Julian Assange free?

Which other nations agreed to work with the Nazi invasion forces to avoid war?

 

FIRST: Sweden did not "work with the Nazis".
SECOND: Every neutral nation sought to avoid war. None took up arms against Germany until they themselves were invaded. Does that answer your question?

 

There are lots of whistle blowers you never even here about.

 

Republicans generally give knee jerk support to the secret police/spy agencies. I suppose they see themselves as loyal "institutionalists" or some other nonsense - too many James Bond movies.

Democrats, especially the politicians are attached at the hip to the institutions of the state.
Harris/Biden will let them kill Assange ASAP.

 

Did any of other nation actively assist the Nazi invasion of another country to avoid war?

I suppose you could count the USSR joining the Nazi invasion of Poland, but that seems to be a bit different.

 

This is a very interesting question.

* Quisling (Norway) welcomed the Nazis with open arms.
* Finland joined with the Nazis to fight off the invading Soviet Army.
* Italy not only joined "with" the Nazis but was in fact Hitler's inspiration.
* Hungary and others joined the Nazis as well.
* The United States supported the Nazis with the likes of Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, IBM, and Coca Cola all of which collaborated with the Nazis.

But this is a very good subject and there must be lots to learn still.

 

This would be a good time to review that history. This is what I know before hitting the books.

Italy was one of the Axis powers. Mussolini was the Marx and Lenin of Fascism.

Quisling was apparently a very popular Fascist, but he came to power through a German orchestrated coup after the invasion started and the big German cruiser was sunk by shore batteries. Have never studied all the details which I am sure are very interesting and still relevant.

Of course, occupation governments were installed whenever the German military conquered a nation. I cannot remember the details of Hungary's occupation, but once Czechoslovakia was pressured to give up its defensive line Middle Europe was doomed.

US Big Business was heavily invested in Nazi Germany just as it is heavily invested in China. Similar results may be inevitable. "Free trade" - I suppose.

The USSR joined forces with Nazi Germany under the Hitler/Stalin Pact to invade Poland and start WW II, but the USSR never concluded negotiations to join the Axis and was itself invaded by Germany.

 

and then told him to stop, but he didn't.
I love it when Assange protested that the details of his two cases were leaked.
He leaked secret material, but he hated his own being leaked. That accounts
for his obsessive secrecy - it's a Freudian thing.

 

At one stage many Americans etc 'collaborated' with Nazis
The British built up Japan's navy in the 1930's too.
But to 'collaborate' you really need to be in a war situation - and for many years
both Japan and Germany were essentially normal (but agro) nations - like China
and Russia today.

 

* Hitler was greatly inspired by Mussolini and it is debatable whether (initially) Mussolini followed Hitler’s lead or the other way round.

* Using the term “occupation governments” is misleading. Invading armies didn’t really force their political indoctrination upon the governments of nations but instead simply favoured and nurtured like-minded political parties that were already in place. This has been common practice by everyone both in the east and in the west.

* Yes, the U.S. invested and supported the Nazis in great part even creating new products in order to circumnavigate any ban in order to do so. I am thinking about Coca Cola’s Fanta, of course.

 

i know one was from one of the scandinavian countries where the woman can claim rape even in consensual sex but if a condom isn't used (or falls off), which is what happenned.

I suspect the other one was similarly bunk.

 

Yes. It happened in Sweden and it is true that "rape" (a bad term for it) can be charged for not using a condom if the woman doesn't agree. However, you say "where the woman can claim rape .....". This, of course, is correct, HOWEVER, neither woman has made that claim. The plaintiff in this case is not the woman (women) but the state. The Swedish court was making the claim against the women's statements/wishes. The women, in other words, are witnesses for the defence and this fact most certainly is why the Swedish courts have dropped the charges, ie. no crime was committed. The state did (by the women's own words) tried to coerce them into testifying against Assange but they refused and stated that he is innocent.

The whole thing is bunk. There can be no doubt that Assange would have been swiftly handed over to the U.S. as soon as Sweden could get their hands on him. It is a foregone conclusion and it is the very reason why Assange remained in London knowing that his chances were better there than in Sweden. In retrospect, it was a very wise decision. You see, Assange trusted Swedish justice as much as I do. Sweden has (in the last 2 or 3 decades) been clandestinely cooperating with the CIA and has on numerous occasion acted against its own laws in doing so. Sweden has gone down the drain and has navigated several twists and turns along the way. It is not even a ghost of what it once was prior to 1986.

 

I just want to say this is an extremely low quality discussion.

It's unfortunate, because this is an important topic, and yet much of the discussion here seems to have descended into stupidity.

 

I get extremely frustrated every time someone brings that up in these discussions, because it shows profound ignorance. And there's always someone who keeps bringing it up again, and again, and again, in every discussion.

Because of that, I started a whole separate thread devoted to discussing just that topic:
Assange Accusations in Sweden

To make a very complicated story short, what the two women were accusing him of wasn't really "real" rape, or at the most was very borderline, on the overall spectrum the closest it comes possible to not being rape. So it's very misleading for anyone to just say he was "accused of rape".
Based on what the women said, and the details of the situation, in most countries it would probably not even be prosecuted.

I can say that due to the details of the story, the accusations are unlikely to have been politically motivated, at least originally. Although there was no way for Assange to know that at the time.

I do have to say the Assange situation is probably one of the most complicated and difficult to understand issues/stories that there have ever been on this political forum.
Just the rape accusation story alone is very complicated, and brings up many important politically relevant issues.
Unfortunately it's also more complicated than most of the people here are willing to read and think about to be able to properly understand.

 

Oh, come on. Clone? Biden must be blind! The hair for a start! Boris has a haystack, while Trump spends gazillions of dollars trying to hide the fact he has very little.

Boris with a full head of unruly hair...



And I honestly don't know what product is needed to sort out the lack of Trump hair...



Also, let's be honest. Boris has a much nicer voice, and though he's not any great looker, compared to squinty eyed, orange Trump, he's looking pretty good if they were the only two men left in the world. Clones????

 

Liberals will call almost anything 'rape', even the way a guy can look at a woman,
but jump through all sorts of hoops to show Assange 'didn't commit rape.'

 

I apologise sincerely for my descent into who's got the hottest hair, Trump or Boris.

I shall try to redeem things by voicing what's probably an unpopular opinion about Julian Assange. Wikileaks did some great work with uncovering atrocities against Iraqi civilians and stuff, but Assange was too full of himself and his importance and in short was a bit of a wanker. He ran for I think it was a Senate seat in Australia as part of the Wikileaks party while he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and I lost most sympathy for him when he gave the party preferences to some extreme RW bunch instead of the Greens, who had supported him the entire time.

While he's a wanker, he doesn't deserve to be put on trial in the US. It's sickening how Trumpists embrace him and call for Trump to pardon him. No way is that going to happen. Trump has nothing to personally gain for doing that.

I'm glad (appeal pending) that the extradition failed and I hope he returns to Australia once he patiently waits his turn with the thousands of Australian citizens who so far can't return home because their flights always get cancelled, and can resume some normalcy and everyone will forget about him.

 

Since you suggest we "be honest" then let's. How many could distinguish their hair on a windy day? I mean if we PhotoShop out their facial features .....



Did you manage it?

 

Wanker? Perhaps.
Full of himself? Naïve yes, but 'full of himself'? I wouldn't say that.

 

I can understand that you would be personally pissed off with him over that and am glad that that does not, as it does with many, cause you not to see that what he has been going through is wrong, not just for him but for the future of Journalism and exposing wrong doings in general.

Yanis Varoufakis was speaking about his situation last night on Novara media. He commented that he had moved to the right and on that they did not agree at all, though he still considered him a friend and was glad he was not being extradicted.

 

Any curious and open-minded person seeking information about what really happened to Julian in Sweden should watch this video, fairly short.

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange - Four Corners (abc.net.au)

 

Assange refused bail. No big surprises there.

‘Huge disappointment’ as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange refused bail | Shropshire Star

 

The fact that the Nazi Germany used local fascists to help impose their will on the nations they occupied does not mitigate the fact that they were occupied by a foreign power through the use of armed force. In the event that China ever occupies the US the fact that American Communists might support and help maintain the occupation would not mean that the occupation was consensual.

Yes, Big Business tends to be amoral and ultimately suicidal.

"Business views the political system as a source of business advantage. Anything can be a business advantage-- a subsidy, a tax break, an entry barrier, a spurt in the rate of economic growth, a government purchase, a regulatory move that hurts a competitor, etc."

"Thus business's agenda has an open-ended mercurial, opportunistic character. If one strategy for gaining a benefit gets nowhere, it is soon dropped in favor of a project with better prospects. As a result, companies and trade associations never know who their allies and enemies will be in the future. That is why business likes to go along with those in power and hates to oppose them."
THE SUICIDAL CORPORATION, How Big Business Fails America, Paul H. Weaver, Simon and Schuster Inc. 1988., p. 166.

 

You are grossly overlooking many things but let us employ your method and see if it floats. The western allies “liberated” what we call “western Europe” but the Soviet Union “conquered” what we call “Eastern Europe”? Is that what you are saying? Is that what you believe? Did the USSR side-line eastern Europe’s Capitalist thinkers? Yes. Did the Western allies side-line western Europe’s Socialist/Communist thinkers? Yes. What is it you are having difficulties understanding?

Why not? Who invaded and occupied Italy? The Communists? The Fascists? No. Neither. So who did?

 

In fact, the USG supported socialism in Western Europe after WW II.

The Fascists, like the Nazis came to power through the democratic process. I assume you know that.
Hitler and Mussolini were very popular, especially with much of the Western progressive Left before WW II.