem to remember they refused to sell jet fighters in the middle east, unlike the French, Russians and Americans.

Bush's comments remind me of the Monty Python sketch, where Britain's greatest writers were attributing the most obnoxious statements about the Royalty to each other:

"His Majesty is like a stream of bat piss!"

The attempt to set this blunt statement into a more acceptable context sounds like what Mr. Lantos attempted to do:

"What I meant was, his Majesty shines like a shaft of gold, when all around him is dark!"

I guess that was what the psychologists call "a teaching moment" for the world's leaders about Shrub. Please, please, let those days be over!

Neutrality when applied to countries is not a state of mind, but a well defined legal condition. Under international law, both Switzerland and Sweden were neutral in WWII. Both dealt economically with Germany, as neutrals were allowed to do, and both made a lot of money. The Swiss were known to have close financial relations with Germany, which resulted in a lot of Nazi gold ending up in Swiss Banks.

No one has any idea what she meant, and it's a total waste of time to try and prove that you do. (It is very funny to watch people try, though.)

We should all be happy to bask in the glow of O'Liely getting the smack down from a perceived airhead. This one is not even close people - he got schooled.

A lot of people are getting schooled on this thread...lol

To the other Brett: Sweden is indeed known for its neutrality - as someone else pointed out, since 1814 - at least in the civilised world. No, it did not stop them from trading with Nazi Germany during WW2, but nor did it stop them trading with Britain (Mosquito aircraft flying out tonnes of ball bearings, diplomatic (spelt intelligence) documents, V2 parts etc). Neutrality didn't stop Prescott Bush, IBM, Ford, General Motors, etc from trading with Nazi Germany up until Hitler declaring war on the US either.

And just about every naval vessel - on all sides - from PT boat upwards carried Swedish Bofors guns (usually but not always, made under licence) as anti-aircraft weapons. Many still do.

Sweden also ended up with dozens, if not hundreds, of allied aircraft too damaged/under fuelled/lost etc to make it back from Germany. The crews were then interned (possibly with those blondes).

Sweden was famously neutral during the Vietnam war; the Australian Army had a great deal of trouble replenishing its Karl Gustav anti-tank missiles as a result, so there's no excuse for Bush not knowing that Sweden was both neutral AND had an army.

As an ex F-102 pilot, he should at least have known about the Saab Draken and Viggen fighters that were both contemporary with his service and very, very highly regarded. As were the Swedish S tanks, the Kockums submarines,etc.

Alba 1 point, you and O'Reilly, zero.

Love the argument

a) Jessica Alba made a correct statement of fact.
b) Me and Bill O'Reilly are too ignorant to realize that.
c) Therefore, Jessica Alba is wrong

Sweden is the arch enemy of the United States. They have brought our nation to its knees by identifying Looney-Tunes U.S. economists and giving them Nobel prizes that they might gain influence and partake in running the economy (into the ground).

Why do they hate us?

Dr. Hasseldorf: Well, Gail, by this time the hostages should be going through the early stages of the Helsinki Syndrome.

Harvey Johnson: As in Helsinki, Sweden.

Dr. Hasseldorf: Finland.

- Die Hard

The State Dept. says Alba was way off:

"In 2002 Sweden redefined its security position from neutral to one of non-alignment in peacetime with the ability to cooperate with military alliances in peacekeeping and peace-building missions. Internationally, the Swedish Government gives special focus to disarmament, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm#foreign

@danp -- this thread has probably blown its steam by now, but please don't rewrite northern European/Scandinavian history.

Sweden - as do all neutral countries that manage to avoid being invaded - dealt with both sides. The country is schizoid, both Anglophile and Pro-German.
If you go to Riddarhuset in Stockholm, where Swedes keep the shields of their noble families, you will see a mixture of British heraldry and German ditto.

What neutral countries do, is they put their diplomats into overdrive during conflicts, which is precisely what the Swedes did, in order to preserve their neutrality. They assisted both sides, and realized that Germany would have to be allowed to send their troops through the country, with the railway, to the north of Norway - if not, Germany would occupy Sweden in order to secure this transport route.

At the time, the Allies were supplying Stalin with convoys that ran to Murmansk, across the Arctic Sea, and German planes and submarines were attacking these convoys. Norway being an extremely long country, with incredibly bad transportation infrastructure at the time, and with the sea lanes being denied the Germans due to Allied naval superiority, the Swedish route was it, as far as the Germans were concerned.

My father escaped Norway, arrived in Sweden, was flown to England, and joined the allied effort there. Many Danes and Norwegians escaped to Sweden, and were treated admirably by the Swedes. As the war was winding down, Count Folke Bernadotte painted a large number of buses white, and drove into Germany, to rescue Norwegians and Danes in concentration camps there; and Raoul Wallenberg gave his life in trying to help Jews in the former Eastern Block.

BTW - how come no one has mentioned Portugal/Spain as neutral countries during WWII? Just as both the Germans and the Allies used Lisbon for their activities, so did they use Sweden and Switzerland.

That Alba girl seems to have a brain.

The State Dept. says Alba was way off: "In 2002 Sweden redefined its security position from neutral to one of non-alignment..."

LOL. Is the State Department under the impression that World War II was still going on in 2002? Bush burrowers again!

SteinL - I'd be interested in knowing where you think I am rewriting history. I will agree that if you use the word "neutral" in a legal sense, Sweden fits the definition. I feel I acknowledged that in my 3:54 comment. In the broader sense, many Danes were and still are resentful of Sweden's WWII policies. I lived in Malmo, Sweden for four months in the '90's, and the subject came up several times, from both my Swedish friends and Danish ones. I must admit, though. Those discussions never reached the level of discord that this thread has.

Here's the test:

If someone said, "Be Sweden about it", out of context, you would have no way of knowing what the heck she was talking about.

A metaphor of that kind only works if it refers to the single most prominent feature of the country. But if you asked people to talk about Sweden, its neutrality in WWII is not likely to be high on the list. Urbandictionary doesn't even mention Sweden's lack of military conflicts until the 5th definition.

So either it was a poor metaphor or she got confused.

Do all of Alba's defenders want to jump in and vouch for Bush, and his astute historical knowledge?

Again, as "a" just demonstrated, people really, really, really want (need?) to project their own views/beliefs/knowledge onto Alba here. Just because you didn't know it doesn't mean she didn't know it. And who made up the rule that says people can only use metaphors involving the single most prominent feature of a country?

many Danes were and still are resentful of Sweden's WWII policies.

What policy? Neutrality? Denmark followed the same policy until it was invaded. Do they resent Sweden cooperating with Germany? Perhaps, but that's a bit irrational when you consider the choices Sweden had:

1. Resist Germany and be invaded and occupied just as its neighbors Norway and Denmark had, or

2. Cooperate with both Germany and, in part, the Allies, and try to keep its head above water.

Sweden was dealing with an impossible situation and dealt with it as best they could. They were a small, weak country, surrounded on all sides by the world's dominant military, and if they hadn't done what Germany wanted them to do Germany would have punished them severely for it. They didn't do business with Germany only for the love of it, but also because they knew exactly what would happen if they didn't play the game. And if they had resisted and been invaded, what good would that have done Denmark? None at all.

If someone said, "Be Sweden about it", out of context, you would have no way of knowing what the heck she was talking about.

Unless, of course, you actually have an education and knowledge of history. But yes, if everyone were as ignorant as you you would have no way of knowing.

A metaphor of that kind only works if it refers to the single most prominent feature of the country.

Which is why all metaphors involving Japan must refer to Mt. Kyoto, all metaphors involving Italy must refer to pasta and/or the Mafia, and all metaphors involving Spain must refer to bull-fighting. Also, in metaphors all Frenchmen must wear berets and carry around baguettes, and all Australians are Crocodile Dundee.

Matt and Stefan,

My only point is that interpreted two very similar situations differently, perhaps based on partisanship rather than any logical consistency. If Bush screwed up, it seems very plausible to think that Alba did too.

The nasty personal tone of your responses is a side effect of that tendency to argue the issue along party lines. You assume that I must be a conservative shill and an idiot, just because I happen to disagree with you.

To clarify: a metaphor is only useful if the audience can be expected to understand it. To work, the metaphor must trigger the desired concept in the mind of the listener, so it must rely on common perceptions. But other than Jessica Alba's comment, I can't find any examples of Sweden being used as the personification of neutrality. Not one. On the other hand, Switzerland is used that way all the time.

So unless Jessica Alba is some kind of linquistic trailblazer, it seems likely she screwed up. All the historical arguing is beside the point. The fact is, in ordinary speech, nobody uses Sweden as a stand-in for neutrality. If you can find a counter example, I'll admit I'm wrong.

I'll give Alba credit for doing the research to mount a superficially plausible defense, but that's just after-the-fact spin. It reminds me of Condi Rice arguing that the British really did think that Hussein had tried to obtain yellowcake from Africa, so technically the famous seven words were true. That kind of logic doesn't convince anyone; it's just a way to save face.

You assume that I must be a conservative shill and an idiot, just because I happen to disagree with you.

Close. We know that you're a conservative shill and an idiot because of your record of posts here.

If Bush screwed up, it seems very plausible to think that Alba did too.

So the reasoning is: the fact that Bush made a false statement and clung to it even after he was corrected makes it seem very plausible to think that Alba screwed up because she made a completely correct statement. Or, in other words, if Bush said two plus two equals five, it seems very plausible to think that Alba screwed up when she said two plus two equals four.

I admit I'm having kind of a hard time following the, uh, let's be charitable and call it "reasoning" above.

Man, the sheer desperation of the conservatives to twist and distort is telling evidence of their desperation, isn't it?

There's a whole big internet out there. Any previous examples of Sweden=neutrality?

None?

Why can't we go with the ineffective metaphor explanation? That seems at least as plausible (if not more so) than the after the fact spinning because she was wrong explanation.

Yes, there is a whole big internet out there, and there are MANY examples of Bush being a moron, so it's not like we're comparing one-time mistakes by Alba and Bush.

"there are MANY examples of Bush being a moron"

Finally something we can agree on.

There's a whole big internet out there. Any previous examples of Sweden=neutrality? None?

Actually, if you google "Sweden" and "neutrality", you get a Wiki page dedicated to Sweden's historic commitment to remaining neutral in conflicts, that dates back to 1812. And frankly, I am one of those who is amazed at the ignorance displayed by those who think she must have meant Switzerland, she couldn't possibly have known that since the luminaries on the right didn't, so obviously she is trying to cover her tracks.

Kinda like "a" was too lazy to type a string of characters before inserting his keyboard in his mouth in that last comment.

a,

Why is it so hard for you to admit Alba might have actually meant to say Sweden? What do you gain by "proving" her wrong? I think maybe we need to explore your motivations...

Actually, I think that the whole time "a" has been referring to Sweden he actually meant Joss Whedon. They're linguistically similar, so I can understand his confusion, but it was still a stupid mistake for him to make.

There's a whole big internet out there. Any previous examples of Sweden=neutrality?

None?

Posted by: a on January 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Doesn't need to be any, as your premise is false. There is no linguistic rule that metaphors understood only by the lowest common denominator of listener (as if there were such a thing) validate or prove the speaker's intent.

If anything, the opposite is probably true, that the more common occurrence is that the average speaker uses a whole host of idiosyncratic references drawn from the inventory of his or her personal experience and knowledge and colored by bias. For one individual the Japanese might be "Zen," for another they're "industrious," for another they're "the yellow menace" or "bloodthirsty

As Stefan observes, you're suggesting that people only trade in stereotypes when communicating but you lose even on that argument.

But it is a whole big internet out there, and since you're asking....

"Justin Timberlake Offends Neutral Swedes"

http://www.cinemablend.com/celebrity/Justin-Timberlake-Offends-Neutral-Swedes-4901.html

Common reference, common parlance. You're done.

As my first comment stated, I care mostly about the double standard at issue. Frankly, I couldn't care less about Jessica Alba. I just think it's harmful to fall into the habit of automatically siding for or against somebody based on party lines. In this case, many people rallied to defend Alba just because she was going up against O'Reilly. O'Reilly is an idiot, but Alba was still wrong. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That's actually all I wanted to point out. It's strange how vitriolic the response is, based on the smallness of the disagreement.

And Blue Girl, I did google Sweden and neutrality to see if I was wrong. I couldn't find a counter example, and my guess is that you won't either. My point was that in common speech, Sweden is not used to connote neutrality in the same way that Switzerland commonly is. If I'm wrong about that, post an example of somebody saying "Sweden" when they mean "neutral".

Having said that, I'm done. See ya.

a, what you really mean is, in YOUR common speech Sweden is not used connote neutrality. Again, because you are not familiar with it, does not make it false. You are falling into the common conservative trap of looking at the entire world through only your limited scope of knowledge.

And also, I don't think we were rallying to defend Alba. We were rallying to refute your silly arguments/logic.

O'Reilly is an idiot, but Alba was still wrong.

If by "wrong" you mean 100% factually accurate, then yes, she is "wrong."

I did google Sweden and neutrality to see if I was wrong.

I call bullshit here...since I provided a link.

O'Reilly is an idiot, but Alba was still wrong.

Again, how was she wrong? She said Sweden was neutral, and this is in fact true. Unless by "wrong" you mean "said something which I didn't know".....

My point was that in common speech, Sweden is not used to connote neutrality in the same way that Switzerland commonly is.

False premise. Even if Switzerland is the more common reference, that doesn't mean that the use of Sweden as a reference is by itself incorrect. If I said "man, she's sexy like Jessica Alba" would I be wrong because Angelina Jolie is the more common referent of sexy?

If I said "man, she's sexy like Jessica Alba" would I be wrong because Angelina Jolie is the more common referent of sexy?

And why is she, anyway? Jessica Alba is way sexier than Angelina, who always looks like she needs a bath.

Uh oh, I shut down this lively thread. Sorry that I think Jolie looks dirty, and not in the good way.

And why is she, anyway? Jessica Alba is way sexier than Angelina, who always looks like she needs a bath.

Perhaps Jessica just needs to give Angelina a bath so we can put this whole dirty Swedish affair behind us.

Perhaps Jessica just needs to give Angelina a bath so we can put this whole dirty Swedish affair behind us.

That, my friends, is a plan we can believe in.

Sweden was NOT neutral - it didn't even claim neutrality except for two months in 1939 - jeesh!

Alba was W.R.O.N.G.

O'Reilly is an odious toad but, in our desire to see him taken down a peg or two, let's not distort the facts.