Going off topic first time i have been on this forum, but if interested, there was a stop motion animated shortfilm around that got Mannerheim-heads so mad, bc it is suggesting Mannerheim have liked men in that kinda way (even though, his name was not mentioned even once in the movie (the character sure has a great resemblance) and the story is said to be about some old folk traditions). The movie had somewhat political goals too, as its maker is seeing Mannerheim as a slaughterer. We had a civil war around here, where reds and whites fought and killed each other, and it traumatized generations. Mannerheim led whites. I think theres a plenty lot about Finnish Civil war in English too...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1207784/ (This short film can be found from youtube in 2 parts. It has no subs so i dont post it here). "On his expedition in Kirghizia, a mythical uhlan meets a beautiful young man. The master and servant make a lovely journey together until their ways part at the bonfires of the Finnish civil war. A drama triangle in which no one seems to come out a winner."
Anyhow... On topic: last game against Bulls we didn't get Lauri revenge game. Would be a time tomorrow. Lauri also hasnt yet posted team high points in any game, so time to add his name on the long list!
Yeah, I have read about the Finnish Civil War and it was amazingly traumatic. Finland at the time was a small country in terms of population and most everyone was effected by the fighting and the massacres that followed. Before the Winter War, Mannerheim was reviled by many as a butcher.
I have also heard the rumor that Mannerheim may have been gay. I tend to think he was more asexual in the manner of many very devoted military men. I have to look over my books and give those chapters another look.
Finnish history is so complicated from 1809-1921 as they tried to gain independence and consider what an independent Finland might look like. It is actually a huge accomplishment that Finland as prospered without further internal conflict given how many directions it could have gone.
Back to Sweden? A monarchy? Nordic Union? Socialism? Republicanism? Communism? Semi-Authoritarian rule? Finland has faced all these choices since 1918.
Though I tend to wonder how a monarchy would have worked. I like the crown made up for the new King.
I am also a student of Swedish history and I often wonder how Scandinavia would have turned out had Karl XIV Johan had decided on a Greater Sweden and made retaking Finland from Russia a priority along with adding Norway to the realm (or the Bernadotte Empire that came close to fruition, a Union of France, its colonies, Sweden, Norway and Finland).
I tend to think he was correct in his assessment in 1812 that 1) Russia would not let Finland go without a war every generation, and that 2) Finland preferred autonomy within the Russian Empire to being an integral part of the Swedish Empire, as it meant eventual independence, and that he was adverse to forcing the Finns to adhere to Sweden (though elements of the nobility, Western part of the nation and the Åland Islands might have welcomed it).
But one wonders how European history may have been different had KXIVJ been able to unite Scandinavia, aside from Denmark, into one mighty nation. The combined strength of Norway, Sweden and Finland could have changed the balance of power between 1815-1914. Such strength would have invited foreign adventures rather the internal development that was his goal.