Russian Winter War pictures

[Sergei]

I scanned these photos or drawings from a Russian book. The page is image heavy. The captions are in Russian, but if you have questions, I can help translate them.

Winter War from the Soviet perspective

[Shmavis]

You're Finnish, right? You may have been asked this question a thousand times, but do most Finns even care about losing Karelia anymore? I'm just curious.

[Kaiser Soze 71]

Originally posted by Shmavis:

but do most Finns even care about losing Karelia anymore? I'm just curious.

I'm a Finn. For me, it seems that most of the Finns doesn't even want Karelia back (including me). But there are also quite a lot of people who thinks differently. I would say the numbers are something like 70% are saying no and 30% are saying yes. Not a fact, just my feeling.

Why I don't want Karelia back?

[politics]

Nowdays, Karelia is pretty much a wasteland. There lives approx. 1M Russians. So, if we get Karelia back, we cannot force those 1M Russians away from their homes, so they would come with Karelia. Now we got 1M extra Russians in Finland, which would be a big problem. Unemployment numbers are already pretty high in here, so then it would explode in to our hands. And why that 1M Russians would continue to live in Karelia, when they have a chance to move in to everywhere in Finland.

And besides, if we could get Karelia back without the people (still no thanks), I don't believe the Finns who lived in Karelia would ever move back there.[/politics]

That was politics. I'm not against Russians. Actually I have 2 friends from the former Soviet Union. The other is from Petroskoi and the other is from Lvov (Ukraine). They both live in Finland and the other speaks incredibly well Finnish.

[ July 03, 2005, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Kaiser Soze 71 ]

[Shmavis]

Thanks. Like I said, I'm just curious as to how some Finns feel about that particular topic as I've been doing some reading on the whole Russo-Finnish conflict.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Was there a reason the Russians wanted Karelia in the first place?

Cheers

Paul

[Sergei]

Well, of course Finns care about the event of losing Karelia (about 13% of land area was lost), but now it's part of the past and we have to concentrate on living on the territory that we possess - the population is concentrating more and more into big cities while the countryside withers away. But let's not get drifted too far...

Stalin was keen to expand Soviet territory westward during this period. First, he had to prepare for the 'inevitable' attack by the capitalists and fascists, of which Germans were the greatest threat at the moment. Secondly, it had just become possible thanks to Britain and France having become unable to help others than themselves. Ultimately, Stalin dreamed that the western powers would bleed themselves out (as predicted by Lenin et al), at which point they'd be ripe for revolution - if not otherwise, then for a revolution helped by Red Army.

Within a short period of time USSR annexed Moldavia (from Romania), eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and tried to occupy Finland but had complications with that and had to do with moving the border further from Leningrad and Murmansk railroad. They also got some very good industrial plants and farmlands from the area (Soviet industries were rather primitive, and collectivization had sapped food production). As a downside, they gave Germany another friend.

[annihilate_this_week]

I know this book, seems pretty decent.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i think 95% of Finns don't care about lost Karelian territories. it's pretty much just wasteland and Finnish companies do forestry (the only real business to do over there) over the border anyway. not to mention that most of Finland itself is uninhabitated to the point of being economic burden.

the ethnicity of the population of lost territories is not really a problem. quite a portion of them are Finns and Karelians (Finns) by ethnicity. and getting back the lost territory would not "unite Finns" anyway, as Finnic territories spread further East past the lost parts of Karelia. furthermore Russians already are by far the largest immigrant group in Finland.

[Dandelion]

Ok. Karelia was no big deal then.

How do Finns feel about the loss of Petsamo, with the ice-free harbour (the sole Northern harbour of Finland) and wealth of raw material (I am thinking principally about Nickel), a growing tourist industry by the early 30s and a hydroelectric plant providing much of Northern Finland with power?

A curious

Dandelion

[Molotov Cocktail]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Ok. Karelia was no big deal then.

It was big deal, when it happened, I mean when after Winter War 1939-1940 we lost the Karelian Isthmus. Why? we were still independent Because quite big proportion of population lived in that are. It felt so unfair that we fought like lions still we were forced to give Karelia to soviets in a war which was started by soviets.

In Karelia there was Finland's second largest city Viipuri. Viipuri was only city where they spoke 4 languages finnish, swedish (also official language), german (hanseatic traditions),russian (quite near Russia).

It was place where Elias Lönnrot our national poet collected folk poems and compiled and edited them to Kaleval national epic (By the way Heinrich Himmler liked Kalevala, He liked that kind of nordic stuff, allthough we finns were not ideal nordics for nazis).

So it had also nationalistic meaning for finns.

And most importantly it was very traumatic for people who forced to leave their homes and farms.

Finnish goverment had to found to new farms for karelians from other parts of Finland.

So we were eager to join Nazi Germany because wanted to take lost territories back in Continuation War 1941-1944. During the war we had Karelian isthmus again and also we occupied the East Karelia which was not before part of independent Finland.In Karelian Ishmus they spoke Karelian dialect and in East Karelia they spoke Karelian language (related to finnish). 1944 we again lost Karelian isthmus and that time also Petsamo.

Petsamo was not so big deal why?

First Petsamo was not before 1920 Tarto peace treaty part of Finland. Tarto peace treaty was signed in Estonian town of Tarto by Finland and Soviet Russia. In that treaty Soviet Russia gave Petsamo to Finland which already czar Alexander had promised to annex to Finland in 1860's.

Because the Petsamo are in the far north was largely uninhabited area arctic tundra. Petsamo's indigenous people were Kolta Sami (lappish people), they are not finns, although their language is related to finns.

So from that area after Continuation war or Lapland war there was no mass exodus from Petsamo and it was not hearland of Finland.

Most finns today don't want Karelian isthmus back because it's post socialist or communist wasteland.

For old karelians it is some kind of romantic dreamland in their memories.

So Dandelion what about lost East Prussia or Schlesien (Silesia) for germans, not much I think just for those old folks who lived there?

[ July 05, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Molotov Cocktail ]

[Dandelion]

Mol

In Germany, after the reunion, we suddenly see a lot of groups desiring to remind us all of the mass evictions and ethnic cleansing that took place in 45. We have Sudeten German groups, and we have Prussian groups, and a much smaller Silesian movement - political movements all of them, coming from East Germany. Apparently there has not been the climate or opportunity to debate these issues in the East (we see no Alsatian or Lorrainean such groups in the West).

I can't see them gaining a lot of weight in domestic politics, although recent processing in the High Court has given the issues some media (not issues of regaining lands - issues of being compensated for the loss of land). Also, Prussian groups remain close to Merkel, a prominent political leader of present Germany. This is not very comforting for westerners. Althoug there is no Prussia anymore, nobody wants her back.

Silesia used to be a really sensitive issue, but that was some time ago. Silesia was controversial ever since the UN mandate of 1918, and the division that followed. Even then it was 40% Polish land - by now far more so. The industries coveted by both nations are now obsolete and worthless, the population long since either Polish, or turned Polish. Though we see a strange "reawakening" of ethnic Germans in Poland now, rediscovering their previously forbidden ethnic past. Hopefully, this means nothing.

Eastern Prussia is an industrial, economic and enviromental disaster area of Europe. Nobody wants that piece of Russianized land anymore. Not even Poland, who appears the natural owner of the territory. It is not so much a land as a pollution problem, and a staging area for organised crime in the entire Baltic region.

Whereas relations with Poland are quite promising, relations with the Czech Republic seem indefinately soured by the differences in views upon historical events. Not sure when they plan to end that hostility.

Postwar rhetoric has never really been revanchiste, as in reclaiming land. It has always been an issue of compensation of individuals and recognition of crimes comitted. No other line would be possible in German domestic politics.

As you point out - as the older generations die away, these issues lose meaning. More important and pressing issues are at hand, with the present and the future. That we have these debates at all will be a symptom of long surpressed feelings in the totalitarian East.

My own family is actually from Altmark, in the East, although we fled the Soviets during the war and ended up in West Germany. Still bonds stay strong. The old family farm was confiscated by the DDR, not a foreign state Chiefly, the family is war weary still, with too many burials and not enough births in the family these last 100 years. Very few left. No energy to hate anyone anymore, no will to remain buried in any of the horrors comitted or suffered. Eyes sternly aimed forward. I imagine much the same goes for most of Germany.

Cheers

Dandelion