Suchergebnisse

This article analyses the Peace Treaty of Fredrikshamn (Hamina in Finnish) and its consequences in Sweden and Finland. The Russians set strict preconditions for the commencement of peace negotiations with the Swedes in the summer of 1809. These conditions were realized almost in toto in the final peace treaty, which consisted of just twenty-one articles. In addition to regulations directly related to the ending of hostilities, the main provisions of the agreement entailed huge territorial losses for Sweden, strictly defining the regions it was to cede to Russia, the most important of which was Finland. Sweden was also enjoined to give up its alliance with Britain and to join the Continental Blockade. Furthermore, the peace treaty laid down provisions for securing the position of both Finns and Swedes as subjects in the new situation, defined measures to ensure the continued functioning of the economy, and stipulated strict provi- sions for the protection of private property. The latter were very significant, especially with regard to the legitimacy of the administration, the pacification of society, and the safeguarding of the infrastructures in both Finland and Sweden. The post-war resumption of peace was not easy for either the Finns or the Swedes. However, the problems caused by the peace treaty were very different on the two sides of the Gulf of Bothnia. The problems in Finland were easier to solve because they were more concrete. The Grand Duchy of Finland, which was born out of the treaty, was permitted to maintain the existing Swedish legislative, social and local administrative framework, and a new central governmental machinery was created on top of it. In Sweden, the most important problems attending the return to peace (which could also be described as a 'crisis of peace') included the difficult question of the succession along with serious internal and economic issues. However, the most serious worry concerned the re-establishment and maintenance of the legitimacy of the government in the new situation.

In most European countries, the horrific legacy of 1939–45 has made it quite difficult to remember the war with much glory. Despite the Anglo-American memory narrative of saving democracy from totalitarianism and the Soviet epic of the Great Patriotic War, the fundamental experience of war for so many Europeans was that of immense personal losses and often meaningless hardships. The anthology at hand focuses on these histories between the victors: on the cases of Hungary, Estonia, Poland, Austria, Finland, and Germany and on the respective, often gendered experiences of defeat. The book's chapters underline the asynchronous transition to peace in individual experiences, when compared to the smooth timelines of national and international historiographies. Furthermore, it is important to note that instead of a linear chronology, both personal and collective histories tend to return back to the moments of violence and loss, thus forming continuous cycles of remembrance and forgetting. Several of the authors also pay specific attention to the constructed and contested nature of national histories in these cycles. The role of these 'in-between' countries – and even more their peoples' multifaceted experiences – will add to the widening European history of the aftermath, thereby challenging the conventional dichotomies and periodisations. In the aftermath of the seventieth anniversary of 1945, it is still too early to regard the post-war period as mere history, the memory politics and rhetoric of the Second World War and its aftermath are again being used and abused to serve contemporary power politics in Europe.

"Internationally, the case of early modern Sweden is noteworthy because the state building process transformed a locally dispersed and sparsely populated area into a strongly centralized absolute monarchy and European empire at the beginning of the 17th century. This anthology provides fresh insights into the state-building process in Sweden. During this transitional period, many far-reaching administrative reforms were carried out, and the Swedish state developed into a prime example of the early modern 'powerstate'. The contributors approach Sweden's rise to greatness from the point of view of personal agency. In early modern studies, agency has long remained in the shadow of the study of structures and institutions. This novel approach enables us to expose the difficulties, setbacks and false steps that the administration had to deal with. State building was a more diversified and personalized process than has previously been assumed. Numerous individuals were also crucially important actors in the process, and that development itself was not straightforward progression at the macro-level but was intertwined with lower-level actors.
Each chapter in this volume employs partially different methods depending on the source material and subject. This means that both qualitative and quantitative material is combined, different ways of making sense of it (i.e. research traditions) are brought together and a multi-method design is used in analyzing source material. One of the central methods is the systematic use of previous biographical research. We want to give the individuals and their actions under discussion a background that reflects the contemporary structures of individual life cycles. With the existing biographical research, it is possible to create a comprehensive set of data that provides the general outlines of individual lives or the career tracks of various estates or social groups, and even to construct collective biographies of certain groups."