Ryti speech 9th June 1941

[littleboytruth]

Splitted from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht#p816914

/Juha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is from an old post:

If Russia wins the war, becomes our situation too very difficult, even hopeless. When Russia ruling the world affairs as winner, nobody can back up or help us.
But Russia is now incredibly strong, and if it still manages to stay in peace for a year, while other superpowers fighting against each other, could not Germany, or any other beat it.
So, as cruel as it may sound, we almost should wish that a war between Germany and Russia would broke out, of course wishing that we could stay outside of it.

I understand that it comes from a speech made by your President Ryti some weeks before the outbreak of Operation Barbarossa. It shows that in fact the Finnish leaders didn't want the Germans to win WWII at all. They just wanted them to beat the Russians, but after that they wanted the Western Allies to win over the weakened German Army.

I find this very likely, since it explains how a small democratic state could become a co-belligerent of the cruel Nazis. Clearly your president was a very courageous man, since it would not have pleased the Germans if the truth somehow came out about this secret plan behind the Finnish contributions to the Nazi war effort, i.e. that what the Finnish generals and the president wanted in truth was for Germany to lose the war.

What I would like to ask for in connection with this are some more examples of the same secret plan that Ryti and his general Mannerheim had. Has he or other of the Finnish leaders written or verbally expressed similar views in other instances? Are there any clear signs of where they followed this plan in practise?

[olia]

small democratic state

The attitude of the Finnish State (or its military establishment) to the Sovie prisoners of War and the Russian civil population of the occupied territories of Karelia and Leningrad region raises questions about the democratic nature of Finland in 1941-44

[LWD]

small democratic state

The attitude of the Finnish State (or its military establishment) to the Sovie prisoners of War and the Russian civil population of the occupied territories of Karelia and Leningrad region raises questions about the democratic nature of Finland in 1941-44

How so? I'm not at all sure how the attitude toward the population of occupied territories impacts the democratic nature of the country doing the occupieing.

[olia]

Hard to explain how the authorities of democratic Finland could carry out and explain not democratic, anti-humane policy towards prisoners of war and the civilian population of the occupied territories. Finnish Forum participants surely know what it is about, as now a lot of literature on this subject in Finnish, Russian, and even Swedish and summery in English

[Vaeltaja]

I'm not quite sure what there was so inhumane & non-democratic about it. Primary cause of deaths for the Soviets (both civilians and POWs) in the Finnish camps was malnutrition - not lack of nutrition. Not quite sure how that has anything to do with democracy (as in reality it is tad difficult to feed thousands with five loaves of bread and two fish) - there just wasn't enough of good quality food to go around.

I haven't really seen any evidence that there would have been intent involved in that. As stated repeatedly here on the same issue, the primary reason why people who were not in the camps suffered far less from the famine was that still during the WWII Finland was primarily rural country. Which meant that they were able to supplement their diet from the nature and directly from the farms (or from black market), more or less outside of the government regulation - even families in the cities often had relatives in the countryside who helped them. And some like my 'noble' forefathers smuggled stuff in from Sweden.

[Juha Tompuri]

Hard to explain how the authorities of democratic Finland could carry out and explain not democratic, anti-humane policy towards prisoners of war and the civilian population of the occupied territories. Finnish Forum participants surely know what it is about, as now a lot of literature on this subject in Finnish, Russian, and even Swedish and summery in English

For discussing those issues we have several threads already existing.
Like for example:
Finnish concentration camps in East Karelia http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=176121
Finnish policy over East Karelia http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8067&hilit
Russian POW's http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6820&hilit

Let's go back here to the original question.

Regards, Juha

[Vaeltaja]

Not sure if you would or could count these as such but at least from Mannerheim there are couple of orders or actions which from the German grand strategic point of view make no sense or were a direct hindrance to it. Issue between the complicated relations between the Finland and the Germany is also somewhat in Lunde's book (2011) 'FINLAND'S WAR OF CHOICE: The Troubled German-Finnish Alliance in World War II'.

i) Mannerheim's order in late August 1941 to halt offensive short of Leningrad
ii) Lack of Finnish support to Germans near Svir in 1941
iii) Finnish agreements with Germans that they would resume offensive towards Murman rail should Leningrad fall while knowing that it wouldn't
iv) Odd bunglings and failures to advance of the Finnish forces under German command in Lapland which is at least in some sources contributed to 'secret' orders (past Germans) from the Finnish General HQ to halt the offensive.

It might be wrong to say that Finns wanted Germans to lose but they were not too keen to needlessly antagonize any one (be it the Soviets by assaulting Leningrad or the Western Allies by cutting Murman rail).

[Seppo Jyrkinen]

Democratic state. Yes. After WWI only 5 European countries has stayed democratic continuously until our days: Finland, England, Sweden Switzerland and Ireland.

When you go through the history, you'll find out several details which tells that not Ryti neither Mannerheim liked Nazi-Germany to win the war. Especially when you are focusing on that, what they didn't do, but a real ally had done.

Vaeltaja's list has the main arguments. Here are some small things which are pointing into the same direction:

Ohto Manninen: Suur-Suomen ääriviivat

p 145: War-time report and my bad translation: "If Germany wins the war and her hegemony will rule the Europe and Himmler shall keep he's position... To this point either Witting, or Ryti who got the report after him, had added a personal remark into the marginal: "Bad for Finland" (original text: "Silloin käy huonosti")"

p 210: Tanner speculated [1941] also, that Western powers in the end would win the war...

Murman Railway and a hint to stop the warfare

President Ryti send a letter to Mannerheim 5.11.1941 in which he told that he was worried about a possibility that Finnish troops would cut off Murman railway near Louhi. Mannerheim had a same opinion and send a letter of he's own to General Siilasvuo and gave him a hint to stop the warfare. General Siilasvuo started to calm dawn he's operations 11.11.1941. German General von Falkenhorst wondered later if the reasons had been political.

Colonel Wolf Halsti tells in he's memories that when he, at Autumn 1941, asked about Louhi, General Siilasvuo had answered to him: "And who has told You that somebody wants a Finnish commander to take over Louhi?"

Mannerheim's opinion according to winner

Mannerheim send a letter to bishop Björklund 14.4.1942 in which he ordered Finnish priests in East-Karelia to dissociate all kind of conversion (from Orthodox to Lutheran). He argued he's order: "If those territories, against our exceptions, wouldn't come joined to our country after the war, those people who had turned to Lutheran, would pay this with their own life." - This tells to me that Mannerheim didn't expect Germany to win the war but very possible Stalin's regime would be still in power. (translation is mine)

Summa summarum

To Finns, the same kind of result as after WWI had been the best possible.

Ryti and Mannerheim were known to be pro-western and Germans didn't totally trust on them. Before continuous war Blücher was active against Ryti so that he wouldn't be elected as Finland's president. Mannerheim has been claimed to be a Freemason but I don't know if this is true.

[littleboytruth]

Dear Mr. Jyrkinen.

After WWI only 5 European countries has stayed democratic continuously until our days: Finland, England, Sweden Switzerland and Ireland.

Actually, it was even fewer, since the Irish Freestate (1922-37) was still a dominion of the British Empire and therefore not a fully independent democracy.

Otherwise, I get your point. Many other small European countries were occupied by Germany in WWII, so they can't feature on the list. If these countries had only been as clever as the Finnish politicians, and as willing to make sacrifices for the good of mankind, they would have joined the Germans against Russia but at the same time worked in secret to help the Western Allies win the war over both these two terrible regimes.

I wonder how much the Finns made sure that London and Washington knew of this secret plan. I suppose the Finns must somehow have let them know, because otherwise who would believe them afterwards? So I wonder what sources there might exist in this regard.

In any case, it is a shame that this secret plan of the Finns isn't more widely known. As it is, many people are deeply shocked when they find out that Finland was co-belligerent to the Nazis and it can sometimes be very hard for me to convince people around where I live that the Finns really was working against the Germans and in fact had a secret plan that would not only destroy Nazi Germany but also the equally terrible (or perhaps even worse) regime in the Soviet Union, in fact a plan that was much superior than that of both the British and the Americans. That is why I asked for more examples of the existence of Finland's true intentions, which you have now kindly provided.

However, certain people (like my neigbour Patjoe!) can be hard to convince so I must admit I was hoping for some more direct proof of this secret plan. While it is true that the Finns held back in many ways, there are of course also many examples that could point to the opposite (just ask Patjoe!). Also, I understand from reading a book we have found on the internet about the Finnish winter wars, by a Finnish writer called Olli Vehvilaisen, that there could have been other reasons for the reluctance you mention.

Still, I think the best proof is perhaps that it would make no sense whatsoever for a small, democratic and antifascist country to help the Nazis win the war, and as your example from General Mannerheim's book illustrate the Finns were fully aware of that!

I have also read in Mr Vehvilaison's book that after the war there were some trials against the Finnish leaders, and I understand that they made some statements in court. As this would have been the right time and place to finally divulge to the world the secret plan they had during the war, I was actualy hoping that someone could provide some examples in this regard.

[Seppo Jyrkinen]

I'm not sure if there has been a real plan, but members of inner circle (president Ryti, some important minister and Mannerheim) had an unanimous opinion about Finland's foreign policy.

What western countries knew? What Finns told to them and what they believed as true? Obviously an open question. Some answers you can find from original war-time documents like: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... 1&isize=XL (Wasastjerna was Finland's ambassador in Stockholm)

Finland and Germany had a common enemy, but different ideologies and different behavior. You can understand Finland's policy, when you analyze, what "a real ally" had done and what Finland did. In policy, warfare and holocaust.

Is important also to understand, that Finland was taken into the WWII at Autumn 1939 and that after the country didn't have a possibility to stay out of the crisis. At 1940-1941 Finland didn't make a choose between war and peace, but a choose between Germany and Sovietunion.

Finland's own attitude comes out when examining the few days after Winter war. Finland and Great-Britain bargained a war trade agreement which had connected Finland as part of British economic block. (Some historian has claimed, that through this agreement, Finland was willing to join anti-German embargo, but I don't remember the source and arguments).

This agreement didn't enter into effect, because Germany occupied Norway at Spring 1940 and Great-Britain ceased to exist as a positive force. Finland lost her sovereignty and politicians didn't have a luxury of private opinions. Everything had to consider after that, what was good for the country. Political horizon limited to few months. Survival game between Hitler and Stalin started.

Would USA join the war and would western powers finally win the war - that was surely a wet dream, but 1941 out of range of vision.

[littleboytruth]

Dear Mr Jyrkinen.

Thanks for your reply and for making it clear that the Finns only joined the Germans after they had been threatned with a terrifying embargo situation that would make most Finns starve to death. Perhaps you can tell me when and where exactly these threats were made? As far as I can see it must have been after June 9, since in his speech on this date to the Government, Ryti still expresses the hope that Finland will be able to stay out of the future conflict. I think it is very important to understand this when you try to judge Finland's lack of willingness to help the Nazis. It was only made under very hard pressure and at a very late date!

Now to the secret plan. I still do believe such a thing must exist on some level. Even though the Finns joined the Nazis, their friends were still the Western Allies, everyone knows that. It is a terrible situation to be in when you are forced to help the biggest enemy of your biggest friend. But it can happen when you are threatened with starvation, and it is easy to see why the Finns were forced to do this. However, in such a situation you will always make sure to have a plan so that you friend a) knows and understands why you are forced to do this and b) knows that you have a secret plan that will be to his benefit in the end. So there is no doubt in my mind that such a plan must have existed.

Ryti says openly and courageously in his speech that he hopes Germany will be weakened in the coming war with Russia. That means he wants Germany to lose the war to the Western Allies in the end. This shows to me that he must have had a secret plan. You don't act in a way that both hurts your best friend AND goes against your biggest hopes. In such a situation, if there is nothing you can do, you prefer death.

I am not a big expert on Finland in WWII, I just arrived at this issue by way of an interest in German politics. But I am learning fast from this forum. And I can see that the great Finnish President Ryti and Freiherr von Manteuffel are not the kind of people who let down their friends and their own deepfelt ideals to help some sadistic and psychotic criminals rule the world. That is how I know that they would have had a plan - a plan that would end not one terrible regime, but two! To me, that makes the Finns the biggest heroes of WWII!

Would USA join the war and would western powers finally win the war - that was surely a wet dream, but 1941 out of range of vision.

This is the only point where I will disagree with you. Even in Ireland many people knew in 1940 and 1941 that it was only a matter of time before the US and the USSR would probably soon join the British side, one way or another, which of course was very likely to turn the whole situation around on the battlefield and the only hope for mankind. That was why thousands of Irishmen joined the British army to help fight the terror of the Nazis, among them my wife's grandfather. We are generally more sympathetic to the Americans than to the English, you see, so we would not have done that unless we knew the Americans would soon be on the allied side. I am glad to see that Finland also joined this side in the latest stage of the war, which is yet another thing that shows how the Finns really felt about Nazi Germany.

[Panssari Salama]

This is the only point where I will disagree with you. Even in Ireland many people knew in 1940 and 1941 that it was only a matter of time before the US and the USSR would probably soon join the British side, one way or another, which of course was very likely to turn the whole situation around on the battlefield and the only hope for mankind.

Winter War was an interesting time period for the fact that at least in early 1940 it was far from clear how the future alliances would form.

- Italy, who sided with Allied side on WW I, saw her relations with Nazi Germany at rock bottom, given how they were shocked to see Hitler sign a treaty of cobelligerence with CCCP. Mussolini was not an idiot, and he looked for Italy's interest first and foremost. It was partially the UK driven blockade / embargo on Italy that finally made him to decide to side with Hitler.

- Churchill saw Swedish ore crucial to hindering German armament industry, and was interested to bring Sweden to Allied side one way or another. Still in March 1940 the Anglo-French Expedition Force taking part in Winter War in Finnish side was a theoretical possibility and something that forced Stalin's hand first to exponentially up the war effort against Finland and then accept the peace treaty once he had saved his face. Of course, we will never know if the Expedition Force would have come to Finland's aid if called for.

I am not sure about any "secret plan", that sound a bit sensational to me. Yet we know from history Finland continued to look towards West for an alliance, and only once Hitler and Stalin both prevented the Swedish-Finnish alliance taking place and Norway and Denmark were occupied by Hitler, cutting Finland from West, were the situation such as it was basically an option to remain alone or to cut a deal with Hitler.

[Vaeltaja]

Thanks for your reply and for making it clear that the Finns only joined the Germans after they had been threatned with a terrifying embargo situation that would make most Finns starve to death. Perhaps you can tell me when and where exactly these threats were made? As far as I can see it must have been after June 9, since in his speech on this date to the Government, Ryti still expresses the hope that Finland will be able to stay out of the future conflict. I think it is very important to understand this when you try to judge Finland's lack of willingness to help the Nazis. It was only made under very hard pressure and at a very late date!

Not quite. I think you somewhat misinterpreting Ryti's comment. At no point does he suggest that hint that Finland could at that point any longer stay out of the fight (he only wishes for such a possibility). Also what he is stating is that he hopes that since a war between the Germany and the Soviet Union was already looming in the horizon that it rather start on 1941 than 1942 or later on.

What happened in 1940 after the Moscow Peace Treaty (somewhat streamlined):

Finland hoped to have trade relations with its main trading partner, UK. Several agreements for trade were setup between the countries. This happened very soon after the Winter War ended. However before anything from the agreements had been realized the reality changed once again with Germany invasion of Denmark and Norway. This cut the main trading route (via Kattegat & Skagerrak). This meant that ports of Finland had in the Baltic Sea could only trade with three possible partners, Sweden, Nazi Germany or Soviet Union. Only route to 'west' was via small mining village (it certainly wasn't a town) of Petsamo on the shore of the Arctic Sea which had neither dock capacity nor transportation capacity to ferry goods. Regardless since it was all Finns had effort was made to improve it as well routes to Petsamo.

Which left Finns into a situation where trade with bulk material (such as say GRAIN) needed to be routed via one of the three possibilities on the Baltic Sea. Since the Soviet Union was not exactly a trustworthy partner (invading your neighbors under false pretenses tend to do that) at this point trade with it was relatively small. Sweden on the other hand had fairly similar economic profile as Finland had so anything Finns could export to Sweden was material Swedes already had excess off. Not exactly grounds for balanced & healthy trade. Which left one route open. Germany. Even more so with increasing Soviet pressure in 1940. Anything that could be used to counterbalance the perceived Soviet aggression was a fair game. Hence trading agreements with Germany and as quickly as possible troop transfer agreements with Germany. Mere presence of German soldier on the Finnish soil was seen as a counterbalance for the Soviet aggression.

It should be kept in mind that Soviet 'negotiation' tactics with Finland were not exactly something which were taken well in Finland. Demands and threats do not really inspire finding mutual agreements and neither did the actions of SNS (Finland-Soviet Union Club of Peace and Friendship) which pretty much was an open front for Communist subversion. Then there were Soviet demands of troop transfer rights to Hanko, demilitarization of Åland, Soviet demands on the ore from Petsamo and so on. Add to this the shooting down of Finnish passenger aircraft over the Gulf of Finland by Soviet bombers and the illegal annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union and you can probably start to understand the issues faced at the time. And we should not forget the attempts made by Swedes and Finns to get Finland out of the war, first by Nordic defense agreement (which first stalled to Soviet opposition and later collapsed with Nazi invasion) and then by union of Sweden and Finland which was opposed by both the Soviet Union and Germany even though the first pre-agreement for the union (Finnish acceptance that lands lost in the Winter War are lost and that Finland would not strive to get them back) was already accepted by Finns. In a hindsight it is truly rather ironic to read through the political development of 1940-1941 in Finland. Had the Soviets planned to drive Finland into Germany's waiting arms they could hardly have done better job at it. Almost every action comes to accentuate the existing crisis.

In other words long before the end of 1940 Finland was trading with Germany.

The trade embargo mentioned was the British embargo against Germany. Not that of against Finland.

Now to the secret plan. I still do believe such a thing must exist on some level. Even though the Finns joined the Nazis, their friends were still the Western Allies, everyone knows that. It is a terrible situation to be in when you are forced to help the biggest enemy of your biggest friend. But it can happen when you are threatened with starvation, and it is easy to see why the Finns were forced to do this. However, in such a situation you will always make sure to have a plan so that you friend a) knows and understands why you are forced to do this and b) knows that you have a secret plan that will be to his benefit in the end. So there is no doubt in my mind that such a plan must have existed.

Finnish plan for WW II had been to stay out of it. By December 1939 this plan had already failed. At which point plan changed to 'survive'. I doubt very much that there would have existed secret plans. Finns simply had their own goals and own reasons for doing (or for lack of doing) things.

Ryti says openly and courageously in his speech that he hopes Germany will be weakened in the coming war with Russia. That means he wants Germany to lose the war to the Western Allies in the end. This shows to me that he must have had a secret plan. You don't act in a way that both hurts your best friend AND goes against your biggest hopes. In such a situation, if there is nothing you can do, you prefer death.

All around the Baltic are it was perceived before the WW II that the balance hang essentially on the strength of the Nazi Germany (or Poland, depending on speaker) and the Soviet Union. It was further assumed that in any occasion should either one attack the other would respond. The delicate balance went straight of the window with Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact and the end result was what it was. What i mean by this is that neither of the totalitarian states were really trusted by other countries so demise of both would have been the most preferable result.

[Seppo Jyrkinen]

Finland & Hitler's Germany was like USA & Stalin's Soviet Union. "My enemy's enemy is my friend", said Churchill - and he surely wasn't the only one. When waiting a guillotine's blade to fall dawn, you don't care if the helping hand is non-democratic or whatever. The map tells the situation during Interim Peace 1940-41. Not so much to choose.



Stalin's policy during Interim Peace was pushing Finland towards Germany, as Vaeltaja described. That list is quite long.

Today we can also say (even if not so much analyzed), that Great-Britain also pushed Finland towards Germany. In he's book Esko Vuorisjärvi tells, that at October 24. 1940, 8 months before Barbarossa, Mr. Cripps, Great-Britain's ambassador in Moscow, got orders from London to excite Russians to demand the whole Petsamo's nickel production to themselves. This told to Stalin, that Finland was not so important to Great-Britain anymore. And two weeks later Molotov visited Berlin and asked free hands with Finland. Germany informed Finns about Molotov.

This question of a plan is good. For me "a plan" sounds very formal. I haven't seen any hint of such one, but reason for this is, that pre-war papers, like government's diaries, are missing. There has been a lot of planing, absolutely. Cooperation with Germany, Continuous war's policy etc. Ryti had made a great carrier as head of Finnish bank and was very familiar with papers and plans. What form plannings got - a piece of paper or just an agreement inside inner circle - and how many people were aware of them, stays unknown perhaps for ever.

Did Finns to know 1940 that USA would join the war? Well, there are many kind of "knowing". When you are talking with your friends, you can "know" such a thing, but when leading a country through a war, the criterion for "knowing" are different. Ryti was a man with cool head without sentimentality and Mannerheim belonged to same class. They hoped, they expect, but when making decisions, they didn't think that they knew such a thing. - Hoping the best, fearing the worst.

[Swing]

President Ryti send a letter to Mannerheim 5.11.1941 in which he told that he was worried about a possibility that Finnish troops would cut off Murman railway near Louhi. Mannerheim had a same opinion and send a letter of he's own to General Siilasvuo and gave him a hint to stop the warfare.

Are there any documents related to this hint? Thanks in advance.