Unusual question involving WW2 and Finland

[swreckie]

Hmm.

International treaties (in Finnish)

Asetus Suomen ja Sosialististen Neuvostotasavaltain Liiton, Yhdistyneen Kuningaskunnan, Austraalian, Etelä-Afrikan Unionin, Intian, Kanadan, Tsekkoslovakian, Ukrainan Sosialistisen Neuvostotasavallan, Uuden Seelannin sekä Valko-Venäjän Sosialistisen Neuvostotasavallan välisen rauhansopimuksen voimaansaattamisesta.

Countries mentioned above: Finland and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, Australia, Union of South Africa, India, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, New Zealand, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic.

As I know, the war status never undeclared between Finland and Germany, after the Lapland War.

[Joona]

Truble is what ever cuntry makes war films it nly gloryfy its own side and not say about the peple and cuntrys dragged into it .As i see it if yu tried remain nutral you been attacked by Russia and Germany and unlike England you havdn't channel to stop them

Whoa. Some typos there. Never mind, I do em myself when totally wankered. Anyways, I suggest you do watch the Unknown Soldier. Either the fifties version or the eighties version. Both are good movies in their own way, and make very clear what was the attitude of the Finnish warrior fighting as much his own superiors as the godless heathen Russians.

If you find it hard to get, I can maybe help you, but in private mail only.

Joona

[Joona]

As I know, the war status never undeclared between Finland and Germany, after the Lapland War.

I am not sure, but the urban legend goes we are still at war with the United States.

Nuke the bastards!

Joona

[Salmar80]

The Finnish war lit and movies have a tendency to focus on the Finnish side, but they always carefully avoid glorifying anything. There are no recent "Finnish Hero" stories around. Instead, most characters are tragic in one or more aspects and are usually reluctant to kill, the stories avoid dehumanizing the enemy, and the prevailing spirit is 'fighting is something we had to do, since we were given no choice'.

I recommend the book 'Unknown Soldier' by Väinö Linna, and recent movies "Ambush" ('Rukajärven Tie') and Russian film "The Cuckoo" ('Käki').

[Jarmo Puskala]

The Finnish war lit and movies have a tendency to focus on the Finnish side, but they always carefully avoid glorifying anything. There are no recent "Finnish Hero" stories around. Instead, most characters are tragic in one or more aspects and are usually reluctant to kill, the stories avoid dehumanizing the enemy, and the prevailing spirit is 'fighting is something we had to do, since we were given no choice'.

Well, that is the Finnish hero. Finnish heroes tend to be at least very reluctant heroes, often even anti-heroes. For example of all the Disney characters Donald Duck is the most popular in Finland.

I recommend the book 'Unknown Soldier' by Väinö Linna, and recent movies "Ambush" ('Rukajärven Tie') and Russian film "The Cuckoo" ('Käki').

I've never been as disappointed in a Finnish film as I was after seeing Ambush. It wasn't a finnish war movie, it was an imitation of an American war movie done with a very tiny budget.

[shadow11]

I just had a crazy thought today, did the German forces based in Finland consider their actions as a part of the larger World War?
I highly doubt they saw themselves as fighting a separate war in Finland. However, do they consider the Lapland War separate from the rest of the World War?

[Ainur]

I just had a crazy thought today, did the German forces based in Finland consider their actions as a part of the larger World War?
I highly doubt they saw themselves as fighting a separate war in Finland. However, do they consider the Lapland War separate from the rest of the World War?

Hi, this is my first post on this forum, I couldn't stay away from this interesting topic.

You are right in your assumption that the Germans didn't buy the idea of a separate war in 1941-1944. For Hitler, every nation that joined the battle against the Soviet Union was a propaganda victory. For the Finnish government, on the other hand, it was important to give the Western Allies a different impression, and they constantly refused to sign any official agreement with the Germans that would have settled the status of their relationship on paper. It was quite embarrassing for them that Hitler insisted on speaking of Finland as an ally, which Finland was de facto, but not de jure. Historian Markku Jokisipilä has written extensively about this, mainly in Finnish, however.

The Continuation War is very interesting in many ways, because there were Jewish soldiers in the Finnish army who thus had to fight side by side with Germans, often in direct contact (because Finnish Jews often knew German and could serve as translators). Three Finnish Jews (afaik) were awarded a German Iron Cross for their efforts (saving German lives as medics for example), but they all refused to receive it. There were very few problems between Germans and Finnish Jews in the Continuation War. In a few rare cases, a Jew asked for transfer to avoid serving with Germans, and their wishes were respected by the Finnish superiors. If you look closely at the situation of the Finnish Jews during the Second World war, I think you will understand something about Finland's unique situation.

http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=194

Others might know more about the Lapland war, but from what I've seen, the Finnish and German forces didn't face off immediately, but the Finns had to be threatened several times by the Soviets to speed up the expulsion of the Germans. After the Finns started getting serious in their pursuit, the Germans began to use the burned earth tactic - because they expected the Red Army to follow, and they wanted to destroy as much as they could before the Russians arrived. I think this is a clear sign that the Germans saw the Lapland War as a part of the greater struggle against the USSR. I doubt that the Germans expected Finland to remain independent. But this is just my guess... Any thoughts?

[Jarmo Puskala]

http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=194

Yours was a very interesting post. I've not heard the "Jewish question" discussed in Finland at all, except for the single case of 8 Jews being deported to Germany, something that's considered a stain in Finnish history.

Then again, we don't really care rats ass about ones religion here, as long as it's not very evident in their everyday lives. Then it might get noticed.

[Joutilas]

Now that Jarmo mentioned the finish warcrimes I think that it we should look at other warcrimes commited by the finns during WWII. These are subjects that are constantly understated even disregarded in the finish history books.
In the first two weeks of winter war the deat-rate of Russian prisoners of war in finish camps was actually allmost as high as the death rate in Auschwitz. (Somewhere around 70 pro cent if I remember correctly.) After those two weeks the deat rate decreased down to a much more normal leve and if you look at a statistic tha concist the whole WWII era it doesn't look that horryfying. Still this is something that is newer mentioned in the finish school books.
And then we get to the contunational war. When I first heard of this I was shocked. Finns had concentration camps in Karelia. about 24 000 russian were put to these camps. About 40% of the non finish population of the area. Since most of the working age population was listed in the red army or was transfered to work in the factories in east, most of the prisoners were children and elderly people. I must emphasise that these camps weren't extermination camps or labour camps like the ones germans had.
It is estimated that 4500-8000 died in the camps. Most of them died from hunger but there were also maltreat.
These things are something that we finns have allways shut our eyes from. I think that we should come clean with our history and face the sins we commited during the wars.
And lastly I want to emphasise that I'm not an expert of this subject there may be inaccuracys and if you know more about the subject please tell me about it.

There were couple of articles about this subject in wikipedia (In finish):


http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keskitysleiri

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomalaiset_keskitysleirit_toisen_maailmansodan_aikana

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koveron_keskitysleiri

[Laurentius]

Depends on the history books you read. I remember that both in junior high and senior high this was discussed in the history lesson.

In any given war, all sides usually commit war crimes. To think that Finns could not commit war crimes is self-delusion - just look at the 1918 civil/freedom/class/whatever war, what both sides did to fellow Finns, given the slightest opportunity and motivation. Just give a gun and a licence to kill to a big number of people, tell them to start shooting, and things will start happening, no matter what. The extent, amount, and severity varies, of course, and whether you have orders to avoid or actively engage in massacres, but war crimes will still happen.

In running concentration camps, Finland was not - could not have been - an isolated case. Ever since the Britons had invented them during the Boer Wars, everyone used to run concentration camps (original name meaning "isolation camp for non-combatants", versus the "extermination camp" it has come to mean after WW2) during wartime for potentially hostile population, so why would not Finns?

There was a partial justification to the camps themselves (not the initial conditions therein) in suppressing commando/guerilla activity in the occupied territory by isolating the potential supporters.

Running an isolation camp at wartime is not a war crime by itself, but keeping inhuman conditions therein is. While Finland was co-belligerent (not allied, remember) with Germany, the extremist fringe got to have their 15 minutes of fame and started to advocate that Karelia would be much better off without Russian population...

I remember reading from somewhere that after the Brits (whom we were officially at war during the Continuation War) had complained about the conditions, the mortality rate in the camps dropped to about the same level as in the rest of Finland (and lower than had been under the Soviet rule in peacetime!). For some reason, the Soviets did not bother complaining (having run the Gulag in peacetime already).

As for the POW camps, considering the feelings of the population during the first weeks of Winter War, it is not surprising at all that the welfare of Russian prisoners was not exactly very high on the priority list. Bitterness and sense of injustice tends to breed hate and anger, and then things usually get out of hand. After the realization that by treating the prisoners nicely the Red Army could perhaps be demoralized, things changed.

Anyway, after the war, people with anti-Soviet stance would not speak of bad conditions at prisoner camps (civilian or POW), because Soviets were t3h eevul and we could not do anything wrong. Pro-Soviet camp would not speak of those either, since someone would then bring up Soviet war crimes - which could not exist by definition, since the Soviet Union could not do anything wrong. For the same reasons, the Soviets kept quiet - in their concept of realpolitik war was a nasty business where gruesome things took place anyway, and again, digging into old things would start unnecessary questions about their own deeds.

[Joutilas]

Yeas it is delusion to think that finns coudn't commit war crimes but this is the general belief among finns. I'm not denying that these things aren't discussed in schools or among historians but my point is that generaly most finns think that we did nothing wrong during the wars and at the same time are quick to turn their finger to poin Russians or Germans or Americans or anybody else.
Of coarse if you compare finish war crimes to the ones commited by Germany or Soviet Union they are nothing, but that doesen't mean that therefore it isn't important to recognise them.
I may have litle exaggerated that this would be an issue that is covered up in Finland. Of coarse all this stuff is mentioned in some history books and studies. But for example in school books there is very often very litle or not very spesific information about these things. For instance the history book that we are using at the moment in my senior high has about seven sentences about this subject and nothing is mentioned about how many died or what brutalities took place.
As for the POW-camps those conditions make the treatment of Russian soldiers understandable but they dont justify it.
The situation in finnlad has some similarities to the situation in Japan. All the horrible stuff that they did is mentioned in history books, but still kids don't think that grandpa could have done somethig bad.

[Joutilas]

And I want to emphasise that I'm not in any way comparing finish war crimes to the ones commited by the japanise. Those guys did some freaky shit.

[Laurentius]

Of course not. And I am not defending wrongdoings, even though I now realize it might have sounded like that. What I tried to point out was that it was simple utilitarianism that limited Finnish war crimes, not moral superiority. It was simply more beneficial for Finland to restrain than encourage them; given another set of conditions, completely opposite could have happened.

There was genuine support among the common folk - not just among the ultra-nationalists - to avenge what the Soviet Union had done in Winter War to any Russian, and it was up to the policymakers to control this attitude. In the case that Germany did not take over the entire world, we would have to manage with the rest of the world, which would have been a bit difficult if we had actively engaged in mass extermination.

Case in point - at first, the concentration camp administration fell into the hands of hard-line nationalists, who selected their "own men" to run the camps. Thus the high mortality. After foreign complaints, conditions improved only after moderate individuals were introduced in the camp administration (and staff). A good "what if" question is, what would have happened, if there had not been any complaints.

[Drakon]

Case in point - at first, the concentration camp administration fell into the hands of hard-line nationalists, who selected their "own men" to run the camps. Thus the high mortality. After foreign complaints, conditions improved only after moderate individuals were introduced in the camp administration (and staff). A good "what if" question is, what would have happened, if there had not been any complaints.

This is one side of the question, and it is certainly true. The others, of course, were the adverse situation Finland was put into and also poor military planning.

Trade-wise, Finland was seriously cut off from the world market. During the winter of 1941 -the period of freakishly high mortality at Finnish POW camps- the food situation in Finland was catastrophic all around, not just in the camps. For example, elderly people and hospital patients were dying of famine amongst the civilian population. This explains, even if it does not justify, the fact that only light food rations were originally available for the captured Russians.

In terms of the number of captured Soviet soldiers, the Carelian offensive had been more successful than anticipated. The Finnish POW administration was not ready to handle the amount of prisoners put into the camps. At first, many camps had little more than tents or cardboard huts to shelter people from the harsh winter weather.

To top it all, because of the dismal conditions in the Red Army many of the captured Russians were already malnourished and suffered from several ailments, including dysentery. When they were put into camps with inadequate shelter and poor food rations, the diseases spread and the situation deteriorated fast. When the idiotic decision to put them into hard work was carried out, people started dying like flies.

So the Finnish POW camps were in the first part of the Continuation War in military terms a Grade A clusterfuck, where malicious ideology, ignorance, bad planning and bad luck created hellish conditions. After 1942 the situation was a lot better, as Laurentius wrote partly due to foreign attention (which led to improvements by the High Command), partly because of a better food situation. In the end also the urge to make amends with the winning Soviets helped to make the camps exceptionally humane, that is by Eastern Front standards...

[Joutilas]

Trade-wise, Finland was seriously cut off from the world market. During the winter of 1941 -the period of freakishly high mortality at Finnish POW camps- the food situation in Finland was catastrophic all around, not just in the camps. For example, elderly people and hospital patients were dying of famine amongst the civilian population. This explains, even if it does not justify, the fact that only light food rations were originally available for the captured Russians.

To top it all, because of the dismal conditions in the Red Army many of the captured Russians were already malnourished and suffered from several ailments, including dysentery. When they were put into camps with inadequate shelter and poor food rations, the diseases spread and the situation deteriorated fast. When the idiotic decision to put them into hard work was carried out, people started dying like flies.

This was actually something I did not know. And this explains very well the
Mortality rate during Continuatin war but I was talking about the first two weeks of winter war. I don't think that just the bad food situation or bad hygiene could explain the mortality rate. I mean the whole war lasted only three months.