What does Veeky Forums think of danish history?

what does Veeky Forums think of danish history?
inb4 napoleonic wars and ww2

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Schleswig_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I think Danish history is just a never-ending cycle of getting embarrassingly defeated by the Swedes over and over again.

danish history is a great example of how nordics are superior in every single way to every other group on earth

to fucking bad the swedes has to sperg out and ruin the Kalmar Union, all bad things in nordic history traces back to the eternal swede

To be fair the swedes had a good reason to be mad

you know denmark has only lost like 4 wars to sweden, only one with territorial loss

sure but did they have enough reason to sperg out as hard as they did

it's literally the reason everyone is good friends with everyone except for sweden.
they're just doing their thing alone, like always.
Sweden is the type of guy to see who has the longest dick

>that lack of diversity
Why would anyone like this?

>tfw it's all been downhill since kalmar
>tfw the perfidious brits sentenced norway to a century of swedish rule
>tfw skåne means danes and swedes are destined to hate each other
>tfw even the g*rmans rekt us
>tfw we haven't even recovered south slesvig
I love my country, but since getting into history it's been pure suffering.

Rightful rulers of the nordic lands.

Reminder that Denmark once won a war against the entire world

And what were Swedes doing in the meantime? Being neutral faggots

I don't know much about it apart from the mainstream knowledge, got some cool stories?

It's actually more than double that. Denmark hasn't defeated Sweden militarily since the 17th Century.

>skåne means danes and swedes are destined to hate each other

Swefag here, are there really Danes autistic enough to hold this kind of grudge? Every Dane I ever met has been nothing but friendly. Then again my dad met a German who wouldn't speak to him after finding out that he was Swedish because of all the bullshit that went down in the 30 Years War.

what about it? its most interesting highlight was getting bombed by our navy twice

Stopped being relevant after Danelaw

Was so great a thousand years ago. Downhill since then.

i still hate swedes because of their spergout
it was just some nobles head
danish superiority is relevant to this day

>are there really Danes autistic enough to hold this kind of grudge?
Eh, I wouldn't call it a grudge. We're a small country, skåne was our ancestral land and we've only gotten smaller in the last centuries. You get kinda protective after a while.

Get out, schlomo

I love my Danish brothers, but yeah their history gets kinda depressing

Denmark would never have entered that war had the British not sucker punched them and given them no choice but to fight.

you're glib if you're of the opinion that that navy wouldn't have fallen under napoleon's control eventually when it suited him

In court that qualifies as an admission of guilt.

"Sure we broke international law but..."

Either you committed an illegal act or you did not. There are no buts.

Napoleon was dangerous, and had set the continent aflame with war and conquest. There's no action taken to safeguard the islands that isn't admissible. Besides, depriving a single nation of a navy it doesn't need anyway is a benign act, it removed any cause for napoleon to invade and subjugate it, as was an inevitability

>Napoleon was dangerous, and had set the continent aflame with war and conquest

Britain started the Napoleonic Wars tho

The three major landmasses owned by Denmark Norway were only connected through sea routes, it is definitely not a case of a small nation that doesn't need a navy, it's a case of a nation that would cease to be a viable entity in the absence of a navy. This also discounts the fact that even if Napoleon occupied Copenhagen, they could have just fucking sailed to Norway, this is not 1939.

Besides, if one introduces the precedent that military expediency overrules national neutrality, then how does one make any moral claims against other nations that do so? Several obvious examples come to mind.

They have some sick history during the medieval period, invading the Baltic and scuffling with their Scandinavian neighbors, as well as the Hanseatics.
Their wars between the Prussians is what I find rather neat, and feel like should be explored more.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Schleswig_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War

Well yes, at the root, it was Denmark's intent to form a blockading fleet with other Baltic powers to oppose Britain's navy during this whole crisis that spurred on the quick action by Britain in circumventing the dagger being leveled at it. It sounds nicer the other way though.

The fact that GB mined the sea lanes, thus affecting every single Baltic power regardless of neutrality certainly contributed. Even if the entire Baltic pooled its naval resources, it would never affect Britain's high seas superiority, it might however have somewhat impeded their essentially piratical activities in the area, which is apparently an unforgivable insult tantamount to a declaration of war.

I dont get this. Whos side were the Swedes in the 30 years war?? I keep reading stories about the brutality of swedes and the croats, who were clearly on catholic side, so who did swedes fight against there??

The swedes behaved much like an army of rampaging vikings, pillaged the countryside whenever possible and exploited religious strife (they were ostensibly on the protestant side) for national gains, which formed the basis of their subsequent imperial phase.

Please.

If you are taking action to support a hostile France, then what action can you expect but response?

>Taking actions to protect own sovereignty that aren't explicit bows to UK demands = active support for France

The Royal Navy's activities are so infamous during this period that even the US went to war over their shit, despite Britain being closer to their strategic interests than France, simply due to the need to protect their sovereignty. Somehow all these perfidious neutral nations got the same idea about you at the same time, I wonder what the common denominator must be?

> I wonder what the common denominator must be?

A mistaken belief that trade with France is perfectly acceptable when they are at war with the major powers of Europe. If you don't try to counter the blockade of a sworn enemy to the greatest naval power in the world then you have nothing to fear.

>Matters reached a diplomatic crisis point when the British rejected the idea of mediation by Tsar Alexander, and instead on 10 May ordered Whitworth to withdraw from Paris if the French did not accede to their demands in 36 hours.[42]
>Last minute attempts at negotiation by Talleyrand failed, and Whitworth left France on 13 May. Britain declared war on France on 18 May, thus starting the Napoleonic Wars that would rage in Europe for the following 12 years.[43]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens

I know they lost some territory to Prussia or the newly federated Germany and I think they even lost territory to Austrian Empire once.

Prussia and Austria allied together to solve the Schleswig-Holstein question.

>ITT: Eternal Anglos use mental gymnastics trying to justify bombing a neutral country

The truth is that you bombing Kopenhagen was a pathetic attempt at revenge for those centuries during which Danes colonized your arses

Felt good tho Mr Svenson

Oh. That clears much, thanks. Why did the croats pillage as much though?

and now they get to sit back and laugh at Sweden as they destroy themselves.

What sort of Tabloid has that be filched from?

Literally a Pearl Harbor tier causus belli.

Yeah I just typed in "swede-" into my memes folder and picked the first result, probably some bullshit article (never trust a pic where the name of the publisher is cropped out)

The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour can be summed up as "gimmiedat." The US out of protest refused sale of oil and scrap to japan over their conduct of war on the peoples of China. Not in the least bit comparable.

>pretending that the Royal Navy was not a glorified pirate fleet

Its purpose is to protect the interests of the merchantmen, and peoples of the UK. In times past, that could possibly entail countering nefarious intent on the part of rival powers, and some of that meant seizing their goods that enabled them to make war.

>murders using a specific type of weapon
>not murders over all
Fucking droped famalam

It's like were living in the world of MGS2

The Japanese sought to eliminate a potential threat by dishonorably attacking a neutral port. You can argue semantics all you want. Just because you make strategic calculations doesn't mean other nations are obligated to take those at face value. It's striking that during this conversation you have not made one attempt to understand the difficulties faced by the other side, consistently argue to invalidate any opposing views, and nevertheless expect them to validate your own. Case in point, when you asserted that Denmark had no need for a navy, and it was proven that they indeed required a navy, you waved it off as more Danish foolishness. Why not just admit that the essence of your argument, your only argument, is that Britain is more important than any other nation?

Does that idea threaten you?

At least now we are on the same page.

>knows something is probably wrong
>posts it anyway

Explain why it is wrong for a sovereign nation to take action against another forming a coalition against it as it faces a dire threat from a hostile and militant conqueror? Is its own survival of primary importance? Absolutely!

Any argument I make will be invalidated by Britain's supposed importance. I've ceased actually arguing with you several posts ago and have instead baited you into demonstrating the perfidy of your nation. Thanks for playing.

Was it not Danish perfidy in their making overtures of strong arming Britain in collusion with Russia and the Swedes?

>ywn btfo anglos this harshly

Because they're niggers

>...During this campaign Karl Gustav and his regiment was present, including at the capture of the fortress Christianspreis (todays Friedrichsort by Kiel) on the 16th of december. Karl Gustav a few days later wrote to the lord high chancellor Oxenstierna about his hope that this victory would be followed by many, so that the danish nation, this thread towards the common peace, could be destroyed ("pour exstirper ceste nation Danoise, peste d'une tranquillité universelle et commune")
What the fuck was his problem

Copenhago Delende Est

Probably still mad about this.

Sweden has done literally nothing wrong historically.

Yeah and the actual murder rate of Malmö (the worst affected city) is still lower than cities like Talinn and far lower than the US average. Get the fuck out of here.

Yeah nah, the bongs pulled a Pearl Harbour before it was cool. Twice. Had it been a 150 years later, I'd personally have advocated nuking London and Birmingham and just fire bomb the rest of that shithole.

I used to work nights in a downtown Copenhagen 7Eleven, and Swedish tourist was the fucking worst. In terms of customers divided by ethnic groups, you rate somewhere around gypsies. I'd literally rather have swarms of Ghanese prostitutes than a single Swede who can't hold his fucking liquor in my store. Literally no other group has pissed me off more than Swedes. American and Bongs are a fucking dream to work with compared you Swedes.

>Mr Svenssen

ftfy

>fire bomb the rest of that shithole.

You and what navy?

There can't be a person holding a grudge over events so very far back, between political entities that don't even exist any longer.

B-but Angry forginer.

Cheeky cunt.