With scape-goat, I meant he was given an unproportional amount of blame for losing Finland.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, it wasn't purely his fault 
)), but he had a part of it. It is impossible to say _how_ large a part the treason had as we can't figure out how much we even want to what have happened if he did not surrender. I know one thing though, and that is that the Russians couldn't have taken Sveaborg. But as said, we can't imagine what have happened anyway.
)), but he had a part of it. It is impossible to say _how_ large a part the treason had as we can't figure out how much we even want to what have happened if he did not surrender. I know one thing though, and that is that the Russians couldn't have taken Sveaborg. But as said, we can't imagine what have happened anyway.
In general I think it is fair to say that there is never only one reason for losing a war. The loss of Sveaborg might have been a big reason (probably the largest), but it can't have been the only one.
what are u talking about? anyway, be careful cause the french are goona be trouble.
We are talking about a high treason and a what if-outcome of the Finnish War of 1808.
Originally posted by beowulf
It happened in 1809. Get over it!
Arnold surrendered his superior force to the Brits over 200 years ago, and "benedict arnold" is still an insult in America. The Swedes haven't even had a full 200 years to be mad yet.
Duuk
No one remembers Cronstedt here in Sweden (even I had a hard time remembering his name). Ask anyone on the street 'Who was Cronstedt?' and they'll answer 'Huh?' or 'Didn't he make brandy?'... I doubt they will even know where or what Sveaborg is.
That doesn't make Cronstedt less a traitor. And he is not forgotten even if you can't remember him.
Anyway Cronstedt was one of the heroes of the battle of Svensksund in 1792, the greatest swedish naval victory of all times. (To make his treason that more bitter.)
Perhaps he was a young man then looking for glory then, and then becoming an old man looking for money.
Well, you can ask a man on the street just about anything about history and he can't answer you so that's not much of an argument. Who was Bismarck? "err... a ship". What is the Stockholm bloodbath? "The last AIK-Djurgården game". When was Finland Swedish? "haha, don't try to fool me, Finland has always been Russian, haha" etc.
It is common knowledge that the 'people of street' don't know much about history. Which is annoying as history tends to repeat it self. One should learn more from history. Look at the current extreme-right (or left) in Europe at the moment.
Yes, but what I tried to emphasize was that just because he isn't remembered it doesn't mean he wasn't much of a traitor, but that people don't know history. That was what I tried to say.
Now let's teach some history. Everybody repeat after me: "Cronstedt was a traitor..."
Now let's teach some history. Everybody repeat after me: "Cronstedt was a traitor..."
That depends on from which point you look at it...
Stauffenberg was a traitor.
I don't think objective history should contain these sorts of statements.
One could rephrase: *** is considered a traitor (by ***)
BTW History is never objective (mostly written by whoever wins)
Originally posted by Murmurandus
One could rephrase: *** is considered a traitor (by ***)
BTW History is never objective (mostly written by whoever wins)
That usually is only true for the most recent history... after a while a more objective view will always surface.
I can agree, but then take a look at the Roman history for example, a big part is based on Roman writers/historicans like Caesar (De bello galico), Cicero, ...
It would be more true to say that the ones that write history are the winners.
In the case of ancient times, the ones that wrote on the most durable material are the winners.
In the case of ancient times, the ones that wrote on the most durable material are the winners.