From The Mouths of Babes
She’s hot … and stupid! Just the way guys like ‘em. Jessica Alba gets props for going all history on O’Reilly. From those other ignoramuses, MSNBC (UPDATED with important revelation plus more hotness below):
Jessica Alba is setting the record straight: Sweden was neutral during World War II.
Alba and Fox TV show host Bill O’Reilly traded punches last week after the presidential inauguration. After Alba told a Fox reporter that O’Reilly was “kind of an a-hole;” he retaliated by calling her a “pinhead” for telling a reporter to “be Sweden about it,” assuming she meant Switzerland.
“I want to clear some things up that have been bothering me lately,” Alba blogged on MySpace Celebrity. “Last week, Mr. Bill O’Reilly and some really classy sites (i.e.TMZ) insinuated I was dumb by claiming Sweden was a neutral country. I appreciate the fact that he is a news anchor and that gossip sites are inundated with intelligent reporting, but seriously people… it’s so sad to me that you think the only neutral country during WWII was Switzerland.”
Although Switzerland is more frequently cited as an example of neutrality, Sweden did indeed follow a policy of neutrality during World War II. History point to Alba.
Sure, Sweden was neutral. And Iran, victim of American war crimes, wants nukes for peace. The Taliban, which brought law and order to war-torn Afghanistan, was obliged under the internationally recognized principles of Pashtunwali to harbor Osama bin Laden. Hamas is a government. The Zionists are Nazis, Bush was a lying, chimp-like Hitler knockoff, Iraq was a happy kite-flying nation and Barack Obama, experienced unifier, is ready to govern.
Might want to ask the Norwegians what they think about Swedish neutrality. But let’s have some Swedes tell us about the neutrality they carefully maintained in difficult times as a result of policy decisions to seek a positive trade balance with another northern European nation, rather than engage in non-lucrative, potentially hazardous resistance operations.
The main question for Sweden was how to stay neutral. When Denmark and Norway were occupied by the Germans, many thought that Sweden had no possibility to stay out of the war. A coalition government with all parties represented in the parliament, except for the Communists, was formed.
Sweden was never attacked by Germany. This was probably due to the fact that Germany did not have to. Germany was dependent upon Swedish metal ore from the mines in northern Sweden. Throughout the entire war, the Germans had no trouble in getting this metal ore. Sweden also exported ball bearings to the Germans, vital for their production of tanks and aeroplanes. German troops were transported to Norway and Finland on the Swedish railroad system during the war. After the German set-back at Stalingrad the Swedish policy towards Germany changed. The troop transports, for instance, were stopped. After the war this compliance to the Germans has been discussed and criticised. At the time, however, it was considered necessary in order to avoid confrontation with Germany.
A luxury Norway, Denmark, France, Poland, Belgium, Holland and Czechoslovakia were not afforded. Great Britain, Australia and Canada chose to fight for others, at great cost. So did the United States, after several years of openly providing Britain with vital support in its life-and-death struggle against a vile, murderous dictatorship. (That other vile, murderous dictatorship, Stalin’s Soviet Union, sought to collaborate, signing a secret deal that split Poland and gave the Soviets the Baltics. The deal also provided Nazi Germany with trainloads of Soviet wheat and oil … which the Germans used to fuel Operation Barbarossa. Who says Germans don’t have a sense of humor? Important history lesson there, by the way: When you make a deal with the devil, you might get away with just losing your soul. A deal between two devils? Just ask 30 million-odd dead Germans and Russians what that costs.)
You know, I think Saudi Arabia might fairly be characterized as a stronger ally of Israel than Sweden can be called neutral in World War II.
But what Hollywood needs to know … could make for one of those great, nuanced, dark, conventional wisdom-challenging black & white ethical epics … there is no such thing as neutrality when the fundamental sovereignty of peoples and civilization itself is at stake. Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, doesn’t matter. When the world is on fire, neutrality is the skirt under which selfish, cowardly nations hide.
Wow. Here’s a guy who is theoretically smart enough to know better. It says a lot when esteemed, learned scholars of international relations think a nation that collaborates with one of the most vile war machines of history, supplying vital resources and allowing the passage of troops enroute to murdering Norwegians, can call itself “neutral” and it is so. No wonder so many potentially great nations keep getting away with rank cravenness.
Dan Drezner might be interested to know that until Germany’s fortunes began failing with the reversal in Stalingrad, “Sweden’s hostility towards the acceptance of refugees prevented many Jews from finding safety there.“ It’s not like the United States is exactly blameless on that front. Anyway, no one ever said neutrality is moral. OK, maybe some Swedes and Swiss did, but who cares what those amoral Nazi collaborators think?
The thing about neutrality and other crimes against humanity is, it’s never too late to make good. Sweden is actually trying to do something useful in the world, and has troops that have seen combat in Afghanistan. More, please. Switzerland, though it has made significant strides in trying to avoid being the financial enabler of despots and terrorists everywhere, prefers to let others keep the world safe for business.
OK, all that said, the girl is hot.
Even if she calls a guy an “a-hole” one week and makes snide remarks about who’s “classy” the next. No one expects her to be consistent, or even smart. They just expect her to be hot.
Wicked hot. Girl should stick to doing what she does best.
Looking hot.
Hold everything … I just realized … Alba could be a satirical genius. By admonishing a reporter to “be Sweden about it,” the hot actress may be cleverly mocking the poor scribbler, subtlely pointing out that “You know, and I know, and you know that I know, that you’re gonna be about as neutral as … Sweden.” Hot and smart like that … what a package. Anyway, maybe “stupid” is a little harsh, as noted in comments. Maybe “clueless” is better … much like a lot of the incoming. Speaking of which:
Welcome Lawyers, Guns, Money, Crooks, Liars and assorted lefties. Always so good to see you. Now that you’ve mastered your Swedish history lesson, it’s time for climatology. Sorry, my mistake, it’s time alarmist panic mongering and rare Arctic birdwatching.
Topics: Hollywood, Nazis, history, moronocy
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:06 am on Thursday, January 29, 2009
24 Responses to “From The Mouths of Babes”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Yup, just like we like them: Young, pretty and dumb.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Shorter Jules Crittenden: Jessica Alba was really dumb for calling Sweden neutral. Even though Sweden is neutral. But in my judgment, Sweden shouldn’t have been neutral, which means that Alba was really stupid to say that they were. See? This is the kind of analysis which makes me much smarter than Jessica Alba.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:39 am
No, you moron. Read it again. Collaborating with the Nazis is NOT being neutral.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Sarah Rolph - by that standard, Switzerland wasn’t neutral either. They collaborated like crazy. O’Reilly is in a hole. Crittenden has thrown him a shovel. Not a big help to him.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:40 am
sarah….Fox News may prefer to think of themselves as “fair & balanced” even though they aren’t. I don’t think they are, but it isn’t my call to make.
Similarly, you may not think Sweden was neutral, particularly during WWII, even though officially and on record they were.
Who is the moron here with that in mind? Me, I say it’s the above author & yourself.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“kindness” - “Who is the moron here with that in mind?”
Sweden was a compliant vassal of Germany when the blitzkrieg was on. They only changed their mind when they did the Red Army and Allied Expeditionary Force Math. Their steel killed Poles, Norwegians, Belgians, Dutch, French, Brits, Greeks, Russians, Canadians, plus a lot of poor German so-called “untermensch.” Yeah, that’s neutral. They’re lucky their so-called neutrality didn’t earn them the privilege of becoming a Warsaw Pact nation,
January 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
You have got to be kidding.
Your case for calling Jessica Alba ’stupid’ hinges on the technical question of whether Sweden’s trade with Germany during WW II constituted a de facto violation of neutrality?
The Allies recognized Sweden’s neutrality, as did the Axis powers. Sweden aggressively enforced the integrity of her borders and coastline with the Sverige class coastal battleships, actually deterring a German force in 1944 near the island of Aland.
I’m going with Jessica on this one.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
When evil was on the march, Sweden (and Switzerland, and Ireland, and a few other countries already mentioned) stayed on the sidelines and let others do the heavy lifting. Not as bad as openly allying with the bad guys, but not exactly something to be proud of, either.
One Swede did get it right: Raoul Wallenberg, who saved as many as 100,000 people from the gas chambers, using nothing much more than sheer audacity.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
When evil was on the march, Sweden (and Switzerland, and Ireland, and a few other countries already mentioned) stayed on the sidelines and let others do the heavy lifting.
True, but that is not the same as saying that Ireland…or Sweden…were not neutral in the first place. This is the first time I have ever heard someone claim that Sweden was not a neutral party. Moreover, the author then goes on to say that anyone who disagrees is an obvious idiot. Utterly farcical, and an embarrassment to conservatism if we Republicans are trying to base arguments on this kind of hogwash. Then again, I stopped being able to even define “conservatism” about 6 years ago when the word became bastardized beyond all meaning…
January 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Maybe Jessica found “Switzerland” too hard to say.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
It seems some here agree with the line Bill O’Liely is drawing in the sand. So I will ask those of you a question. Since your metric of judging whether someone was a Hitler supporter and anti-American is whether or not they did business with the Axis powers:
What does that make George W. Bush’s grandfather? He did banking with the Nazis.
What does that make General Motors? Via Opel, they did business with the Nazis.
What does that make the American Oil companies? They all had secret agreements with the Nazis.
Be very careful where you chose to draw that line because many very prominent Americans & American companies secretly & not so secretly did business with the Nazis.
Or is this just another case of IOKIYAR?
January 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
celticdragon - “Sverige class coastal battleships, actually deterring a German force in 1944 near the island of Aland.”
1944?? Oh gosh, they really got on that “deterring a German force” thing right away, didn’t they? I’ll stick to my statement that they did the Red Army and Allied Expeditionary Force Math by then. 1944 - Give us a break.
Gist of “kindness” argument: “Oh, look over there, a squirrel.”
January 29th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Obviously, some are trying facts, Truth, and history; to trump, liberal feelings, their exceptionalism or entitlement to be always right without ever bothering to read a historical book, considering at times failing to finish highschool.
Alba is just a little child in every manner, but she is free to speak out any way she wishes. At best she should be ignored.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I don’t believe Turkey has been mentioned. They are also a European country, and did actually side with the Germans in WW1.
As neutrals went, Sweden was somewhat compliant with the Germans, but a close look at what happened to Yugoslavia when they stood up to the Germans might indicate that that was a reasonable course of action.
The Dutch were well known for maintaining their neutrality in WW1 and actually did a lot to help the Germans run the British blockade in that war. But that did not help them much either.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:59 am
One important fact I would add is that the United States was one of those morality-compromising neutrals from 1939 through 1941 and had no issues continuing to trade with European powers up to Pearl Harbor. During that inconvenient time-frame Europe was put solidly under the Nazi boot-heel and the Holocaust’s first steps were initiated by the SS.
As a point of history, the Democrats - FDR - were constantly trying to assist Britain throughout that period but were held back by isolationists - the Republican Party, in particular.
Thus I would hesitate to castigate any particular neutral coutnry - because but for Pearl Harbor the United States very well could have continued to stay out of the Second World War.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Several things…
1) The morality of neutrality is a moot point if you’re trying to argue that Sweden was not really neutral. Or were you trying to say that there’s no such thing as neutrality, just cowardice? In that case, why does it matter which country Jessica Alba said? Perhaps you’re trying to insinuate that Alba supports Nazis with her “ball bearings”? I’m just not quite sure what you’re going for here.
2) According to Mary Stella:
“Obviously, some are trying facts, Truth, and history; to trump, liberal feelings, their exceptionalism or entitlement to be always right without ever bothering to read a historical book, considering at times failing to finish highschool.”
Questionable punctuation, spelling, and syntax aside, I find the argument that either liberals or conservatives are uneducated or ignorant to be silly. There are very intelligent people on each side. There are high school dropouts in the ranks of both Republicans and Democrats. To anyone trying to make a political or social argument: “You’re stupid!” is not a strong rebuttal. Therefore, I would like to apologize if I sounded snide when mentioning punctuation, spelling, and syntax. I’m sure Mary was just in a hurry.
3) I fail to see how Alba’s possible blunder in saying “Sweden” instead of “Switzerland” has any bearing on whether Bill O’Reilly is an “a-hole.” He IS an a-hole. Regardless of whether you agree with his views, he’s extremely rude to the guests on his show. Also, let’s not forget the “F**k it, we’ll do it live!” ridiculousness.
4) You say: “Girl should stick to doing what she does best.” Really? You don’t like smart girls? But then you say: “Hot and smart like that … what a package.” Huh. I guess only liberal women should keep their mouths shut and look pretty. I’m sure you know this already, but… that’s just not going to happen.
Pedantically (but with good intentions),
MC
January 30th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Tannenberg, you fetid patch of sludge. Where did you get that idiot idea that sub rosa support of Great Britain in World War Two was the same as sub rosa support of Nazi Germany? The few morally reprehensible decisions of Whitehall do not negate the fact the British were our to stop a monstrous regime. A regime that used atrocity that only as a way to gain objectives, but as an objective itself.
And how, pray tell, does foolish behavior on the part of American businesses negate what the US government did and tried to do? Do we have to let Tehran have nukes because American companies do business in Iran? Do you have so much faith in Washington you would let them own our industry?
Study the period more closely than you have up to now. War was coming to the United States. There was already a shooting war between the United States and Germany, and Hitler was looking for any excuse to declare war. Even if Japan had avoided American territory in her initial offensive in December of 1941, an German/American war would have drawn them in.
Switzerland, Sweden stayed neutral because they feared Nazi Germany. That, or they sympathized with Berlin, but wished to maintain the appearance of even handedness. Swedish and Swiss companies did business with Germany and German firms because they had been doing business with Germany and German firms before the Nazis came to power, and they saw no reason to change once the Nazis came to power.
You show a fundamental ignorance of human nature, of how willful ignorance and greed can warp our moral sense and degrade our good sense. You further exhibit a willful disdain for fundamental and necessary distinctions between destructive and constructive behavior. But mostly you’re a morally relativistic ass, and that is cause enough to chastise you. So shriek in outrage, grind your teeth, stomp your feet, and know that the best you can do is confirm my contempt for you. The next time you purchase footwear, show more wisdom in your selection.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Dear Alan Kellogg if you have some sort of swampy logic in your childish name calling drivel, I fail to find it. The point is Sweden was neutral. All your whining “oh the humanity” won’t change that simple fact. America was neutral till Pear Harbor. Deal with it.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
If selling vital war materiel to the Nazis during the height of World War II is the definition of “neutrality”, then all those lefties using the “America supported Saddam Hussein” as an argument against the 2003 Iraq invasion were wrong. And Rumsfeld is due an apology from them.
Hmmmmmmmm?
Moral relativism: it bites lefties in the a$$, sooner or later.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
A thought that just occurred to me ….. assuming that the majority of “Sveden vas neutral, ja!” meme supporters in this thread are of a sexual orientation that sees Alba as HAWT, would they be leaping to her defense if this spat was between Bill O’Reilly and, say, Maureen Dowd? Or Helen Thomas?
The dark side of me says “No”. But then, I think that Jessica Alba is HAWT as well.
But I also understand that anyone who makes a living standing in front of cameras and speaking memorized lines is not someone whose opinion I immediately accept as valid. This may be the critical difference for the debate in this thread.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:44 am
So you’re saying your hormones are getting in the way The Real JeffS from you being able to debate? Sheesh. Lets look at this very very simply. Did other countries recognize Sweden’s neutrality? Yes. Did that country have an official statement of neutrality? Yes. So no matter how much you want to argue who was “really” neutral, for the record they were. END OF DEBATE. Alba pwns you all.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:30 am
So, Vail, your argument is that what matters is what was said, not what was done? Deep.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Did Sweden sell vital war materiel to Nazi Germany? Yes. Did Sweden refuse entry to Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany? Yes. Did Sweden transport German troops to occupied (and certainly “non-neutral”) Norway and Finland during the war? Yes
So no matter how much you want to argue who was “really” neutral, in spite of “the record”, in spite of any so-called statements of neutrality, Sweden was not neutral.
I understand that they didn’t want Wehrmacht boots tramping all over their countryside, but “neutrality” does not include “submission”. At best, Sweden was a client state of Nazi Germany. At worst, a willing participant.
Don’t let your hormones and emotions get the better of you, Vail. Jessica is HAWT, but she ain’t smart.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
While being nominally neutral, Sweden did collaborate with Germany. Therefore “being Sweden about it” is not the same as being neutral and one can
argue that Alba is wrong there. But in all fairness, it´s at least debateable and it doesn´t prove her dumb. If she had said Switzerland, well, same problem: they were almost as careful not to attract the ire of Adolf Hitler.
The real point is: being a weak country at the mercy of murderous thugs is neither desirable nor decent or honorable. That is where Alba goes wrong.