Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 2 June 2006

Terve! (Sain sähköpostisi mutta vastaan täällä jos sopii). The Continuation War article was under some dispute a while ago, but it seems that most of the people that worked on it before aren't interested anymore (I'am mostly on the finnish wikipedia nowadays). I think the article looks disgusting for the moment. So if you want to "fix" it then go right ahead! :)

About the Battles or Battle thing. I've seen both forms and don't really mind. I was going to write about it but the "Jatkosodan historia" had just _too_ much information about the subject. Your Battle of Tali-Ihantala seems like a good start! -- Jniemenmaa 10:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Soviet transitations

Ooops... The treaty didn't contain any provisions for troop and material transfer rights.

— I consider myself relatively well-versed with regard to the history of Independent Finland, but I must admit that I obviously must repeat the study of the Moscow Peace. Ouch! Back to the books!

It's good and important to be reminded of one's own's limits.

Thank you, thank you very much! /Tuomas 12:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it belongs to the treaty nobody can be proud of, at a time nobody can be proud of, so generally it is silently forgotten. And as I said, it is very common misbelief. I have done a lot of reading and research about interim peace and Continuation War during the last 10 months, and I try to sort it out in Continuation War bit by bit. Unfortunately I don't have time to do it all in a single shot. (One wife, two jobs and three children... Ya know...) but try to rush parts every few months. --Whiskey 14:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your additions are always of the greatest value — with regard to facts. But, pardon my French!, your last edit of the Continuation War article introduced a couple of grammatical errors and made the sentence less understandable - at least according to my judgement. What's your intention to express? I'm sorry, but this is one of the moments in my life when I truly regrett that I've never had any incentives to learn Finnish. :-( I wish I could have asked you to express yourself in your mother tongue! --Johan Magnus 14:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for my language! Well, German OKW/OKH and generals all the way understood the value of Finnish army and Finland as a base. Finnish army was tying at least 26 divisions, 5 armor brigades and 16 regiments and provided continuing threat to Leningrad and northern flank of Baltic front. So, military was practical and gave the material support when it was needed without any political connections. In fact, all necessary military aid was already in Finland or en route when Ribbentrop started pressuring the treaty from president Ryti. It was the Nazi political establishment, especially inside the Foreign ministry, which wanted to connect military aid to political concessions. Ryti and Mannerheim were in a position they didn't knew the internal balance between OKW and Wilhelmstrasse, and they couldn't take a chance that Foreign ministry could pressure Wehrmacht to withdraw it's support from Finland. That's why the distinction: Nazi leadership was not happy with separate war, Military leadership was only interested to use Finns to tie soviet resources and providing base for attacking Soviets, not some political treaty. Dr. Markku Jokisipilä has recently researched this area and written his doctorate thesis "Aseveljiä vai liittolaisia? Suomi, Hitlerin Saksan liittosopimusvaatimukset ja Rytin-Ribbentropin-sopimus." ("Brothers in arms or allies? Finland, alliance demands from Hitler's Germany and Ryti-Ribbentrop-treaty.") on this issue. --Whiskey 09:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

...so, it turns out that the only grammatical error was the absence of a "the". :-) I hope you don't dislike the slight reshuffling of words I did. The information above is, of course, as always!, interesting and relevant. I don't remember if there is a separate heading for the Ryti-treaty, but if not, I guess there ought to. :-) --Johan Magnus 16:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Petsamo

I've added Jäniskoski to the map. Take a look and tell me if something is incorrect. -- Jniemenmaa 13:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop

I replied in the discussion area of Talk:Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. I don't believe this supposed "secret pact" ever took place, it's nowhere in the 7 articles of the pact. You can feel free to post *sources* that claim there was a secret pact if you want, but I will note in the article that there is a countervailing view that there was no such pact. For instance, Molotov himself denied to his death that such a pact ever took place (Molotov Remembers) Ruy Lopez 01:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And Molotov should be credible? The joke of the year! /Tuomas 06:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And with regards to 'true communist' Lopez, wasn't it Special Commission of Soviet Congress of People's Deputies (participated by top Soviet officials such as Yakovlev, foreign misister of Ukrianan SSR etc) that confirmed the existence of the secret protocols that were all put into effect precisely as proposed on the paper? A forgery fabricated by traitors in the highest level (a Moscow trial would have cleaned those reborn traitors of Soviet cause...), n'est pas? Constanz - Talk 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuation War

A minor point, but nevertheless a point, with your change of the article is that, as I read the text, your version seems to stress a Finnish seeking of German "friendship" after the fall of France, when Tuomas' version (ehrm... "my previous version" maybe) stresses the experience of the Winter War. As I read the text, I believe Tuomas' version is more in accordance with what I've learned and read before. That can be totally wrong of course, as Swedish (and English) accounts on the Continuation War have usually a basic critical tendency, that may well give the reader exaggerated impressions, but Witting and Kivimäki had begun their work weeks and months before the Fall of France, hadn't they?

Well, I mostly object the word "immediately". Finland turned towards Scandinavia and Britain immediately after the Winter War, not Germany. It is although correct, that Finland tried to be pleasent to everyone, but like in the selection of the new cabinet, when Finlands ambassador in London, G.A. Gripenberg was the first choise, but he refused because he considered his selection too biased against Germany. You remember that Ryti himself was widely known from his anglophilism, only after the war he was branded as supporter of Germany.

Witting was unfortunate selection, that's true. He was considered good man to deal with Soviets, but his antipathy towards Sweden and lack of diplomatic skills necessary to handle British and German relations provided too great burden to Finland. Especially Paasikivi was extremely scathing when talking about him.

Kivimäki was late addition, as he did go to Berlin only in June 1940. Naturally his selection would have happened before that, but how much earlier? I don't have any source available right now.

I'd say the turning point is the occupation of Norway and Denmark, which made clear that there is no hope to get British support to Finland and made Swedish position extremely difficult. After that more energy was put to Germany than to Britain. Naturally rumours of British surrender intensified these efforts, not started, but intensified.

I wrote the rant above before I'd read your arguments at the article's talk page. Shame on me!

Anyway. It seems as you are the most knowledgeable on the subject, why I do not dare to change the article before I've seen your next response, but wouldn't you agree that seeking a more favorable attitude from Ribbentrop was a chief Finnish objective immediately after the Winter War, however one of several key policies where relations to Sweden/Norway and to the United Kingdom, and actually also to the Soviet Union, were others that however became obsoleted one after another until only the German rapprochement remained an option?

--Johan Magnus 21:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

German attitude towards Finland was a shock, and Finnish government did start initiatives to improve relations, but I wouldn't say that it was among chief objectives until late April. Otherwise I think you are correct.

From most knowledgeable I'd say that I have perhaps the best collection of sources available. I have the fortune of being interested in history as well as my brother and father, and as my father lives only 3 km from my home, it is very easy to raid his library every now and then.;-) Together we have more than 40 books (very conservative estimate) on issue including biographies of almost every military and political player on Finnish side. That said, I confess my lack of Swedish and most British and US sources. Also Soviet sources are mostly unavailable, although I have been able to access some sources translated to English or Finnish.Whiskey 12:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

;-) Since we are at the self-confessional stage, I feel it might be appropriate to give you some info:

• I'm born in 1963. I grew up in close contacts with my grand-parents' generation. One great-uncle had perceived it as his duty (particularly after the "shameful" statsrådsdiktamen) to receive a war-child from Finland, which after all was rather unusual in Scania, there increasingly disappointed alienation dominated the perception of Finland since the Civil War. His brother-in-law, my grandfather, was a Communist turned Liberal, who had been a ship's officer but left the sea shortly before the war. Their accounts of the war, and the political history surrounding it, has made a considerable impression on me.
• Not so few of my relatives were born in that part of Karelia that was lost in 1940. Many ended up in Sweden. They didn't arrive at once. The first came in 1941, the last in 1986, and some have moved inbetween several times. Also their accounts of the war has made a certain impression on me.
• This has made it natural for me to read virtually all books on Finland's 20th century history, that I've seen (not that I've seen that many), but this has been a long process starting in my teens. Today, I've sincere problems to know what of my beliefs are based on elderly relatives' accounts or on things that I've read in different books that might, or might not, be more or less credible.
• Swedes and Scanians are not considerably interested in Finland. The lack of balance is striking between general knowledge on Sweden in Finland, and the lack of knowledge on Finland in Sweden. Scania, as being most distantly located from Finland, is no exception — rather the contrary. For being a Scanian, I might consider myself unusually interested and informed on matters of Finland's history and contemporary society, but that's easy when there is no competition.
  ;->
• For some years, I was one of the active contributors in a usenet newsgroup, soc.culture.nordic, when that still had serious and witty content beside the increasing amounts of brainless stupidity. Some traces thereof can still be found at http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/. Still today, I read contributions by Jussi Jalonen with great benefit. Almost a decade of experience of his writings has given me the greatest respect, and shamelessly I'm prepared to plagiate facts and statements given by him without ever considering the posibility they might be false. However, if challenged, I guess you'll see me back down without any hesitation.

--Johan Magnus 18:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added some explanation and did reorganizing in that area. Is it closer what you think this way?

It wasn't that bad before, either, but yes, at the moment it looks fine to me! --Johan Magnus 18:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still find it lacking somewhat in censorship area. Do you have any sources how anti-German articles were censored at that time? I have the feeling that about all censored products were "anti-Soviet" (like "Kollaa kestää" ("Kollaa holds on"), which only described very realistically fight of the Finnish unit in Ladoga Karelia against Soviets in Winter War.8-)) until the late autumn. Only after the German troop transit treaty and especially after Petsamo crisis in February 1941 anti-German censorship started in real.Whiskey 19:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I've no such sources at hand. Swedish language accounts that I've read (like quoted reports from Karl Ivar Westman and other diplomats in Helsinki) report effects and were no comprehensive investigations focused on censorship with access to governmental archives in Finland. I'm sure such exist too, although most probably printed in Finnish and thus unaccessable for me. --Johan Magnus 18:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was more like self-censorship: Soviet Union continued pressuring aggressively and it was right on the other side of the border. Nazi Germany was far away on the other side of the Baltic. The media was ready to omit German flaws by itself in hope to gain counterweight to Soviet Union so there was no need for anti-German censorship. The situation was totally different in Sweden, where German threat was more serious but neither of those two aggressively pressured Swedish government in a way Soviets did to Finland so there was no such urgency to the counterweight. This self-censorship was peculiar because it was common from right to left: even radical left refrained from most pointing criticism of Germany because of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But the effects were truly the same as anti-German opinions had been censored. Whiskey 15:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not at all proposing to introduce the following in the article, but what would you say about describing leading Finns of 1940-41 as being in resonance with eachother, thus enhancing a concensus stating that a certain amount of adaption to the "New Germany" was necessary. (Although surely important, not to give in more than necessary.) A resonance that influenced most leading Finns, regardless of if politicians, news paper editors, industrialists, militaries or other professionals, but maybe not "the six", and maybe Paasikivi in Moscow less than others. A resonance that wasn't in harmony with the sentiments in Stockholm, and even less with those in London.

Swedish semi-censorship was very much based on appeals to editors, asking them to consider the National Interest. ...and some (in Berlin clearly noticed) editors didn't agree that it was in the Swedes' national interest to refrain from criticism of Hitlerism. ...actually, I've always suspected that Nazi Germany had more actual suporters in Sweden than in Finland, despite these supporters weren't interested in introducing Nazism in Sweden, which may be one reason why there also were some notable opponents. There can be plenty of arguements both for and against, but I guess I will never learn the truth about that.

--Johan Magnus 15:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neither am I proposing that to article with my current knowledge on issue. Eljas Erkko, chief editor (and owner) of "Helsingin Sanomat" and Finnish ambassador in Stockholm in summer 1940 wrote to one of his reporters demanding him to tone down his writings. The issue needs more actual information.

Paasikivi wasn't out of that resonance even when he was in Moscow, as he wrote to his diary already at 10 April 1940: "Most important is working relationship with closest major power, Soviet Union. In the second place comes Germany regardless if there is empire (Kaiser), Weimar republic or Hitler's dictatorship. More distant Britain, France -and even more distant- United States are far less important." (Translation mine) But Paasikivi considered himself old germanophile(?).Whiskey 22:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have I told you, that your contributions are great? Hmmm..., maybe I have not. OK, better late than sorry:

Your contributions are GREAT.

I'm currently reading up on Karl Ivar Westman. I intend to cover his career as a whole, however of course with focus on his "accomplishments" in Helsinki, which was the most notable role he played in his career. I hope you'll fill up on details.

/Tuomas 10:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll watch Westman and if I find anything I can comment, I'll do. --Whiskey 23:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Witting

I intend to adjust and extend your addition to the article. Possibly, but not necessarily, it might turn out that our sources (and/or our interpretation of the reasons why Ryti proposed his name after Gripenberg had declined) disagree. In order to avoid unneccessary misunderstandings and bad feelings, let me better sooner than later state my background sentiments and bias to the issue:

I come from a family, where Paasikivi's mission to Stockholm and Ryti's (de facto) selection of Witting are often considered Finland's two single greatest foreign policy mistakes during all times. While the Paasikivi-failure is unproblematic and not much to speak of, as soon as facts are established, I've listened to plenty of endless late night discussions between (chiefly) elderly male relatives who have proposed what Ryti could have thought of (or not thought of) when chosing someone who from the start was designed to cause problems in the relations to Russia (without any doubt), with the western democracies in general (due to his association with the Lapua-ideas), and to Scandinavia in particular (due to his contempt for "red" Sweden — as that country had developed).

Witting might be disdained as a cause of much of Finland's misfortunes, but after all, it was pretty clear for Ryti, Mannerheim, Walden, Tanner, Hakkila, Linkomies, and others with similar influence what kind of man he was and what he represented. Thus, the blame is not to be thrown on Witting for doing exactly what he could be expected to do, but on Ryti for proposing and (effectively) selecting him in the first run, and even more so when after the first autumn of the Continuation War, not replacing him after the British declaration of War, which of course could be blamed on Mannerheim, but after all was a general failure of the foreign ministry. USA's formal entry in the war, and the obvious failure of the Wehrmacht's Blitzkrieg plans only increased the urgency of the matter.

...so far the line of thoughts I'm brought up with.

I might also add, for clarification of another of my biases, that I view the controversies between advocates of driftwood-theory and revanchist-theory as soon ripe for a (dialectic) synthesis.

So you see, that not the least your statement "intelligent and capable negotiator" "considered extremely important" "negotiations were anticipated with the Soviet Union" "became a burden" "Sweden and Germany", strikes me as interesting. Do you have any sources for (Ryti's?) assessment of his qualities for negotiations with the Russians? I see no particular reason to put a source in the visible text, but maybe in a comment! I also wonder from where you have it that he anyhow became a burden in relations to Germany. In most cases, I've learned to respect your proposals, but this I can't help to question. ...and of course, he was in no way unexperienced of the foreign ministry, for which he'd been the deputy chief in Kivimäki's cabinet of 1933-36 (the article says 1934-36, I think I'll have to check the sources...).

I hope I don't trouble you too much!

/Tuomas 17:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

— BTW: I've exams early in January, and don't know how much time I'll spend with other things until then, but it's likely that I try to use Misplaced Pages as a (dangerous) means for relaxation.

I told some issues in Talk:Rolf Witting, but it was Kyösti Kallio (discussion with Artturi Leinonen), Edwin Linkomies, Paasikivi and Väinö Voionmaa who has the opinions along this line. --Whiskey 23:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Refutes democratic war theory?

I'm looking on from the stand, but it seems as you manage it much, much better than I would have! Nice to see! :-) /Tuomas 21:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Winter War

I don't think there is much I can add to this discussion, but it gives me sort of a bad conscience seing you doing all the work... Please tell if there is anything you really think I could do for you! :-)

BTW: Maybe you could take a look at this saunalahti-user's edit of Finlandization too?

--Ruhrjung 16:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to jump into the frying pan! :-) I don't own the article, and if you think something, feel free to participate. - But no pressure, I think I can handle this one. ;-)

The modifications what were done were quite to the safe side. I'll have to think about them more closely, but unfortunately I don't have time to do additional edits before next sunday. --Whiskey 23:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You cant delete that study, if you have another study that says something diffrent then put it in their and source it just as this study has been sourced. (Deng 21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Vyborg

OK, I am persuaded by your arguments that Vyborg may do without detailed explanation as to which action of the Finns caused the deadliest siege in history. By the way, write something about yourself on your userpage. You've been a long time around, it is not good that your name remains a red link. --Ghirla 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries

But I only did about half ;) (Deng 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC))

Winter War

Kurt is messing up your numbers and he the whole article. He believes that Finalnd is a part of scandinavia, so go to the article and source your numbers. (Deng 07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Apple pie

Dont remove just add. And everything will be just fine, removeing is bad adding is good and apple pie is great ;) (Deng 12:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC))