No need to apologise
Recently the PhD candidate Oriol Poveda expressed some political opinions disguised as historical knowledge. He wanted the students of the centre-right organisations Fria Moderata Studentförbundet (FMSF) and Heimdal to apologise for the 1930s. In his words: “assume your responsibilities and make a clean break with the past”. He thought they should do so since the then Heimdal leadership spoke at Bollhusmötet in 1939, a meeting where it was decided that Uppsala University should not accept Jewish doctors from Nazi Germany. Furthermore, he claims that FMSF, metaphorically, “have their skeleton sitting at the tea table munching biscuits” since its magazine is called Svensk Linje after a pamphlet that was written in 1940.
At first sight Poveda brings forth a strong case and if his assertions were true both Heimdal and FMSF should definitely apologise. Fortunately they are not true and in his struggle to make a political point Poveda commits a series of historical mistakes, which combined seems to be a sign that he has taken his information from Wikipedia.
To claim that Heimdal regarding Bollhusmötet “denies any wrongdoing arguing that the actions undertaken by their board members were a private matter unrelated to the association”, is plain wrong. What Heimdal has said is that there was a big faction within the association who favoured the openly fascist Sveriges Nationella Ungdomsförbund (SNU) and that they took control of the association’s board and opposed the Jewish doctors. But there were also Heimdal-members who spoke in favour of accepting the refugees such as the late Professor Karl-Gustaf Hildebrand, which Poveda does not mention.
Few can deny there were individuals with unacceptable opinions in Heimdal during the 1930s and Second World War but the association itself should not be blamed for it. Since if the entire association was inspired by Nazi Germany as Poveda thinks, famous Swedish Jews like the future Högerpartiet (todays Moderate Party) leader Gunnar Hecksher would never have joined and become its chairman, which he was 1930-31.
nbsp;
Poveda also attempts to make a case out of Fria Moderata Studentförbundet and the fact that its magazine is called Svensk Linje. It is named after a pamphlet written in 1940, which by today’s standards expresses some racist opinions. But it also states that Sweden should fight both Communists and Nazis and it describes some of the racial actions committed by the “New Germany” as “disgusting”. It is simply a right-wing pamphlet but it cannot be called a Nazi one. Most importantly it differs drastically from the present FMSF simply by the fact that it advocates a mixed economy, which todays FMSF does not.
In conclusion, it is important to point out that guilt by association is the cheapest weapon to use in politics. No one in today’s Heimdal or FMSF can answer for views expressed in the 1930s. Therefore this is a topic for historians and not for those who tries to score points in present politics.
David Lindén
PhD candidate in history, Kings College London with a thesis about the Moderate Party and a great fan of both Heimdal and FMSF.
nbsp;
nbsp;
Read the reply of Oriol Poveda here.
nbsp;
nbsp;
