Page 1 of 1

Is this true?

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:05 pm
by Artimas
From a blog I follow:

Spending time in the company of men who know The Encyclopedia of Military Biography by heart and you will hear how they praise Charles XII (King of Sweden who was killed by a musket shot on the 30th of November 1718) as having been a very intelligent man, a bold and daring leader of men in battle and an innovative tactician and administrator. This viewpoint is based on all historical facts available.

In Sweden, the facts are interpreted differently. There Charles XII is viewed as a Hitler of the Northby the socialist and the far left looneys and they have managed to turn the day of Charles XII death – 30th of November – into a day of anti-fascism, anti racism. It has become a day when all school children in Sweden are taught to remember as the day when the fascist King Charles XII died and they are encouraged to make anti-racist banners and anti-fascist placards.This is how they honor the death of one of their greatest Kings.

Re: Is this true?

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:45 am
by Friedrich August I.
That is interesting.

But to me the 30th November, on behalf of Swedish History, has another meaning to me. :roll:
It was on the 30th November when the Swedes started "mopping up" the POW-Camps by Force and began to deliver 2500 German POW's to the Russians.
The Blood of many of German and Lettish Soldiers are on the Hands of the Swedes. The Day is remembered as "The Bloody Friday".

N.b., The interned Germans have been from the surviviors of the Courland Army. The Story, in german language, is told here

Re: Is this true?

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:49 am
by Dilly
Why make this political "Left wing loonies" ?? Is Sweden the last communist country in Europe ?

If the Swedes treat him as a "Hitler of the North" I'm sure they do it with good reason, remember his wars bled Sweden white and lost her alot of territory, which she would've probably lost anyway, but, I am aware that these wars still cast a shadow over Sweden, and do still affect the countries political stance, remember the Brits voted out of power a great leader, in 1945, who had seem them through some dark days during the war.
Having spoken to some people who voted in that election and asked them why, most simply replied that they were war weiry, then look at Churchills track record, Gallipolli, Greece, Singapore, Dieppe and Italy - the soft under belly of Europe ? And he wanted to carry on against the Russians.

He was a great war leader but eventually the people want a great leader in a peaceful time

As Günter pointed out alot of unsavoury incidents have happened in Europe over the years and some still shape our national politics now, to have a pop at one nation over its beliefs, understanding and memory of its history is naive at best or damn right stupid at worse.

FYI My politics are in the centre ground ( before someone has a pop at me) :D

Re: Is this true?

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:05 pm
by Mulciber
My Swedish friends seem largely to view him as a bit mad. One told me that it was commonly believed that he'd been killed by disaffected Swedes fed up with constant war. Strindberg described him as: “Sweden’s ruin, the great offender, a ruffian, the rowdies’ idol.” I think it's his absolutist pretensions that offend many modern Swedes.

Re: Is this true?

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:32 pm
by janner
Which blog is this, Artimas, as it sounds very odd :?

From my understanding, the present approach to 30 Nov amongst the neighbours is a reaction to attempts by extreme right wing groups to highjack the anniversary in the late 80s/early 90s with Nuremberg-esque torchlight processions and all in Lund. This was brought to a halt by popular backlash in 1991 - hence the current focus on confronting racism and other forms of bigotry.

Still, there are at least a couple of Swedes here who can put us right :)

Re: Is this true?

Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:25 pm
by wdrenth
I think this form of revisionism is not isolated to Sweden and is also observed in the Netherlands. Though in itself it is not bad to study history, discuss it and learn one or two things from it. On the other hand, it is I think a fallacy to judge the distant past according to present-day's moral and normative values, and present it accordingly. This easily gets the greasy and sticky layer of politically motivated viewpoints that serves probably many purposes, but not that of objectiveness and serious study and scholarship. This happens when parts of one country's history are glorified and set as an example. But the reverse, when some part of the past is set as example for how bad we were (and still are of course), is equally wrong.

And returning to Sweden, labeling a monarch from the 1700s as fascist, centuries before 'fascism' entered the political arena, is a nunc pro tunc fallacy, and in my opinion a feeble attempt towards being overly politically correct. Wonder what they would make of Louis XIV.

History has more than fifty shades of grey, and many a great men or women in history had probably as many vices as virtues (and vice versa). In the end, they were simply human beings, like the rest of us. 8)


Re: Is this true?

Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:20 pm
by PaulPatrick
Excellent "April Fool"! My compliments.

Re: Is this true?

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:35 am
by janner
PaulPatrick wrote:Excellent "April Fool"! My compliments.
:lol: :lol: