A few months after completing his MA thesis about the negotiations between Hitler and Chamberlain in 1938, Henrik read a long article in the Norwegian Labour Party daily, reflecting George Kennan's view that one could not compare Reagan vs. Andropov to Hitler vs. Chamberlain.
Since this was the first and last opportunity to exploit his knowledge, Henrik wrote a letter to the editor, claiming that there were certain similarities after all. In his letter there was one subordinate clause about the Norwegian labour Prime Minister in 1940, head of a government which hardly bothered to prepare for a possible war, to say the least; and another subordinate clause mentioning the Stalin-Hitler non-aggression treaty.
A few days later, the paper's external affairs editor wrote a long article attacking Henrik, accusing him of "vulgar propaganda". Some Norwegians have a few holy political cows.
One month later, a five column article appeared in the same paper, with the title "Don't blaspheme, Wigestrand". The author was V. Ledovyj, editor of the Novosty press agency in Moscow. ("Blasphemy" in the secular Soviet state seemed to be synonymous to offending the Soviet Union.)
Editor Ledovyj placed Henrik in the same league as Hitler and Goebbels, and added a few other compliments. This is an extract of his article:
Whether Mr Henrik Wigestrand likes it or not, the times are changing.
...
One cannot disregard Mr Wigestrand's malicious attacks on my country and my
people. I have no intention of lowering myself to your base argumentation, dubious
comparisons and historical falsifications. But ut of pure humane motives, I
want to call on Mr Wigestrand not to blaspheme. Your article is a a grave insult
to the Soviet Union who lost 20 million people in the fight against Hitler,
including the liberation of your country. Don't you dare step on the graves
of my and your compatriots who gave their life in the struggle to liberate our
two countries from Hitlerism.
...
In your article you raise doubts about whether the Soviet people "because
of censorship" have the opportunity to learn how genuine an "enemy"
actually is, but using your own arguments and distortions in the best Goebbels
fashion, you conclude that unfortunately it is genuine.
...
Some people, including Hitler, have tried this before you.
Henrik did not reply. Not that he is typically subordinate, but if a subordinate clause can cause this much uproar, one may as well refrain. Political scientists still disagree as to whether it was Henrik's restraint that helped the world avoid a World War 3.
