Too real

Finland and Poland should send an utterly dead and rotting tree to England as a thanks for all the help during the WW2.

@Louhikaarme Finland and UK wasn't even on the same side, I mean Finland did switch sides and fought the germans at last year of the war but that was because of pressure from the USSR and the US

@AmericanButterfly You should brush up on your WW2 knowledge. Finland was neutral in the beginning, just like Poland. In the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Germany and the USSR divided Poland between themselves and Germany told the USSR that Finland is all yours. The UK promised Finland aid and urged Finns to keep fighting, but that aid never materialised in any significant manner. The reason is simple: the UK only saw helping Finland as an excuse to occupy the iron mines in Sweden, to prevent Sweden from selling ore to Germany. However, Sweden, under pressure from Germany, couldn't allow that to happen. So, the UK did nothing but give empty promises, just like it did with Poland.

When Germany began preparations for Operation Barbarossa, suddenly Finland became interesting for them. Just a couple of years earlier the Germans had considered Finns subhumans who could be thrown into the Soviet maw. Such a jolly ally.

So, yeah, you are right: the UK and Finland weren't on the same side because nobody was on Finland's side. There's a lesson to be learned here: Never trust in foreign aid. Your USA is the beacon of this belief, which is why your presidents encourage other nations to invest in their own defense.

'@Louhikaarme' almost all correct, but you forgot to mention WWI history as well. Something something Jaegers, something something British operations in Baltic during Russian Civil War. Finland certainly didn't look neutral to Soviet Union given the sides it took back then, plus some interwar adventures.
Insistence on denying any meaningful land swaps intended to secure strategically vital Leningrad helped a lot too.

Also, considering the success (not really) of British assistance to much better positioned France, it isn't immediately obvious how UK could realistically offer more help to Poland beyond Phoney War.

@comrade_Comrade Jaegers happened because tsars started Russification in Finland and removed the autonomy. Furthermore, Finland wasn't going to join a Bolshevik Russia just like that. During the Finnish civil war, Russian military took part in it, on the Red side. During the Russian civil war, Finns took part in it (by getting their asses kicked, essentially, in Karelia). So, you could call that an equal exchange and water under the bridge. Afterwards, the countries signed a peace treaty and a non-aggression pact.

While it's understandable the border was uncomfortably close to Leningrad, the land swap was impossible because the Finnish defences were consentrated on the isthmus. Finland couldn't just swap that land to some backwoods up north. Just like France couldn't have swapped land containing parts of the Maginot Line to some other random area. Leningrad was Russia's second most important city, but Viipuri was the same for Finland.

It's also not like Finland wouldn't have seen what was going on down south. The USSR was interested in annexing neighbours. While Finland and the USSR were negotiating, Poland was split in two by Germany and the USSR.

'@Louhikaarme'
"Jaegers happened because tsars started Russification in Finland and removed the autonomy."
Nicholas II made a lot of very popular decisions, didn't he? Either way, it cemented pro-German sentiment and cultural influence among Finnish officers.

"So, you could call that an equal exchange and water under the bridge. Afterwards, the countries signed a peace treaty and a non-aggression pact."
And then Soviet government authorized secret pact with Germany. If Germans stick to it, that means being attacked by British, who will be interested at least in blocking or destroying hostile fleets in Baltic.
If Germans are going to break the pact, Finnish military is likely to be aligned with them and there is an obvious interest in gaining territory in Karelia.
Imagine being on Soviet side. Under conditions like this, what are you willing to bet on Finland going along with that non-aggression pact and not having a secret pact of it's own?

"Just like France couldn't have swapped land containing parts of the Maginot Line to some other random area. Leningrad was Russia's second most important city, but Viipuri was the same for Finland."
On one hand moving the border right to the immediate vicinity of Mannerheim line would prevent it's defense in depth, severely reducing its effectiveness. On other hand, its effectiveness even under best conditions went to zero once siege artillery was brought within range.
Certainly it can be argued that it was an attempt of strategic min-maxing, but in return for maximizing the chance of Stalin going from land swap to land grab it minimized the loss of defensive capacity of the line that even by 1938 standards wasn't particularly impressive.

"It's also not like Finland wouldn't have seen what was going on down south. The USSR was interested in annexing neighbours. While Finland and the USSR were negotiating, Poland was split in two by Germany and the USSR. "
There were also peacefully concluded negotiations with Baltic states. Intimidating them into agreement was one of the reasons why 44-th rifle division was too busy to train its recruits and ended being the main source of catastrophic losses in Winter war.

Obvious problem with this is that Soviet expectation of Baltic states being used as strike route towards Leningrad was fully justified, which in turn made decision to put military presence on that route completely rational, which in turn mean that Estonian government would be interested in seeking German protection...

In the end decision loops like these result in choosing between two options both of which are worst, but I don't see the way in which Soviet leadership wouldn't consider refusal to meaningfully negotiate about moving the border by 30km (especially in view of how small that concession would be in comparison with what was demanded from, say, Estonia) as anything other than indirect indication of hostile intent.

Anyway, this is going more towards politics between Finland and Soviet Union, I'm not sure if British government knew enough or had similar view of the facts to have the same expectations.
Still, UK wasn't completely useless to Poland (hosting and arming exiles, and at least trying to fight Germany at sea counts for something), and failure to act on land was more of France's fault to which there are several possible explanations. Safer bet is to dunk on Brits for being indirectly responsible for Italy joining the Axis.

@comrade_Comrade Something something Finnish independence in 1917. Finland wasn't a country during most of WW1. After it Finland had a civil war too. So.

'@bananaforscale' "Something something Finnish independence in 1917. Finland wasn't a country during most of WW1. After it Finland had a civil war too. So."
So Jaegers couldn't exist and British torpedo boats couldn't operate from a base in vicinity of Petrograd attacking base of Russian Baltic fleet twice?

@Louhikaarme

Mostly correct, but just a few minor details:

"The reason is simple: the UK only saw helping Finland as an excuse to occupy the iron mines in Sweden, to prevent Sweden from selling ore to Germany. However, Sweden, under pressure from Germany, couldn't allow that to happen."

It's not like Sweden needed pressure from Germany to object to the idea of having her territory occupied by the British and French to deny Germany access to the iron ore.
Sweden - just like Finland - was neutral and didn't want to be occupied by anyone, of course.
Sweden just has the luck of better geographic positioning, meaning we managed to avoid being dragged into the war while everyone around us was.

And:

"When Germany began preparations for Operation Barbarossa, suddenly Finland became interesting for them. Just a couple of years earlier the Germans had considered Finns subhumans who could be thrown into the Soviet maw. Such a jolly ally."

It's certainly true Hitler didn't care about signing Finland off to the Soviet Union in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but actually claiming he saw the Finns as subhumans is going to far.
In the Nazi's warped racial theories, the Finns were Aryans, just as the peoples of the other Nordic countries.
Which only makes his willingness to sacrifice them to Soviet occupation all the worse actually, as the Soviets according to him were in fact subhumans.

"So, yeah, you are right: the UK and Finland weren't on the same side because nobody was on Finland's side."

True. Pro-Finnish sentiment was very strong in Sweden throughout the war, and we did what we could to help you, so we were always on your side in spirit - but we were of course not willing to actually enter the war to fight actively on your side.
But in all fairness - I don't think Finland had done so either, if the situation had been the reversed.
All the Nordic countries did their best to stay out of the war, but only Sweden had the geographical position that actually made it possible. Everyone else was attacked because one or more of the major powers wanted to occupy their territory for larger strategic reasons.

@Nisse_Hult Sweden, as a democracy, was naturally oriented toward the UK and France (and the USA), just like Finland was before the Winter War (and in fact still later, despite huge, obvious complications). However, Sweden couldn't afford to actually join the UK and France because in that case Germany would have tried to occupy Sweden immediately. Would Sweden have actually joined the Allies if it had had more freedom? Hard to say. You could be correct and Sweden would have still done things like it did.

In a manner of speaking the UK and France did help Finland because Stalin was afraid of facing the British and French military, so he was in a hurry to end the war, just in case the UK and France actually started moving. It's a good thing Stalin was paranoid. However, that "help" did leave quite a bitter taste. Sweden was better in promising nothing but deliving a lot of help under the table.

I have read before that initially Hitler ranked Finns below his vague Aryans but above the Slavs. However, I haven't actually bothered to study the issue myself, so for all I know, that could be utterly false information. The Swedes, at least, did separate Finns from the Nordics in their racial studies. If Finland had remained a part of the Kingdom of Sweden, would that have still happened? Who knows. It's a different issue if you do anything with such "knowledge", like Hitler did. No doubt the nutcases under Hitler had told the chief madman about such studies, though.

@Louhikaarme

Oh, no - Sweden would never have entered the war willingly. No nation in its right mind does that (which excludes dictatorships like Nazi-Germany or the Soviet Union, of course). All the Nordic countries fully expected to sit out the second world war, just as they had done the first one.
Finland wasn't an independent nation at that time, of course, but when the second world war broke out they planned to follow the example set by the other Nordic countries and declared herself neutral - just like them.

If Norway, Denmark and Finland had not been attacked, I think it's highly unlikely that any of them had entered the war by themselves. Democracies rarely does.

As it happened all the others were of course attacked and forced into war to defend themselves and only Sweden had the option of possibly enter later, on her own terms - but of course she didn't.

It possibly could have happened, in some form, at the very end of the war, when Nazi-Germany still had quite a lot of forces in Norway, while Germany itself was being overrun by the Allies and Soviets.
Nobody knew for certain what the German forces in Norway would do.
Would they surrender if Germany did, or would they stage a fight to the bittern end there?
In that case, there were hypothetical discussions if Sweden should intervene in some way to try and help the Norwegians force the Germans out.

Sweden had been a safe haven for Norwegian resistance fighters against the German occupation during the war, and even allowed Norway to form military units in exile in Sweden - made up of Norwegians that had escaped to Sweden.

So there was a Norwegian force here, ready to begin the liberation of Norway, if they were allowed to.
In the end, it turned out the German forces in Norway and Denmark were only too happy to surrender, so Sweden didn't have to do anything.
The Norwegian force trained here was deployed to Norway, though, and administrated the disarming of the German forces and their evacuation of Norway.

"I have read before that initially Hitler ranked Finns below his vague Aryans but above the Slavs. However, I haven't actually bothered to study the issue myself, so for all I know, that could be utterly false information. The Swedes, at least, did separate Finns from the Nordics in their racial studies."

I'm no expert on this, and it might be true there was some intermediary step in Nazi racial theory between Aryans and the Slavic subhumans where Finns were originally placed - but they must have been viewed as better than subhumans anyway.

But it's really not that important as all of that was just nonsense of course - and the Nazis themselves showed it was, by ignoring their own "science" when it suited them. When they needed the Finns, they made valuable allies against the Soviet, and they gladly allowed volunteers from the Balkans into the SS.
So "racial purity" was always just nonsense.

Hitler even declared a personal friend and his brother "honorary Aryans" to allow them to remain in the SS, after it was discovered (through genealogical studies) that they in fact had Jewish ancestry.
So there were even Jews in the SS - on orders from Hitler himself.
So much for "racial purity".

@Nisse_Hult If no nation in its right mind would have willingly entered WWII, I guess Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were not in their right minds in 1939. All three declared war on Germany because it was the right thing to do and not because Germany was capable of threatening any of them.

@westofEden

Yes - it was the right thing to do, as Nazi-Germany of course was the epitome of a truly evil regime and obviously caused WWII.
But how many other wars are as easy as that?
I don't think it's hard to find wars those same nations have gone into that have been far less worthy.

And yes, it's certainly true that Germany couldn't threaten any of those nations, being situated on the other sides of the world. But that makes it easier to enter a war - not harder.

Entering a war where your home is safe, and the only ones put in harms way are young soldiers (volunteers even, in the case of Anzac) is quite different from putting your civilian population in harms way - which is usually what entering a war means, for most countries.

And it would certainly have been the case for Sweden, or any of the other Nordic countries, if they had voluntarily chosen to enter WWII.

Thousands of civilians had undoubtedly died - quite possibly many more.

@Louhikaarme "This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us." Neville Chamberlain 11am 3 September 1939

@FoolInOrange Yeah, that started the Phoney War, during which the Brits sat on their hands.

@FoolInOrange Ah yes, strongly worded letters, the ultimate weapon. /s

It's a gift. We should be grateful to receive it. Thank you, Norway.

Seems to have lost the needles and branches on one side since it was cut down.

Admit it UK, you had that tree dragged from the port becuse you couldn't find a lorry driver.

'@Garm' And it lost a bunch of needles waiting on customs because of Brexit. lol.

@boring7
I doubt that because Norway isn't in the EU so they would be unlikely to be delaying things.

@stevep59
Norwegians are not exempt from UK customs legislation. Customs delays happen on the end of the importing country, because export customs are a much simpler process than import customs.

I don't think UK delays things coming from EU out of spite, but simply because customs are a thing that takes time. Therefore, Norwegian products, including christmas trees, get the same delays as Dutch products do.

@Dakkus

My point is that the UK isn't deliberately being obstructive to imports as the EU is. As such the situation in terms of bringing stuff into the UK is basically still the same - barring possible impacts from the Covid pandemic. Since Norway isn't in the EU anyway any reference to the EU and Brexit is irrelevant.

Note if the UK was being anything like as obstructive as the EU was being earlier we would be hearing Brussels screaming their heads off. You can tell from their deafening silence on the issue it simply isn't happening.

@Garm

Idiotic xenophobia. I know a lot of people have bought the EU's BS about Brexit but those hate rants get more and more stupid. Try and grow up.

@stevep59

Ah yes - "the EU's BS about Brexit"...

Because in reality Brexit is obviously going just spendidly:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/16/calls-for-uk-to-improve-relations-with-eu-after-food-and-drink-exports-plummet-brexit-pandemic
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/22/brexit-key-factor-in-huge-drop-in-2021-great-britain-to-ireland-exports
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/10/uk-trade-with-eu-falls-as-brexit-and-covid-drive-down-exports

(I could post a hundred links her all showing the same thing - but of course you wouldn't accept any of this being the fault of Brexit anyway)

@Nisse_Hult

Ah yes the old excuser for the liars and treaty breakers. Britain is struggling, largely because Boris and his parasites could organise the tradition piss up in a brewery - although the EU's continued refusal to abide by the treaty they agreed definitely hasn't helped.

The last time we clashed you were attacking me for pointing out that people 'fleeing' France were economic migrants. Since your raised your head again what do you say about https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB? The EU are paying militias in Libya, and equipping them with weapons and ships to stop people reaching Europe. Involving murder, rape, slavery and brutal imprisonment.

@stevep59

Ah, so Boris isn't the saviour that brought the true Brexit anymore then?
Looking for a new Messiah to deliver the Brexit magic are we?
Because it couldn't possibly be that Brexit was a bad idea to begin with (like everyone not in the cult told you) so it has to be the fault of someone who betrayed you, right?

And text-book projection there, by the way - claiming it's the EU that's not abiding by the treaty.
Problem is of course that everyone outside of the cult remembers Boris signing his "oven ready deal" and proclaiming it a great victory - only to then refuse implementation of the bits he didn't like.
And then starting to renege on the whole deal within a year.

Now you cultists obviously don't care what the EU says - in your warped world view they are the liars - not Boris (famed for lying).

But your problem is that the rest of the world draws the same conclusion as the EU - including the US.

And now Frost (who famously was against Brexit before he saw a career move in being for it) has jumped ship, because he realises there isn't a snowballs chance in hell the EU will let him or Boris pick and choose what part of the treaty they have to abide by.
Better then to flee the field and let someone else be hated by the likes of you when he/she inevitably have to climb down from their empty threats. First up seems to be Liz Truss - she will fare no better.

While Frost sits on the sidelines, claiming he would have gotten a much better deal.

You're led by posers and liars promising you things that will never happen.
I know it's a bitter pill to swallow, but the sooner you accept that the better.

US media take on the situation. Does it sound like what they're telling you in the cult?

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/13/business/uk-eu-northern-ireland-protocol-article-16-intl-gbr-cmd/index.html

Regarding last we spoke - no, you remember incorrectly of course.
You where falsely claiming that refugees to Britain where all economic migrants.
I was pointing out that you have no way to prove that until you process their asylum claim - and when you do, it turns out 64% of them are granted asylum on their first try and almost half of those rejected that appeal the decision are granted asylum on appeal.

So they're clearly not all economic migrants.
If they had been there would of course not have been this wish to keep them outside of Britain to begin with - then they all could have had their asylum claims rejected and been deported.

No, it's the very fact that the majority of them are in fact legitimate asylum seekers that makes the Tories want to stop them from even setting foot on British soil so they can make an asylum claim at all.
Because when they actually get a chance to, the majority of them are afforded asylum.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/27/asylum-in-the-uk-the-key-numbers

So far old news.
Brexit is a shit idea that's producing shit results and most refugees are not risking their lives for simply economic reasons.

Regarding your attempt to change the subject by talking about the EU's own struggle to stop refugees - I know, you're preaching to the choir here.
But if you believe this article is some smoking gun, showing how immoral the EU behaves (as I do) - then you agree with me that Britain is acting immorally too, right?

Because you're not a hypocrite, claiming that the same refugees that are legitimate asylum seekers when they try to cross the Mediterranean are suddenly only economic migrants when they then continue on their journey and try to cross into Britain?

Right?

@Nisse_Hult

Well that was some goal-post moving!
a) As you well know I've always detested the Tories for what their done to my country so trying to claim otherwise is an obvious lie. Anyone who has read our 'discussions' over the recent years will know that so you must be getting desperate to make claims like that.

b) Again your being 'selective' to put it mildly. What I said was that people already safe in France who insist on moving to Britain can hardly be said to be refugees seeking safety. Unless your claiming France is some sort of brutal dictatorship they need to flee?

c) There is a world of difference between Britain saying that we don't see why people living safely in France should be considered to be refugees because they insist on coming to Britain and the EU knowingly paying [and equipping] militia to capture people in international waters and keep them in brutal prison camps where their subjected to violent abuse and many are dying. But to you the 1st case is Britain taking a decision so it must be evil and the 2nd the divine EU doing something so it must be OK. In Libya they have no security or legal rights. Unless your saying the same applies to when their in France the same can't be said for them insisting to move from France to the UK?

@stevep59

You seem to not understand how to use the expression "to move the goal-post"?
Because I did nothing of the sort.

A). I certainly haven't got the impression you "detest the Tories" from what you've been writing - and I don't think anyone else have either (in the unlikely case anyone else have been reading much of what we've written).
I can't say I remember you mentioning the Tories much at all. It's just EU=Evil, UK=Good and not more nuance than that, from what I remember.

And I certainly don't remember you having anything negative to say about Boris when he was the golden boy of Brexiters. You undoubtedly voted for him and his "oven ready deal" - even if you might deny it now.

B). I was selective in that I answered your claim about you "pointing out that people 'fleeing' France were economic migrants" by focusing on the "economic migrant" claim - which I thought was the principle one you were making.
I proved to you that was wrong last we spoke - and yet you were back to claim the same point now.
And now that I've proved to you yet again that your claim is false, you apparently instead wish to focus on the part of them "'fleeing' France" as you put it.

Well, okay then - let's talk about that instead.
I proved that claim of yours was false as well, the last time we spoke - but I guess I have to refresh your memory on that point as well then:

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

There is no obligation for refugees to stay in France or any other country just because you would prefer so. Anyone is legally allowed to seek asylum in any nation, according to international law. Conversely, no one is forced to do so.

So again you're just repeating claims that are false and that I proved to you are false, last time we spoke.

C). No differance whatsoever - as I've showed you.
No one is forced to seek asylum anywhere, but everyone has the right to do so anywhere. That's international law, upheld by UK courts as well.

So what you wished would be the case is irrelevant - because that's not what the laws actually say.

"But to you the 1st case is Britain taking a decision so it must be evil and the 2nd the divine EU doing something so it must be OK."

No - that's what you're arguing - but in reverse.
What I actually wrote in my last comment was that it was equally immortal for both Britain AND the EU to try to stop refugees making asylum claims.

You can either agree with that - or you can claim NEITHER Britain NOR the EU is doing something immoral here - because they are both doing the same thing.

But your problem is that you're so stuck on EU=Evil, Britain=Good, that you're projecting that world view onto me as well - despite me expressly refuting it.
As I wrote in my last comment, I'm perfectly able to see when the EU does immoral things.
But that just didn't filter through your black and white world view.

"Unless your saying the same applies to when their in France the same can't be said for them insisting to move from France to the UK?"

Unclear what you even mean by this, but it's irrelevant, as the argument is flawed to begin with.
Refugees are, as previously stated, legally free to seek asylum wherever they want to - regardless of your views on that matter.
A right upheld by UK law as well.
And when they do seek asylum in Britain, the majority of them are granted asylum.

That's the truth here - not the fantasy you keep reposting.

@Nisse_Hult

Well your exposing yourself as either a blatant liar or a total idiot as I have repeatedly made clear my views on Johnson and the Tories and their definitely negative. Ditto I have often mentioned my own countries shortcomings. You have either never really read anything I've said or are ignoring it as inconvenience to your so blinkered viewpoint.

You will note that in this very thread I have tried to take a balanced view on the tree issue but that won't matter to you as your a binary thinker. You only see in black [anything you disagree with and hence must be degraded/destroyed] and white [your own preferred image of the world]. Not sure you can even understand the concept of shades of gray, let alone colours. That is the big difference between us. I can see other people's point of view and consider them. That's a function your totally lacking in. - Although you are willing to nick my terminology. That's something its seems you do remember me using before. ;)

Interesting that you argue there's no difference between saying that Britain has no right to prevent anyone moving to this country but that the EU can use great brutality and lethal force to prevent people in a dire condition from trying to reach the EU. Other than of course that you will call the British approach evil and wrong but won't openly criticize the EU on their far more savage methods.

@stevep59

Haven't bothered replying to this before as I had Christmas and nicer things to do.
And then I was waiting for Boris to be axed by his own party for all that partying.
Which he surely would have been - if it hadn't been for Putins war on Ukraine - so we know he's secretly happy that happened.

But to respond to your previous post:

The discussion we've been having for several years now has been about BREXIT.
Since that's obviously a shit idea for Britain and there is no good argument to defend it (not even the main Brexiters themselves can muster anything better then vacuous slogans like "Taking back control!"), you've repeatedly detoured onto other subjects.

Claiming now you've been clear in any opposition to Boris Johnson and the Tories is thus quite besides the point - and I notice you didn't even deny voting for them.
Which just proves my point - you've been trusting people who lie to you.
That fact that you now claim you've never liked or trusted them - but still voted for them - dosen't make your argument any stronger.

The rest of your claim is pure projection. You accuse me of doing precisely that which you yourself do - view the world in black and white.

In your last post you completely misrepresent what I wrote, when claiming I "won't openly criticise the EU on their far more savage methods".
It's of course the complete opposite. I did criticise the EU for (not a far more savage, as you falsely claim, but equally savage) treatment of refugees - it's you who refused to criticise Britain.

But I´m really past discussing this with you, there are far more important things happening now.

BREXIT is a shit idea for Britain - always have been, always will be - but now I'm actually glad the UK left the EU. Sorry for all the blameless Brits who are better and smarter then you Brexiters, but considering you Brexiters keep voting the Tories in I'm glad you left.

Because without you the EU could hit Russia with real sanctions and open it's doors to fleeing Ukrainians.

Britain in the meantime is slow walking all action on sanctions against Russian oligarchs, as they are funding the utterly corrupt Tories, and fighting to keep as many Ukrainians out as possible.

Good fucking riddens to the likes of you in EU I say - and don't think EU won't remember this.
After likening the EU to the Soviet Union or the Nazis, that fucking wanker Boris is trying to play Churchill and the leader of the free world (after sucking up to Donald Trump (!)) while desperately shielding his Russian oligarch donors - and shutting Ukrainians out!

Britain has sanctioned less Russian oligarchs and/or companies then Switzerland!
Neutral fucking Switzerland followed the EU's lead and imposed the same sanctions as we did - despite not being a member of the EU and not needing to.

https://sanctionsnews.bakermckenzie.com/switzerland-adopts-further-comprehensive-sanctions-packages-imposed-by-the-european-union-against-russia/

Norway did the same - and is comitting to sell of all Russian holdings in it's $1.3 trillion sovereign wealth fund - the largest in the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-27/norway-starts-process-to-drop-russia-from-sovereign-wealth-fund

In Britain, Boris and the Tories long before him have shielded Russian oligarchs and other criminals for years - feeding of their teets.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/06/how-london-became-the-place-to-be-for-putins-oligarchs

"David Cameron promised to shut out “dirty cash” in 2015, and in 2016 the British government promised to introduce a public register of foreign-owned property. Six years later, Boris Johnson is still promising to rush forward such a register."

In reality, your government is is now FORCED to introduce some legislation - and then it's predictably full of loopholes that will let their donors slip away.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/07/oligarchs-selling-uk-property-to-avoid-new-register-may-have-to-declare-details

In a desperate attempt to at least be seen to do anything, Boris sanctioned 3 oligarchs. All already sanctioned by the US years ago. Then he was forced to add 2 more some days later - but your government keeps talking about their "hit list" of 100 or 140 oligarchs. But of course they won't sanction them now - instead giving them ample of time to move their money!

And when they finally do, British enforcement will of course be the worst in the western world - becuase it already is today.

https://www.newstatesman.com/business/2022/02/there-is-no-enforcement-the-awkward-truth-about-the-uks-sanctions-on-russia

But that's only money. How's your Tories doing on saving lives then?

Well, so far 1,7 million Ukrainians have fled from their country, over 1 million just to Poland.

Britain? You're demanding visas - of which you've accepted only 300 as of tonight (and that's after being forced to rush through applications in the last hours to make up a better number then 50, which was the count earlier today).

Ireland has taken in at least a 1000 so far - Sweden at least 2000 - but then we don't demand visas, because we're not fucking racist afraid that women, children and the elderly fleeing from Russian shells are coming to live off our tax money, now are we?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/07/ukrainian-refugees-britain-hostile-environment-europe

Of course there are racists like that in both Ireland and Sweden.
They're just not in office because people in Ireland or Sweden don't give them a fucking majority!

So congrats on becoming Europe's most racist AND most Russian-oligarch-friendly country - that will do wonders for your foreign relations in the years to come!

I was embarassed and disgusted at the ungrateful comments from people complaining about the way the tree looked.

It’s a natural tree, that has been growing for decades and Norway gives us it for free! I think people are too used to fake trees and augmented trees and trees of a certain species that they can’t appreciate a beautiful tree for what it is.

If history had been reversed, I bet the UK wouldn’t still be giving Norway a free tree every year.

@scandi_lover

Agree on most but wonder about the last bit. We tend to do traditions pretty well so I suspect even the Tories would have had problems stopping something like that if such had been the case.

this is what the tree looks like, it's not as bad as the comic (I think Humon made it look worse for comedic effect) and honestly, I think once they decorate the tree it'll look a lot nicer



I honestly love the star on top I dunno why just makes it look so cute

@AmericanButterfly That tree does look rather... sparse. Its not quite what you would call a 'Charlie Brown Christmas Tree' but its close to being one...

Hard Brexit tree.

Maybe coz Britons are genetically
programmed to be grumpy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-british-are-born-to-be-miserable-new-research-finds-9827442.html%3famp

@RusA
Interesting. A bit strange that Britain and the US are at one end of the spectrum whereas the Netherlands and Denmark are at the other when there's a fair bit of common genetic history you would have thought? Mind you as the article says the French have it even worse!

@stevep59 Yup, my first word was "maybe", and Britons have a popular tv series "Grumpy Old Men"

@RusA

On the other hand, Norway gives Scotland a tree, too, and ours is superb. It is displayed at the heart of the city overlooking the National Galleries every year, and is very much appreciated.

Perhaps Norway is coming to appreciate our view of England.

@Almonaster my first word was "maybe", and Britons are always grumpy about everything, not only a tree

@RusA

Pfft. Averages.

Also, chances are that survey was based on 20 people from London.

What's the problem? You got a free tree! So it lost a bit of foliage in its travels - who cares? The old adage "Never look a gift horse in the mouth" is appropriate here.

For quite a few years, the christmas trees being sent to London have been below the expected standard.
I saw a picture of the tree as it was being cut down, and I agree that it was below par. I don't understand why they can't find good trees years in advance, and make sure they stay good by giving them more air/light and some fertilizer. I honestly don't understand why that should be very difficult. It seems like Norway doesn't care anymore. Although I do agree that the brits might have too high expectations.

They get free tree and even comply? Very friendly