Count, aviation hero and aid worker. In many ways, Carl Gustaf von Rosen is one of Sweden’s most fascinating historical figures of the 20th century and his life was characterized by adventure, self-sacrifice and a burning conviction to defend those he considered oppressed.
Von Rosen was born in 1909 at Rockelsta Castle in Södermanland, the son of the famous explorer and ethnographer Eric von Rosen and his wife Mary. His family had a strong tradition of adventure and community involvement of various kinds that deeply influenced the young Carl Gustaf.
He was strongly fascinated by technology and especially by flying. After attending Lundsberg boarding school, he chose to continue his studies at AB Aeromateriel’s flight school and obtained his pilot’s license in 1929. He spent the following years working as an air show pilot and commercial pilot, until he embarked on some highly publicized adventures, starting with Haile Selassie’s Abyssinia.
Selassie’s Ethiopia
In 1935, when Italy under Benito Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, or Abyssinia as the empire was also known under the mythical Selassie’s rule, von Rosen offered to help the Red Cross as an ambulance and liaison pilot. He joined the Swedish Red Cross Abyssinian Ambulance and flew at great personal risk on missions in a country fighting an overwhelming enemy.
A young Carl Gustaf von Rosen flew for the Red Cross in Ethiopia. Photo: SVT
During this time, Carl Gustaf witnessed, among other things, the use of mustard gas by Italian forces and the bombing of civilian targets, which made a deep impression on him and strengthened his conviction of the importance of standing up against oppression of all kinds.
Von Rosen saw his work as a way to help defend Ethiopia’s independence and the experience of the 1930s created a lifelong bond between him and the country.
The Winter War
In 1939, von Rosen once again voluntarily became part of a struggle between a seemingly weak nation and a major aggressor when the Soviet Union invaded Finland.
With his own money, he decided to buy a DC-2, a twin-engine transport plane from the KLM company, with which he carried out a number of bombing missions against Soviet targets. He did this with his life on the line, and among the Finnish troops he came to be seen as something of a hero.
“I couldn’t sit still and watch a small nation fight alone against such a colossus.I had to do something“, von Rosen himself commented on the decision to try to help Finland.
World War II eventually ended, but it did not mean peace for Carl Gustaf von Rosen. Invited by Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie, he spent the years between 1946 and 1952 building up the Ethiopian Air Force.
Carl Gustaf von Rosen with his son Eric during the food airlifts in Ethiopia in 1975. Photo: facsimile/SVT
Under von Rosen’s leadership, the outdated Ethiopian Air Force was transformed into a very modern military branch by African standards, using Swedish instructors and Saab aircraft to achieve this goal.
For his work, von Rosen was rewarded with the rank of colonel. He worked almost tirelessly to train Ethiopian pilots and to build a sustainable air force structure – but also emphasized the potential of aviation for civilian purposes, such as transport and communications. He considered his work with the Ethiopian Air Force, which he saw as an important symbol of the country’s independence, as very important.
Cooperation with the Ethiopian regime would be disrupted by political disagreements, an emerging cult of personality around the emperor, and changing priorities that led to conflicts and diminished von Rosen’s role. By the time he left Ethiopia in the 1950s, his efforts had laid the foundation for Ethiopia’s modern air force.
The Biafran War
During the Nigerian civil war, the Swedish airman would again risk life and limb when he decided to get involved in the self-proclaimed state of Biafra’s fight for independence. The region in south-east Nigeria had broken away due to ethnic and economic tensions, particularly control over the country’s oil revenues. The Nigerian government responded not only with force of arms, but also with a blockade that led to a massive famine.
Von Rosen was disturbed by reports of starvation and suffering in Biafra and, through international humanitarian networks, organized aid flights to the isolated breakaway republic, often in person. His night flights were often very dangerous for himself as he risked being shot down by Nigerian forces, but were to be a lifeline for many people during the war.
In order to help Biafra, not only humanitarian but also militarily, von Rosen created a small but effective “private air force” with the help of some other Swedes. For this purpose, he bought five MFI-9B Militrainer aircraft from Malmö Flygindustri in Sweden. These small aircraft, originally designed for civilian purposes, were fitted with rockets and then used in precision attacks against Nigerian forces.
The aircraft were small, fast and difficult to detect, making them ideal for operations against larger and slower Nigerian bombers. Von Rosen himself flew in several of these dangerous missions, which he saw as necessary to protect the people of Biafra from persecution and starvation.
The Biafran Air Force in all its glory. Photo: Private
Von Rosen is said to have viewed the civil war as a David versus Goliath scenario and although his efforts brought some military success to Biafra, destroying a number of enemy aircraft and drawing international attention to the conflict, he could not change the outcome of the war. In 1970, Biafra was finally defeated and reintegrated into Nigeria. Von Rosen’s involvement was seen by many as a shining example of heroism, sacrifice and a determination to help the vulnerable and oppressed against a threatening superpower. Others, critical voices, argued that his efforts contributed to prolonging the war – and thus the suffering.
The return to Ethiopia
In the 1970s, the somewhat ageing von Rosen returned once again to Ethiopia to work in humanitarian aid during the Ogaden war between Ethiopia and Somalia. Among other things, he coordinated relief efforts for the many refugees who had been forced to flee their homes during the conflict.
On July 13, 1977, Carl Gustaf von Rosen, 67 years old, was killed in a Somali artillery attack on the town of Gode. A shell hit the house where he was staying and he died instantly. According to the Somali commander who led the attack, von Rosen had fallen like a good soldier after hard fighting. In Sweden at the time, he was described as a “warrior for humanity”, while in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa he was honored as a friend.
Carl Gustaf von Rosen’s grave in Addis Ababa 2015 Photo: David Castor
Carl Gustaf von Rosen was remembered by many as an idealist who lived his convictions and put them into action. His courage and humanitarian efforts would inspire others to follow in his footsteps, and his work in Ethiopia, Biafra and Finland strengthened the belief of many that it is indeed possible to do something – even in the most extreme circumstances.
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
For several decades, the two party blocs, the Hats and the Caps, had pursued a policy that had brought Sweden to its knees.
By the early 1770s, the treasury had been emptied and the country almost completely sold out to foreign powers. Dissatisfaction in the Swedish Empire was boiling under the surface.
One of the people who most deeply despised the state Sweden had fallen into was the new king Gustav III, who ascended to the throne in 1771 at the age of just 25.
Just one year later, the corrupt reign of the party bloc would come to an abrupt end as the "theater king" now staged a well-directed revolution.
After the death of Charles XII in 1718, the Swedish monarchy weakened considerably. The decline was so severe that power slipped into the hands of a parliament controlled by two parties, the Hats and the Caps, both of which were openly financed by foreign powers. Under the rule of the Hats and the Caps, Sweden was transformed from an independent nation into a puppet state for the geopolitical interests of the great powers.
The Hats, who dominated the Riksdag during the 1740s and 1760s, received direct bribes from the French embassy. Archives from Versailles state that the party’s leading representatives received large sums of money, among other things to pursue an anti-Russian policy. This also led to disastrous military campaigns for Sweden, first in the Hats’ failed Russian War of 1741–1743, in which Sweden suffered heavy losses and which, ironically, would instead strengthen Russian influence over Swedish politics. The Pomeranian War between 1757 and 1762, in which Swedish soldiers were sent to fight for French interests in Germany, was a conflict that emptied the Swedish treasury.
This paved the way for the party bloc known as the Caps, which was financed by Russia and Great Britain, to take power in Sweden in 1765. Advisers to Catherine II of Russia are also said to have argued openly that Sweden was easier to control through the easily manipulated Riksdag than through a king. Immediately after taking power from the Hats, the Caps decided in 1765 – partly under Russian pressure – to reduce the Swedish army to 17,000 men, which was a significant security risk for a country that had not long ago been a military superpower and had recently lost further territory to its enemies.
The Swedish government became so corrupt that foreign ambassadors could effectively buy votes in the Riksdag. British diplomats are said to have rejoiced in the 1760s that it was possible to push through virtually any motion they wanted, as long as they paid enough. Sweden’s foreign policy was no longer controlled from Stockholm, but from London, St. Petersburg, and Paris.
Gustav III makes a revolution
By the early 1770s, Sweden had become a bankrupt, divided, and internationally marginalized country. The power struggle between the Hats and Caps during the Age of Liberty had left the country weakened and despised – both by its own people and by the outside world. The Riksdag was paralyzed by factional strife, the army was degraded and underfunded, and power was in the hands of a parliament that resembled more a cackling court than a state institution. The riksdaler (Swedish currency) was virtually worthless, and the dominant nobility refused to contribute to the state treasury.
Beneath the surface, popular discontent was simmering. One of those who most deeply despised the state Sweden had been reduced to was the new, only 25-year-old Swedish king, Gustav III, who ascended the throne in 1771. During his upbringing, he had noticed and been outraged by how foreign powers systematically exploited the Swedish government’s weakness and was appalled that the Swedish kingdom had been transformed into a political marketplace where foreign ambassadors could buy laws and regulations that favored their masters.
A young Gustav III and his brothers Karl and Fredrik Adolf. Illustration: Alexander Roslin (1771)
His father, Adolf Fredrik, had neither the strength nor the ability to break the corrupt power of the political parties, but Gustav, as it turned out, was of a completely different caliber. He later earned his nickname, “the theater king”, in the history books for his deep cultural interest in theater, opera, and art, and it was also with a theater king’s flair for direction that, just over a year after his accession, he staged a spectacular revolution that would radically change Sweden’s political course.
Early in the morning of August 19, 1772, loyal officers gathered in the capital and, under the leadership of the young Gustav, they took the castle, arrested reluctant councilors, and took control of the kingdom’s institutions. Everything happened quickly and without a single drop of blood being shed.
The very next day, a new form of government came into force, which had been carefully formulated in advance by the new king. This abolished the Riksdag’s dominance over politics and instead restored supreme executive power to the king, who now regained control over lawmaking, appointing ministers, and foreign policy.
The new form of government was particularly strong in its opposition to the lobby in Sweden that had gained a foothold in the country’s institutions.
“Foreigners – whether princes, dukes or other persons – shall henceforth neither be employed nor appointed to any office of the realm, whether civil or military, with the exception of His Majesty’s court, unless they can, through their outstanding and great qualities, bring great honor and tangible benefit to the kingdom”, the text declared, among other things.
Gustav III begins his coup d’état. Illustration: Pehr Hillerström (1732-1816)
The revolutionary change of power brought Sweden into what history books describe as the Gustavian era.
“Hatred and division have torn the kingdom apart”
In his speech to the Riksdag two days after the coup, Gustav criticized how the country had been ruled by the Hats and the Caps. He emphasized that it was not freedom he intended to abolish through the revolution, but rather to end the misrule that had plagued Sweden for so long.
“It is a sad but well-known truth that hatred and division have torn the kingdom apart. For a long time, the nation has been divided into two parties, which in practice have made it into two different peoples, united only in tearing apart their fatherland. You know how this division gave rise to resentment, how resentment led to revenge, how revenge led to persecution, and how persecution in turn led to new revolutions – something that has ultimately become like a recurring disease, which has scarred and degraded the whole of society”, proclaimed the king, continuing:
“These upheavals have shaken the realm due to the power hunger of a few individuals. Streams of blood have flowed – at times shed by one side, at times by the other – and the people have always been the victims of conflicts that barely concerned them, but whose unfortunate consequences they were the first and most to feel. Securing their rule has been the sole aim of those in power; everything has been adapted to serve that goal – often at the expense of other citizens, always at the expense of the realm.”.
Securing their rule has been the sole aim of those in power.
When the laws did not suit those in power, they were distorted and ignored, argued Gustav III, who stated that “nothing has been sacred to a people’s assembly inflamed by hatred and revenge” which was ultimately convinced that it stood above the law.
“Thus, freedom – the noblest of human rights – has been transformed into unbearable aristocratic oppression in the hands of the ruling party, which itself has been subjugated and ruled at the whim of a few men within it. People have trembled before every new parliament, and instead of thinking about how the affairs of the kingdom could best be managed, they have only been concerned with securing a majority for their own party – to protect themselves against the lawless abuses and violence of the other party”.
“An aristocratic yoke – unbearable for every Swede”
“Born a Swede and King of Sweden, it should be unthinkable for me to believe that foreign interests could rule over Swedish men – worse still, that the lowest and most degrading means would have been used to achieve it. You know what I am referring to, and my modesty is enough for you to understand the shame into which your internal conflicts have plunged the realm”, continued the young king, lamenting how Swedish politicians had been seduced by both “foreign gold” and ”domestic hatred and self-will.”
The king’s revolutionary uniform is still preserved today at the Royal Armoury in Stockholm. Montage. Illustration: Lorens Pasch the Younger (1733-1805), photo: LSH
He further pointed out how he had previously tried to get those in power to change course – but without success, and that the “most virtuous, dignified, and foremost citizens” who tried to stop the misrule in various ways were opposed and sacrificed.
“Yes, even the people have been oppressed – their complaints have been seen as rebellion, and freedom has ultimately been transformed into an aristocratic yoke, unbearable for every Swede”.
“Some of the people have borne the yoke with sighs and complaints, but without resistance – they did not know where salvation lay, or how it could be attained”, continued the king, pointing to others who instead “lost hope and took up arms”.
Today, Gustav III watches over Skeppsbrokajen in Stockholm – albeit in immobile form. Photo: Manfred Werner/CC BY-SA 4.0
Gustav Vasa and Engelbrekt
According to Gustav III, not only were the freedom and security of the citizens in grave danger, but so was the very existence of the kingdom – and this, according to him, was the reason why he “resorted to the means that had helped other courageous peoples, and which had once helped Sweden itself under the banner of Gustav Vasa, to rise up against unbearable oppression”.
“God has blessed my work. I have seen how love for the fatherland has been rekindled among the people – the same fervor that once burned in the hearts of Engelbrekt and Gustav Eriksson. All has gone well, and I have saved both myself and the kingdom – without a single citizen coming to harm”, he continued, asserting that Sweden can only be ruled by an “unshakeable law – whose words must not be distorted”.
“Great and immortal kings have carried the scepter I now hold in my hand. It would be truly bold of me to try to resemble them in any way – but in my zeal and love for you, I compete with them all, and when you carry the same heart for your country, I hope that the Swedish name will once again gain the honor and respect it once earned in the time of our ancestors”, he concluded his famous speech.
Culture – and war
In many ways, Gustav III soon laid the foundations for a Swedish cultural treasure that is still present in Sweden today. He not only founded the Swedish Academy (1786) to promote the Swedish language and literature, but also the Royal Opera (1773). His passion for theater and art made Stockholm something of a Nordic cultural center.
Gustav III founded the Royal Opera House in Stockholm. Photo: Frankie Fouganthin/CC BY-SA 4.0
The king was at the same time no classic aristocrat but rather inspired by French Enlightenment ideals, introducing early versions of freedom of the press and abolishing torture as a method of interrogation – reforms that strengthened citizens’ rights.
He also often looked back at the Sweden that once was and dreamed of restoring it as a great power. Hoping to reclaim previously lost Swedish territories and to prevent further Russian interference in Swedish politics, he declared war on Russia in 1788.
According to some contemporary accounts and later historians, Gustav III allegedly had Swedish soldiers dress in Russian uniforms or Cossack-like clothing and staged an attack to create a legitimate and popularly accepted reason for war – claims that have not been substantiated and which other historians have dismissed as mere slander and propaganda.
The war began with mixed results, and discontent among officers led to the formation of the so-called Anjala League in 1788 – a group of commanders who opposed the war and demanded peace with Russia. The fighting continued, primarily at sea, where the Swedish navy won an important victory at the Battle of Svensksund in 1790, strengthening Sweden’s negotiating position.
The Peace of Värälä was concluded that same year and meant that the borders remained unchanged. Sweden managed to maintain its territorial integrity but did not regain any previously lost lands. Despite this, the king still tried to present the outcome of the war as a political success, but his questionable military venture had also shaken his position of power.
Stockholm. Swedish ships being equipped for war. Illustration: Louis Jean Desprez (1788)
The nobility conspires
Tensions between Gustav III and the nobility grew, not least because of the Act of Union and Security of 1789, which, among other things, stripped the nobility of their exclusive right to high office and privileges, and gave the king even greater powers to make decisions on foreign and military matters without the approval of the Riksdag. However, the changes were supported by priests, burghers, and peasants alike.
Dissatisfaction among the nobility continued to grow as Gustav III strengthened his power at their expense. Criticism of the king’s rule, his handling of foreign policy, and his attempts to reform society without the consent of the nobility had created deep divisions within the upper classes.
On March 16, 1792, the conflict reached its climax when Gustav III was shot at a masked ball at the opera in Stockholm. The attack was carried out by Captain Jakob Johan Anckarström, but the planning behind the assassination involved a broader conspiracy among disaffected noblemen. Among those implicated were prominent figures such as Adolf Ribbing, Claes Horn, and Carl Fredrik Pechlin – all with connections to oppositional circles within the aristocracy.
Pechlin, who is considered one of the masterminds behind the conspiracy, had long been involved in political intrigues against the king and acted as a mediator between the conspirators. Secret meetings were held where the king’s deposition – and ultimately his death – was discussed as the only solution to what was described as a threat to the rule of the kingdom and the rights of the nobility.
The official motives for the act were political: the conspirators believed that the king’s rule had violated the 1720 constitution, threatened the constitutional order of the kingdom, and undermined the traditional power of the nobility. By removing the king, the conspirators hoped to restore the old balance of power and put an end to the Gustavian autocracy.
Anckarström as a scapegoat?
Gustav III survived the initial shot, but suffered an infection and died of his injuries on March 29 of the same year.
The assassination was followed by extensive legal and political repercussions. Jakob Johan Anckarström was arrested the day after the crime, after being identified by several witnesses. During questioning, he confessed to his role as the assassin but initially refused to reveal the names of others involved. Over time, however, evidence and witness statements pointed to a wider network of conspirators behind the assassination.
Contemporary German interpretation of the murder, in which the king is surrounded and shot by a group of masked conspirators. Illustration: Abraham Wolfgang Küfner (circa 1792)
Adolf Ribbing and Claes Horn were arrested and exiled, while the politically influential Carl Fredrik Pechlin – whom many consider to be the actual organizer – escaped harsher punishment by withholding direct evidence. He was sentenced by the Supreme Court to be held in custody for the purpose of investigating his possible involvement, first at Karlsten Fortress and then at Varberg Fortress, where, according to sources, he was allowed to move relatively freely and remained until his death four years later.
Although several people were proven to have been involved in the planning, the authorities chose to focus on Anckarström as the main perpetrator. Anckarström was sentenced to death and publicly executed on April 27, 1792, after undergoing a prolonged and symbolically harsh punishment: he was flogged daily for three days in various locations in Stockholm before being beheaded and having his right hand cut off. His body was dismembered and parts were nailed up as a warning to others.
In retrospect, many historians have generally regarded Anckarström as a scapegoat, a man who admittedly fired the shot but who was acting on behalf of more powerful forces. The trial was also marked by a desire to quickly restore order rather than fully expose the political conspiracy behind the murder.
Copperplate engraving depicting Jacob Johan Anckarström and the mask, knife, and pistols he wore on the night of the murder. Montage. Photo: LSH/CC BY 3.0, Illustration: Unknown
The deeper they dug, the more names appeared in the investigation, but several of the others involved escaped prosecution altogether, which also contributed to the impression that Anckarström was in fact sacrificed to conceal a broader rebellion within the absolute upper echelons of the kingdom.
Popular cultural vindication
The Gustavian era came to an end with the murder, but Gustav III’s reforms, new institutions, and cultural policy initiatives had, in a short time, made an impression that would shape Sweden long after his death.
Although Gustav III is often praised by more conservative commentators as a strong leader and national defender who fought corruption and misrule, he remains controversial even among patriots. Like many other enlightenment-minded rulers of his time, he was a Freemason – just like his father Adolf Frederick, and the highest patron of the order in Sweden. According to sources, several of his closest allies were also members of the same Masonic networks. The motivations remain somewhat unclear, but Freemasonry evidently offered Gustav not only a vital platform and a network of influential men and international contacts – his defenders argue that his membership was rather a strategic move to monitor and influence the emerging Masonic movement in Sweden, and to ensure it did not become an independent power.
With this in mind, some critics have pointed out that Gustav III, despite his stated desire to reduce foreign influence over Sweden, was himself strongly influenced by French culture and the French political model. He was deeply fascinated by the French court and sought both diplomatic and financial support from France, which he saw as a model for how the Swedish monarchy could be and how the kingdom could be modernized, inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment.
In modern historiography, historical figures who do not conform to the ideas of contemporary rainbow parties are rarely highlighted. Despite his inspiration from the French Enlightenment, Gustav III has often been perceived as belonging to this category and has been described by some as an anti-democratic despot or even a tyrant.
However, the theater king’s presence remains in contemporary popular culture. A prominent example is Stefan Andersson’s historical concept album Teaterkungen kronologiskt i text och musik (The Theater King Chronologically in Text and Music), which describes his revolution in 1772 until his death in 1792.
Sweden lost Finland and his son was deposed
In practice, Gustav III’s idea of an enlightened monarchy with supreme power had died with him. Despite strengthening his influence through the 1772 constitution and the 1789 Act of Union and Security, Gustav III failed to lay the foundations for lasting royal absolutism in Sweden, and his dreams of a powerful monarchy that could rise above party strife and the privileges of the nobility never came to fruition in the long run.
His son, Gustav IV Adolf, was only 13 years old when his father died, which meant that power passed to a regency government led by Gustav III’s brother, Duke Karl (later Karl XIII). The regency government ruled more cautiously and returned some power to the Riksdag and the nobility, which was a first step away from the model that Gustav III had sought.
Gustav IV (pictured here as a teenager) was a significantly weaker monarch than his father. Illustration: Per Krafft the Elder (1724–1793)
When Gustav IV Adolf took over the reins of power in 1796, he proved to be a weak and, among many, unpopular ruler, whose failed foreign policy – particularly the conflict with Napoleon – led to a catastrophic defeat: the loss of Sweden’s eastern half (Finland) to Russia in 1809. Gustav IV Adolf was deposed in a coup d’état, and Sweden adopted a new form of government that same year, which entailed a clear division of power between the king and the Riksdag. The king would still reign, but no longer alone.
His son lost both the throne and the trust of the people and his important allies, and his family was eventually replaced by the French Bernadotte family, which came to power with Charles XIV John in 1818. Sweden thus entered a new political era – still with a monarchy, but now in constitutional form, with the king today fulfilling an almost symbolic and politically insignificant role.
Over the past three years, researchers at Lund University have been sailing like Vikings to better understand how the Norse traveled. In their latest study, they have identified four possible ports used by our ancestors a thousand years ago.
Archaeologist Greer Jarret and her fellow researchers have sailed along the coast of Norway in boats similar to those used during the Viking Age (c. 800–c. 1050 AD). The first trip was a round trip to the Arctic Circle in 2022, and since then the researchers have sailed over 5,000 kilometers in search of answers about the Vikings’ routes.
Previous discoveries have shown, for example, that it was probably possible for the Vikings to reach remote parts of the Arctic with this type of boat to hunt walrus, suggesting that the Vikings encountered indigenous peoples long before Columbus “discovered” North America.
Smaller harbors
During their voyages, based on their experience of sailing Viking boats, they have developed various criteria for determining whether a place is suitable as a harbor or not. The researchers have also interviewed sailors and fishermen about the routes traditionally used in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when sailing boats without engines were still common in Norway. Digital reconstructions of what the landscape looked like at the time have then been used to identify four possible Viking harbors along the Norwegian coast.
The hypothesis is that it must have been easy to enter and leave the harbors in all wind conditions, so there must have been several ways in and out. Furthermore, there were probably a multitude of smaller harbors on small islands or peninsulas where the Vikings could stop and rest.
– We often only know the starting and ending points of the trade that took place during the Viking Age. Large ports such as Bergen and Trondheim in Norway, Ribe in Denmark, and Dublin in Ireland. What interests me is what happened on the voyages between these major trading hubs. My hypothesis is that this decentralized network of ports, located on small islands and peninsulas, was central to making trade efficient during the Viking Age, says Jarret in a press release.
Navigating with stories
Researchers believe that the Vikings did not navigate using maps or compasses, but instead had mental maps. They used their memories and experiences, as well as myths associated with different places. These stories were then passed down through generations of sailors.
– For example, there are Viking stories about Kullaberg in Sweden and the mountain Torghatten and the islands Hestmona and Skrova along the Norwegian coast. These stories describe the dangers lurking in the waters below the mountain.
The research expeditions have not been entirely without risk. It has often been freezing cold, and once a minke whale surfaced and slapped its tail just a few meters from the boat. In 2022, the spar (pole) holding up the sail broke when the researchers were 25 kilometers out at sea.
– We had to tie two oars together to hold the sail and hope it would hold. We made it back to port safely, but then had to wait there for two days before we could sail again because the boat needed repairs.
The researchers also conclude that while it is important to have a durable boat, the relationships on board are even more important.
– You need a boat that can withstand all kinds of weather conditions. But if you don’t have a crew that can work together and put up with each other for long periods of time, then you’re screwed, concludes Jarret.
Since the Second World War alone, US wars have caused an estimated 20 to 30 million civilian deaths. Aggressive war is not an exception in US history, it is the norm.
The US’s self-image as the “land of freedom” and the ultimate defender of democracy has long been a central part of the country’s political rhetoric and cultural self-understanding. Not far behind this increasingly hollow facade, however, lies a bloody history of military expansion, intervention, and war that few, if any, other empires in modern times can match.
As early as the 19th century, the US took its first imperialist steps through the doctrine of “manifest destiny”, the belief that the country had a God-given mission to expand across the entire North American continent. This justified violent attacks on Native American tribes – often in the form of ethnic cleansing – as well as a war against Mexico in 1846–1848 that resulted in the annexation of Texas, California, and other large territories. Since its initial expansion across the American continent, the history of the United States has in fact been a history of almost uninterrupted war, and since the 2000s with completely open claims to global military dominance.
The expansion has thus been not only territorial but also ideologically motivated, with a belief that the American model should be exported to the rest of the world – even by force if deemed necessary.
The Battle of Río San Gabriel during the American conquest of California. Painting: James Walker (1819-1889)
American peace – a rare exception
Those who did not submit to American supremacy were threatened with gunpowder and death – something that Japan, among many other nations, experienced when Commander Matthew Perry arrived on the island nation with heavily armed warships on a mission to force the country to open its ports to trade. Under threat of military force, Japan was then pressured to sign the Treaty of Kanagawa the following year, an event that marked the end of Japan’s 200-year policy of isolation and the beginning of US influence in the region.
During the 20th century, the US’s military ambitions grew to global proportions. Since the end of World War II, the country has carried out direct military operations in at least 37 countries, according to independent research. In total, the US has been at war for over 93 percent of its existence since 1776 – only about 20 of those years have been marked by actual peace. It has been involved in at least 130 major armed conflicts, and in the last 80 years alone, these wars are estimated to have caused between 20 and 30 million civilian deaths – figures that far exceed the civilian casualties of any other country’s wars during the same period.
American soldiers in Korea in 1950. Photo: U.S. Army
Lied about weapons of mass destruction
The reasons given for these wars have varied, but what they have in common is that they were often based on what later turned out to be lies, exaggerations, or cynical manipulation. In the case of Vietnam, for example, the so-called Tonkin Gulf incident in 1964 was used as a pretext for a massive escalation of the war. The alleged attack on American warships turned out to be completely fabricated. The result was a 20-year war in which the US dropped over 76 million liters of chemicals over the Vietnamese landscape, including the dreaded substance Agent Orange. Up to seven million civilians died, and even more suffered genetic damage and cancer.
In the last 80 years alone, these wars are estimated to have caused between 20 and 30 million civilian deaths.
The Iraq War in 2003 is another example where lies were used as a driving force for aggression. In this case, US President George W. Bush claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to the terrorist group al-Qaeda. No such weapons were ever found, nor was any evidence of an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Islamist terrorist networks ever presented. Despite this, the invasion of the country went ahead, resulting in over a million Iraqi deaths – most of them civilians – and enormous destruction of infrastructure, healthcare and education systems. At the same time, Iraq was transformed into a breeding ground for the terrorist groups that the US claimed to be fighting, such as Islamic State. The US decision-makers responsible have never been prosecuted for their actions.
American bombs are loaded onto aircraft for use against Iraqi targets. Photo: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Lee F. Corkran
Millions dead in Korea
A third case among many others that could be mentioned is Afghanistan, where the US spent two decades trying to crush the Taliban and install a Western-friendly government. Instead, billions disappeared into corruption, before the Taliban was able to regain power in 2021 after 20 years of war. More than 100,000 civilians were killed during the war, and opium production – a key source of income for various armed groups – doubled during the same period. The US’s own war machine created the conditions it claimed to want to prevent.
The same pattern has been repeated time and time again throughout history. In Korea (1950–1953), nearly three million civilians were killed in a war that reduced North Korea to ruins, with as much as 85 percent of all buildings in the country bombed to pieces. In Cambodia (1969–1973), the US carried out secret B-52 bombings that killed over half a million people and created the instability that enabled Pol Pot’s later genocide with his Khmer Rouge. In Yemen, the US, through military support to Saudi Arabia, has recently contributed to one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters, with hundreds of thousands dead, around 70 percent of whom are women or children.
The suffering of war is borne mainly by civilian populations in other countries – while the profits often end up with the US military-industrial complex. Companies such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have earned trillions (i.e., thousands of billions) of dollars from the conflicts that the US wages or supports. The country’s military budget for 2025 alone amounts to approximately $886 billion, which corresponds to about 36 percent of the world’s total military spending. That is more than the ten next largest military actors combined.
The US accounts for almost 40 percent of the world’s total military spending. Here are the aircraft carriers USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Harry S. Truman. Photo: US Navy
At the same time, the US has built up a global network of over 800 military bases in 80 countries – a pattern that clearly signals that it is maintaining an imperial military force, not a defense force. Many of these bases are located in close proximity to the US’s geopolitical rivals, such as Russia and China. This military presence, often in contravention of the will of local populations, has been a leading means of attempting to consolidate a global hegemony that effectively deprives other nations of their sovereignty.
War becomes the driving force of politics
The US’s endless wars cannot be explained as isolated events. Rather, war and the threat of lethal violence have been a central driving force in the political DNA of the American empire. This policy is supported by a sophisticated propaganda machine that glorifies American soldiers as heroes, where films and news channels legitimize violence, and where criticism of military power is dismissed as disloyal or naive. According to the logic of the American system, it is always the US that is the real victim – even though it has, in principle, always been the actual aggressor.
The suffering of war is borne mainly by civilian populations in other countries, while the profits often end up with the US military-industrial complex.
Although no country in modern times has directly threatened US territory, the country has continued its military aggression in a long series of conflicts. In Yemen, US drones are currently bombing Houthi rebels who have refused to compromise on their support for Palestinian rights. In Somalia, a low-intensity war has been going on since the 1990s, with special forces and drones killing suspects without trial. In Ukraine, instead of making genuine attempts to mediate peace, the US has consistently pursued an aggressive line and continued to pump billions into arms deliveries for the proxy war in which Ukraine has been used as a “battering ram” against its arch-enemy Russia – with the civilian population, as usual, being the biggest loser.
The war has continued even under Trump’s presidency. Photo: Sgt. Thomas Scaggs/U.S. Army
Political analysts have long pointed out that this cynical behavior is not about defending the interests of the American people, but rather an expression of the power ambitions of the country’s de facto ruling oligarchy. The US has insisted that it should be treated as a moral superpower and “the last bastion of democracy”, while it has become increasingly clear that its relentless war against the world is not about freedom, but about control.
The rhetoric stands in stark contrast to reality, where the US has repeatedly been found to have acted systematically to undermine democracies, supported jihadists, and provided support to brutal dictatorships around the world. The CIA’s involvement in coups, torture programs, and political assassinations is now well documented – but this is rarely problematized or questioned in the American sphere of power, which now clearly includes Sweden.
The bill: $8 trillion
Around 100,000 American soldiers have died in armed conflicts since the Vietnam War, a figure that pales in comparison to the 20–30 million civilians killed as a result of US military operations since 1945. The economic cost is almost incomprehensible: over $8 trillion has been spent on war in the 21st century alone. This is money that could have been used to finance healthcare, debt-free education, or in other ways to improve the lives of the American people – but instead it has lined the pockets of the oligarchs of the war industry.
Before Trump took office, virtually the entire Swedish political establishment spoke of the US as our most important ally – so essential to Sweden’s security that we not only joined the US military pact NATO, but also gave US troops access to Swedish territory and Swedish army bases through the DCA agreement.
Thanks to Swedish politicians, American soldiers now have access to a number of Swedish military bases. Photo: U.S. Army Europe
This has happened despite the obvious but suppressed fact that war is not an exception in US history, it is the norm. Militaristic campaigns are a fundamental pillar of the American “order”, in which violence is normalized as long as it is exercised by the “right” side – regardless of the horrific consequences. Refugee flows, terrorism, and collapsing states are direct consequences of US policies that claim to defend “democratic values” but in practice defend oil wells, geopolitical interests, and the oligarchic financial elite’s insatiable appetite for power and profit.
Although the US empire is in crisis in many ways today, its war machine remains intact – and it is very active. Nor is it just a matter of rebels in Yemen or Somali Islamists being blown to death by US drones – vast resources are also being poured into enabling other states to kill.
50,000 tons of weapons to Israel
The US has also been instrumental in the Israeli genocide in Gaza, where extensive military, diplomatic, and economic support from Washington has effectively enabled the invasion and bombing. Estimates suggest that the US has delivered over 50,000 tons of weapons to Israel since October 2023 alone – including 15,000 bombs and 50,000 artillery shells – and despite Gaza lying in ruins with unimaginable consequences for the civilian population, the boundless support for the war seems never-ending.
Gaza lies in ruins today – largely thanks to American bombs. Photo: Al Araby/CC BY-SA 3.0
Although only about 4.2 percent of the world’s population lives in the US, it accounts for just over 37 percent of global military spending – far more than any other country, and this trend does not appear to be changing.
War is not an exception in US history, it is the norm.
Over the years, several analysts have pointed out that all it takes to challenge American imperialism is historical awareness – but popular resistance to militarism as a guiding ideology is also necessary. This resistance needs to be seen and heard not only in the rest of the world, but perhaps even more so among the American people.
Despite the enormous influence of American propaganda campaigns in US vassal states such as Sweden, the obvious cannot be denied. US history does not show how freedom has spread to the rest of the world – but rather how it has been crushed under the boots of the world’s most powerful military force. As long as lethal violence continues to be the US’s perhaps most important export, the world will remain an unstable and very dangerous place.
Surprising discoveries reveal more of the legend of King Arthur
A medieval fragment of Arthurian legends has been rediscovered – hidden in the binding of a 16th-century document from Cambridge University Library. The discovery sheds new light on the adventures of the wizard Merlin, as well as on the hidden secrets of European cultural heritage.
Two portraits of King Arthur on the left and in the center with three crowns clearly visible as his heraldic arms. On the right is the wizard Merlin, who has fallen hopelessly in love with the woman Viviane, who gave Arthur the sword Excalibur.
King Arthur, according to ancient texts, was a 6th century British leader who became legendary in the dramatic era after the Roman Empire lost its grip on Britain. The recovered text belongs to the Suite Vulgate du Merlin – a continuation of the folktales of King Arthur written down in the 13th century as part of the so-called Vulgate Circle – a medieval French prose cycle that includes the stories of the knight Lancelot, the Holy Grail and the wizard Merlin.
The Vulgate Circle consists of several linked knightly romances and stories about the Holy Grail, written in Old French. The authorship of these works is unknown, but there are strong indications that they were the result of collaboration between several scribes. The Suite Vulgate du Merlin is the second part of the cycle and describes the expansion of Arthur’s kingdom, the establishment of the first Knights of the Round Table and the emergence of the bard and seer Merlin as the king’s prophetic advisor. It acts as a bridge to the Lancelot part of the cycle, weaving Merlin into the story of the Holy Grail.
In their day, these stories were medieval bestsellers, distributed via hand-copied manuscripts. Today, fewer than 40 manuscripts of the Suite Vulgate du Merlin survive, and each one is unique because they were written by hand by different people.
The present fragment has been identified as having been written around 1275-1315 and is written in Old French, the language used by the aristocracy and court in England after the Norman Conquest. Small variations in the text – such as a mistake in the name of one of the characters – can help scholars trace its relationship to other versions.
The prose of the Arthurian legends was often aimed at a noble audience, and the decorative design of the manuscript suggests that this text was also intended for such a setting.
Amélie Deblauwe, photography technician at Cambridge, demonstrates the technique she used to document the invented manuscript, which we see rendered in 3D on the right. Photo: University of Cambridge
Medieval parchment reused as book covers
The fragment in question was discovered in 2019 during a re-cataloging of a 16th century register in Cambridge University Library. Among these documents was a court and land register from Huntingfield Manor in Suffolk. However, when researchers leafed through the worn volume, they discovered that the inside cover contained pages from a much older manuscript. The parchment had been reused and folded, cut and sewn into the binding.
At first, it was difficult to determine what the text was about. Researchers initially thought it was a 14th-century story about the knight Gawain, but on closer inspection, the library’s medieval specialist Dr. Irène Fabry-Tehranchi realized it was the Suite Vulgate du Merlin.
The text fragment contains two scenes. The first depicts a decisive battle between Britons and Saxons: the Battle of Cambénic, where King Arthur’s nephew Gawain fights alongside his father and defeats four Saxon kings. The second scene takes place at the court on Ascension Day, when Merlin appears disguised as a blind harpist. Among other things, the story clearly shows how magic, Christian symbolism and court etiquette were intertwined in the medieval imagination.
New technology revealed the text
Following the discovery, a collaboration between the library’s conservators and its Cultural Heritage and Image Laboratory (CHIL) began. The aim was to enable the text to be read without damaging the parchment. Using multispectral imaging, the researchers were able to photograph the text in different wavelengths, from ultraviolet to infrared light, to reveal faded and hidden areas. Minimal noise filtering was used to enhance weak layers of writing. Marginal notes and old stamps, such as those with the word “Huntingfield”, were thus brought out again.
To study the structure of the parchment, computerized tomography (CT) scanning was used, the same technique used in medicine and paleontology. By “X-raying” the bookbinding, the researchers were able to create a three-dimensional model of the folds, threads and layers of the parchment. Finally, hundreds of photographs were taken from different angles to create a digital model that allowed the sequence of the text to be followed – even where text was hidden under flaps or stitches. The result was a digital reconstruction where the handwriting could be analyzed as if it were unfolded.
This multispectral image, processed using the minimal noise method, reveals previously invisible notes in the margins – including the “Huntingfield” stamp from the 16th century, when the manuscript was reused as a book cover.
Using this arsenal of techniques, the researchers managed to recreate a text that has been hidden for over 500 years. For literary scholars, the discovery means that a new fragment of the Arthurian legend has become available for analysis, as well as a technical insight into how older manuscripts were reused and embedded in new volumes.
Dr. Irene Fabry-Tehranchi emphasizes that the project is not only about the discovery of a single text, but also about the development of a methodology to rediscover hidden fragments in archives in other parts of the world.
King Arthur's heraldic arms: Three crowns
King Arthur, like Sweden later, is portrayed with three crowns as one of his main features, which he is said to have worn on his heraldic arms (see main image). Whether there is any historical connection to Sweden's coat of arms is pure speculation, but the fact is that the origin of Sweden's crowns is still shrouded in historical obscurity. Three crowns have been traced back by historians to at least King Magnus Eriksson and the 1330s, some eight hundred years after the reign of King Arthur.
