Comment by NalNezumi

>What differences in teaching made Saturday school so much more effective?

I do think the smaller class and feeling more "close" to the teacher helped a lot. But also that the teachers were passionate. It's a community so I still (20 years later) do meet some of the teachers, through community events.

I can't recall all the details, to be honest, but I do think a lot repetition of math exercises and actually going through them step by step helped a lot to solidify how to think. I feel like the Japanese math books also went straight to the point, but still made the book colorful in a way. Swedish math books felt bland. (something I noticed in college too, but understandable in college ofc)

In the Swedish school, it felt like repetition was up to homework. You go through a concept, maybe one example, on the whiteboard and then move on. Unless you have active parents, it's hard to get timely feedback on homeworks (crucial for learning) so people fell behind.

Also probably that curriculum was handed to the student early. You knew what chapters you were going through at what week, and what exercises were important. I can't recall getting that (or that teachers followed it properly) early in the term at Swedish school.

They also focused on different thing. For example the multiplication table, in Japan you're explicitly taught to memorize it and are tested on recall speed. (7 * 8? You have 2 seconds) in Swedish schools, they despised memorization so told us not to. The result is "how to think about this problem" is answered with a "mental model" in Japanese education and "figure it out yourself" in the Swedish one. Some figured it out in a suboptimal way.

But later in the curriculum it obviously help to be able to calculate fast to keep up, so those small things compounded, i think.

I'm a Brit who speaks Swedish, and recently watched the Swedish TV company SVT's documentary "Sweden in the war" (sverige i kriget). I can maybe add some info here just out of personal curiosity on the same subject.

There were basically right wing elements in every European country. Sympathisers. This included Sweden. So that's what OP was getting at in part. Germany was somewhat revered at the time, as an impressive economic and cultural force. There was a lot of cultural overlap, and conversely the Germans respected the heritage and culture of Scandinavia and also of England, which it saw as a Germanic cousin.

The documentary did a good job of balancing the fact that Sweden let the German army and economy use its railways and iron ore for far longer than it should have, right up until it became finally too intolerable to support them in any way (discovery of the reality of the camps). Neutrality therefore is somewhat subjective in that respect.

They had precedent for neutrality, from previous conflicts where no side was favoured, so imo they weren't implicitly supporting the nazi movement, despite plenty of home support. It's a solid strategy from a game theory perspective. No mass bombings, few casualties, wait it out, be the adult in the room. Except they didn't know how bad it would get.

In their favour they allowed thousands of Norwegian resistance fighters to organise safely in Sweden. They offered safe harbour to thousands of Jewish refugees from all neighbouring occupied countries. They protected and supplied Finns too. British operatives somehow managed to work without hindrance on missions to take out German supplies moving through Sweden. It became a neutral safe space for diplomats, refugees and resistance fighters. And this was before they found out the worst of what was going on.

Later they took a stand, blocked German access and were among the first to move in and liberate the camps/offer red cross style support.

Imo it's a very nuanced situation and I'm probably more likely to give the benefit of the doubt at this point. But many Danes and Norwegians were displeased with the neutral stance as they battled to avoid occupation and deportations.

As for Japan, I'd just add that I read recently on the BBC that some 40% or more of the victims of the bombings were Koreans. As second class citizens they had to clean up the bodies and stayed among the radioactive materials far longer than native residents, who could move out to the country with their families. They live on now with intergenerational medical and social issues with barely a nod of recognition.

To think it takes the best part of 100 years for all of this to be public knowledge is testament to how much every participant wants to save face. But at what cost? The legacy of war lives on for centuries, it would seem.