Queen Silvia's claims earlier this year that her father was not "politically active" and that the factory he ran produced toy trains, hairdryers and parts for civilian gas masks. She also denied he had taken over the factory from its Jewish owners.

However, documents unearthed by Kalla facta in Berlin and South America show that Walther Sommerlath joined the Nazi party in Brazil in 1934 – only a year after Hitler took power.

They showed that he returned to Germany shortly before the Second World War broke out in 1939 and took over a previously Jewish-owned Berlin factory that had been "Aryanised" by the Nazis. He has been unmasked by an investigative television documentary as a Nazi party member who grew rich during the Second World War running an armaments factory that had been stolen from its Jewish owners.

Under Sommerlath's ownership, the plant produced tank parts, anti-aircraft guns and other items vital to the Nazi war effort.

When Silvia Sommerlath married Sweden's King Carl Gustav in 1976, Walther Sommerlath denied he had ever been a Nazi party member. A Swedish newspaper first revealed the fact in 2003, but the Queen flatly refused to respond to the disclosure at the time. She spoke for the first time about the subject in July this year, saying that although he joined the Nazi party, her father was neither politically active nor a soldier.

Last month the Swedish royal family's reputation as a model of regal respectability suffered its first devastating blow after a warts-and-all book exposed Queen Silvia's husband, 64-year -old King Carl VVI Gustav as a philanderer who attended wild sex parties abroad and in underworld Stockholm clubs while the secret police kept guard.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swedish-royal-family-hit-by-fresh-nazi-allegations-2148787.html

"Nazis in Sweden"

impeach the Nazi Queen and come clean! :lol:

So, the daughter is held culpable for the sins of the father?

(a daughter who was born in 1943 btw)

So, the daughter is held culpable for the sins of the father?

(a daughter who was born in 1943 btw)

Do you really think the Queen of Sweden with all the information services at her disposal did not know daddy was a Nazi?

After the release of the information, don't you think she should have made some attempt to compensate the Jews that her father took the factory away from?

Or at least an apology?

Or does royalty preclude those social responsibilities?

She got to the social status that allowed her to marry and become the Queen of Sweden because of daddies money that was earned making weapons for the Nazis in a factory stolen from Jews.

So, the daughter is held culpable for the sins of the father?

(a daughter who was born in 1943 btw)

Do you really think the Queen of Sweden with all the information services at her disposal did not know daddy was a Nazi?

After the release of the information, don't you think she should have made some attempt to compensate the Jews that her father took the factory away from?

Or at least an apology?

Or does royalty preclude those social responsibilities?

She got to the social status that allowed her to marry and become the Queen of Sweden because of daddies money that was earned making weapons for the Nazis in a factory stolen from Jews.

"Compenste '...the Jews ...'"? Which Jews?

An apology now, when the facts (?) are known - yes, good idea.

But this woman was born towards the end of the war - I don't know the history - and was probably told by her parents that they were nice people, not like those wicked Nazis. And she believed her parents, as would any normal child.

A proper investigation before her marriage to the King may have been the correct way to go, but obviously this did not happen. Is she to blame? What for? Believing her parents? Having a wealthy family? Marrying the King of another country?

Not in my book. Leave her alone to make the best she can of her life.

She cannot bring back to life those who died seventy years ago - she cannot give back factories that probably now do not exist.

She got to the social status that allowed her to marry and become the Queen of Sweden because of daddies money that was earned making weapons for the Nazis in a factory stolen from Jews.

no need for anybody to ridicule you for your postings. you do an excellent job yourself.

by the way, she was a hostess -employed by the Munich municipality- during the olympic games in 1972 when she met the swedish king. that she bribed the king with illgotten money from her daddy to marry her is :lol:

She got to the social status that allowed her to marry and become the Queen of Sweden because of daddies money that was earned making weapons for the Nazis in a factory stolen from Jews.

no need for anybody to ridicule you for your postings. you do an excellent job yourself.

by the way, she was a hostess -employed by the Munich municipality- during the olympic games in 1972 when she met the swedish king. that she bribed the king with illgotten money from her daddy to marry her is :lol:

Bribery is a stretch eh? I doubt if she would have gotten to meet the King being a farmer in Brazil. Daddies money allowed her the social graces and education to be attractive to a sophisticated man. Try posting something a response to something I actually write every now ant then.

She got to the social status that allowed her to marry and become the Queen of Sweden because of daddies money that was earned making weapons for the Nazis in a factory stolen from Jews.

no need for anybody to ridicule you for your postings. you do an excellent job yourself.

by the way, she was a hostess -employed by the Munich municipality- during the olympic games in 1972 when she met the swedish king. that she bribed the king with illgotten money from her daddy to marry her is :lol:

Bribery is a stretch eh? I doubt if she would have gotten to meet the King being a farmer in Brazil. Daddies money allowed her the social graces and education to be attractive to a sophisticated man. Try posting something a response to something I actually write every now ant then.

bravo! finally a logical conclusion as the Munich olympics were not held in Brazil.

illogical is the claim that in 1972 the 800 plus hostesses had to bribe the organising comittee with money from their daddies to get a job for two weeks.

keep up the good job amusing the readers of this thread and elaborate how money can buy social graces to attract sophisticated men

Why would the daughter of a rich former Nazi need a short term job at the Munich Olympics where, coincidentally, Jewish athletes were murdered?

Why would the daughter of a rich former Nazi need a short term job at the Munich Olympics where, coincidentally, Jewish athletes were murdered?

perhaps she belonged to the group of terrorists who murdered the jewish athletes?

by the way, the queen's father was not rich. he moved from Brazil to Germany in 1938 where he managed (not owned!) a company which was seized from jewish owners by the Nazi authorities in power and which indeed produced parts used for military purposes.

if the latter is a crime then what about the hundreds of U.S. managers who manage(d) companies which produce(d) weapons used in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

next!

Why would the daughter of a rich former Nazi need a short term job at the Munich Olympics where, coincidentally, Jewish athletes were murdered?

perhaps she belonged to the group of terrorists who murdered the jewish athletes?

by the way, the queen's father was not rich. he moved from Brazil to Germany in 1938 where he managed (not owned!) a company which was seized from jewish owners by the Nazi authorities in power and which indeed produced parts used for military purposes.

if the latter is a crime then what about the hundreds of U.S. managers who manage(d) companies which produce(d) weapons used in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

next!

I don't think the US government stole the companies from Jews and gassed them before the Americans took over the plants to make weapons.

Next

She got to the social status that allowed her to marry and become the Queen of Sweden because of daddies money that was earned making weapons for the Nazis in a factory stolen from Jews.

no need for anybody to ridicule you for your postings. you do an excellent job yourself.

by the way, she was a hostess -employed by the Munich municipality- during the olympic games in 1972 when she met the swedish king. that she bribed the king with illgotten money from her daddy to marry her is :lol:

Bribery is a stretch eh? I doubt if she would have gotten to meet the King being a farmer in Brazil. Daddies money allowed her the social graces and education to be attractive to a sophisticated man. Try posting something a response to something I actually write every now ant then.

bravo! finally a logical conclusion as the Munich olympics were not held in Brazil.

illogical is the claim that in 1972 the 800 plus hostesses had to bribe the organising comittee with money from their daddies to get a job for two weeks.

keep up the good job amusing the readers of this thread and elaborate how money can buy social graces to attract sophisticated men

The training of a woman to find a sophisticated man is not cheap. It is a long arduous and expensive process. It begins with languages in kindergarten and continues with scholarship in general. It includes but is not limited to singing, dancing and etiquette. Sometimes sailing, golf and horseback riding.

In the North of the US they call them “debuts.” In the South “cotillions.” The cost of the dresses alone is staggering.

My daughters spent summers in Europe to refine their language skills and general knowledge of the continent.

Apparently this segment of society is not known to you.

I assure you it exists and is very expensive to join and maintain ones membership.

The acquaintances one makes in high school and college last a lifetime and you must go to the proper schools. Join the proper sororities and fraternities and learn the basic social graces of the upper classes. These things are not cheap.

Regardless of your spurious arguments as to how her education was originally funded it is simply illogical to blame a child for the sins of their parents when the child took no part in it whatsoever. Suppose you are saying then that she should have walked away from her parents and lived in an orphanage or on the streets when she found out her father had managed a company during the war? goodness, there would certainly have been many homeless and parentless children if this is the solution.

Try an argument that carries some logic next time instead of this pathetic attempt that seeks to make a perpetrator out of a blameless person.

I really can't respond to the above two posts. Calling my daughters ugly and my reasoning pathetic are IMHO designed to provoke an inflammatory response.

If you all can't play nice and with at least a minimum of courtesy and respect I really don't want to get involved in a flame war. I don't think it is in the best interest of discussion.

Perhaps all should re read my original post, decipher its meaning and get back on topic.

One inflammatory post removed from view

it is simply illogical to blame a child for the sins of their parents when the child took no part in it whatsoever.

Tuu Tong!

That is of course 100% logical/correct

it is simply illogical to blame a child for the sins of their parents when the child took no part in it whatsoever.

Tuu Tong!

That is of course 100% logical/correct

I didn't think the child was being blamed for the sins, but blamed for denying them when as an adult the child surely knows about them.

I really can't respond to the above two posts. Calling my daughters ugly and my reasoning pathetic are IMHO designed to provoke an inflammatory response.

If you all can't play nice and with at least a minimum of courtesy and respect I really don't want to get involved in a flame war. I don't think it is in the best interest of discussion.

Perhaps all should re read my original post, decipher its meaning and get back on topic.

perhaps you should buy reading glasses or take a refresher course in grammar? unfortunately my posting containing "if your daughters were ugly before..." seems to have been removed by Rimmer and called "inflammatory" which i think was a shitty² action of an otherwise fair acting moderator!

reason: anybody will think it was indeed an inflammatory posting and cannot judge by him/herself.

The remark was insulting. There is no reason to bring someone's family into forum arguments. It should have been removed.

This woman should not be blamed because her father was a Nazi, but IMHO if she is denying his past, she deserves some flack for that.

Like I said before, if the topics turn to personal insults, and comments on moderation they're finished.