Finland and Russia

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
Sami_K
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 10 Apr 2002, 08:46
Location: Finland

#106

Post by Sami_K » 12 Aug 2003, 22:25

double post

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 09:45
Location: Finland

#107

Post by JariL » 13 Aug 2003, 09:14

<Now, I don’t know the exact details of the Finnish electoral system, but I <assume electors work more or less the same way as they do in the US <(without the states involved). So, when a person thinks they’re voting for, <say, person X, they’re actually voting for the elector in their district who <says (but is not required to) he will vote for X in the electoral college. <Am I correct?

Hi.

No, that's not quite how the Finnish system worked. Electors were elected based on who they promised to vote. However, there were always more candidates than two. In the first round the electors usually voted for the candidate they had been elected to nominate. This was of course a pure formality as the outcome was clear based on the number of electors each candidate had gotten in the presidential election.

In the second round started the political game of getting other electors, those who backed some not so likely candidate, to give their support to one of the forerunners. It was even possible to bring in a "black horse" a candidate that had not participated in the elections (this never happened though). After round two, if no candidate had received majority of the electors votes, a round three was arranged between the two candidates that had gotten most votes. On round three the candidate who got the majority of votes was elected as president.

It was an intersting system and a one that left a lot of room for political maneuvering between the political parties. This system was ammended during president Koivisto's time and today we vote the president directly. If no candidate get majority in the first round a second round is arranged between the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. The one who gets the majority of the votes in the second round, is the president.

So, using the old electros was not quite as undemocratic as it might sound because it was the political parties that played a major role in the process. This system was created originally because those who wrote the constitution (mainly K.J. Ståhlberg, later 1. president of the republic) were concerned about the possibility that a "populist candiadte" might be able to win if people were allowed to vote the president directly. The president had a lot of executive power so this was one way of curtailing his/her ability to use it. Anyone who was elected president had needed backing from more than one political party. The president was expected to be impartial and his rather cumbersome election process was to help him reach this position. In general, in the Finnish constitution there is a clear tendency of creating interdependencies that would force political parties and people into co-operation. Especially the 2/3 majority on two consequtive parliaments for changing the Constitution was important factor (5/6 majority could declare the matter urgent and pass a change in the constitution quickly). This is by and large explained by the traumatic experiences before the civil war, when both the reds and whites in turn could take unilateral action when they had the majority in the Parliament. The new constitution bound them together and said in effect "either you co-operate or you weep and co-operate".

I stand corrected what comes to the US elections. I wrongly remembered that FDR was elected in a non normal process for the third term. But I guess the circumstances were a bit unnormal and contributed to setting the current two term maximum to any US president. In the US arranging elections even during WWII was naturally not a big problem.

When the British elections were held in 1945, bombs were not falling in the cities and Britain was not under direct threat anymore. So these elections were already arranged under pretty normal political conditions despite the war in the Pacific.

In Finland elections could have been arranged during the war had the majority of the parliament so decided. However, none of the political parties demanded elections as long as the war continued.

Regards,

Jari


JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 09:45
Location: Finland

#108

Post by JariL » 13 Aug 2003, 09:17

<Now, I don’t know the exact details of the Finnish electoral system, but I <assume electors work more or less the same way as they do in the US <(without the states involved). So, when a person thinks they’re voting for, <say, person X, they’re actually voting for the elector in their district who <says (but is not required to) he will vote for X in the electoral college. <Am I correct?

Hi.

No, that's not quite how the Finnish system worked. Electors were elected based on who they promised to vote. However, there were always more candidates than two. In the first round the electors usually voted for the candidate they had been elected to nominate. This was of course a pure formality as the outcome was clear based on the number of electors each candidate had gotten in the presidential election.

In the second round started the political game of getting other electors, those who backed some not so likely candidate, to give their support to one of the forerunners. It was even possible to bring in a "black horse" a candidate that had not participated in the elections (this never happened though). After round two, if no candidate had received majority of the electors votes, a round three was arranged between the two candidates that had gotten most votes. On round three the candidate who got the majority of votes was elected as president.

It was an intersting system and a one that left a lot of room for political maneuvering between the political parties. This system was ammended during president Koivisto's time and today we vote the president directly. If no candidate get majority in the first round a second round is arranged between the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. The one who gets the majority of the votes in the second round, is the president.

So, using the old electros was not quite as undemocratic as it might sound because it was the political parties that played a major role in the process. This system was created originally because those who wrote the constitution (mainly K.J. Ståhlberg, later 1. president of the republic) were concerned about the possibility that a "populist candiadte" might be able to win if people were allowed to vote the president directly. The president had a lot of executive power so this was one way of curtailing his/her ability to use it. Anyone who was elected president had needed backing from more than one political party. The president was expected to be impartial and his rather cumbersome election process was to help him reach this position. In general, in the Finnish constitution there is a clear tendency of creating interdependencies that would force political parties and people into co-operation. Especially the 2/3 majority on two consequtive parliaments for changing the Constitution was important factor (5/6 majority could declare the matter urgent and pass a change in the constitution quickly). This is by and large explained by the traumatic experiences before the civil war, when both the reds and whites in turn could take unilateral action when they had the majority in the Parliament. The new constitution bound them together and said in effect "either you co-operate or you weep and co-operate".

I stand corrected what comes to the US elections. I wrongly remembered that FDR was elected in a non normal process for the third term. But I guess the circumstances were a bit unnormal and contributed to setting the current two term maximum to any US president. In the US arranging elections even during WWII was naturally not a big problem.

When the British elections were held in 1945, bombs were not falling in the cities and Britain was not under direct threat anymore. So these elections were already arranged under pretty normal political conditions despite the war in the Pacific.

In Finland elections could have been arranged during the war had the majority of the parliament so decided. However, none of the political parties demanded elections as long as the war continued.

Regards,

Jari

Feanor
In memoriam
Posts: 101
Joined: 31 Jul 2003, 21:01
Location: USA

#109

Post by Feanor » 13 Aug 2003, 21:22

Sami,
I'll get the data on the attacks on Switzerland ASAP--there was a book I read about that a while back, it's in the local library.
As to permission for flights, I'm pretty sure they had that, too. After all, weren't there Finnish navigators on some of them?
As to the terms, I never said they were "generous" of the Soviets (actually, the $300M was later the standard figure for reparations, AFAIK Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria had to pay the same sum), just that, for the Soviets, $600M and $450M or $300M wasn't such a big difference, and the reparations were not the most important point for them.

JariL,
Thanks for explaining the electoral system for president. It really looks a lot like a parliamentary election with coalitions to have a majority govt. and such..
As to Leningrad and Karelia, as you said, it's a what if scenario, so that is conjecture. However, I don't think the defense of Leningrad would have sucked in a lot of troops. Why? Not because the Soviets wouldn't want to hold it, but because they simply wouldn't be able to get the troops there. In 42 the only way to get things to Leningrad was by air (but you can't really transport masses of troops that way) or by the Ladoga ferry, which also had a limited capacity. So, the only way the Soviets could really do anything would be to mount an immediate offensive by the Volkhov front (which faced the Germans outside of Leningrad city)--BUT the forces for that would not come from Karelian front but rather from Stavka reserves.
As to the June 44 offensive,
I'm pretty sure the stop line for the offensive was Kotka-Johannes-Nurmes, so that's still well short of Helsinki. I'll get a source on that ASAP.

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#110

Post by Hanski » 28 May 2004, 21:07

In fact, I believe this thread covers in even greater detail many of the issues we recently discussed with Wasa, so it is well worth browsing back on the previous pages.

Also, the following link is relevant when we discuss issues of ethnic habitation in Karelia:

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/karjala.html

Hanski

Mikko H.
Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: 07 May 2003, 11:19
Location: Turku, Finland

#111

Post by Mikko H. » 17 Jun 2004, 09:20

Nowadays Finnish historians tend to downplay the signifigance of Finland's 'non-alliance' with Germany, and I agree with them. That Finland made no official alliance had no practical effect on the way Finland waged her war, and all evidence points that Hitler couldn't care less whether Finland was allied or not, as long as Finland fought. As far as military operations were concerned, Finland was in practice as allied as Rumania or Hungary.

There's no doubt that even if Finland had officially allied herself with Germany, Finland could still have stopped advance in late 1941, refrained from attacking Leningrad and finally made peace in September 1944. The 'non-alliance' was important for Finland to uphold her relations with the USA during the war, and to distance herself as far as possible from Germany after the war. And witness how Bulgaria adhered to the Axis pact and still didn't join Barbarossa and protected her Jews.

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#112

Post by Hanski » 17 Jun 2004, 10:00

Mikko H., there is more to it than just carrying out military operations, like has been discussed in the What defines ans Axis Nation thread. And one of the things was getting out of the war: an alliance that never existed was never broken when making a separate peace. Upholding the relations with the USA served vital strategic national interests and distancing from Germany after the war was much dictated by the Soviets, although there is no need of denying history.

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#113

Post by Hanski » 30 Jun 2004, 08:54

For an account on the decisive battle of Tali-Ihantala, see
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message? ... 1088418002
and its links.

User avatar
Dora
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 17:36
Location: Hanover, Pennsylvania

#114

Post by Dora » 02 Jul 2004, 16:04

Waun and All,
I just finished reading your introduction posting on the affects of long term supression and repression of a people and what it has on their ability to think and act for themselves. You have contributed a significant body of thought and work to this forum, it make all of us see a little clearer what seemingly endless decades of fear, physical and mental control can have on a people.

You have also shown us how a nation can and should behave when confronted by an uncontrollable one, the bravery demonstrated by Finland in the 1939-1940 'Winter War' will stand for all time as a shining example of determination, confidence and optomism of a people that cherishes their love of their nation, their land and their future.

Thanks for such a introspective topic and for permitting us to share it.
Dora

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#115

Post by Hanski » 02 Jul 2004, 21:08

Dear Dora,

Thank you very much for your kindness. It seems to me you have understood our points precisely the way we have meant them. I know due to the language barrier, there are widespread misunderstandings in the rest of the world regarding the history of Finland in the WWII.

Besides the Winter War, I hope we have conveyed that there was little choice for Finland in respect of the Continuation War 1941-44, and the Lapland War of 1944-45. We cannot escape geography, and neither Yosif Stalin nor Adolf Hitler asked the opinion of the 3.8 million Finns in 1941 how the spheres of interest of the Great Powers and the national borders of countries in Europe should be rearranged at the time. That is why Finland ended up us a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany to secure her survival, although this may be hard to understand to those who suffered under Nazi domination.

Precisely today there has been a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the battle of Tali-Ihantala in the Karelian Isthmus, arranged by the Finnish War Veterans (without any official participation of the Republic of Finland), on site to the North of the City of Viipuri (Vyborg) with the consent of Russia.

This battle, fought over an area of 10 by 10 kilometres, the largest one ever in the history of the Nordic Countries, involved more men and material than for example the battle of El Alamein, but as history is written by the victorious Allies, little is known about Tali-Ihantala worldwide. Tali-Ihantala turned out as a defensive victory, which in fact determined why Finland remained an independent nation after WWII (instead of sharing the fate of the Baltic States).

The number of the participants in today's anniversary celebration - now gentlemen of 80 years of age or more - exceeded all advance estimates (more than 2000 instead of the expected 1000). It is also regarded as a farewell-get-together of these Finnish WWII Veterans, since for natural reasons their numbers will rapidly decline from here on. We owe them so much -- the splendid free country that we have inherited!

I am sure many historic questions worth discussing about Finland's involvement in the WWII will remain, and the Finnish members of this Forum will keep contributing to awareness of them, helping to cross the langiage barrier. Also, there are many esteemed Russian members of the Forum with valuable contributions and insight to add to our our knowledge about these events as seen from the other side. So, stay tuned!

Cheers,

Hanski

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#116

Post by Topspeed » 19 Dec 2005, 06:59

michael mills wrote: I would strongly advise against placing too much reliance on the Kersten memoirs as a source for German Government policy. Much of what he wrote is sheer fantasy, aimed to greatly exaggerate his own role. He was just a masseur after all.


Michael Mills,



I did not know Michael Mills is a racist ?

First finns are rated morally lower than soviets ( without any reason ) because they are a nation of drunkards and then this a man is being downgrated by his profession, when he says a fact that everyone in Finland knows.

Get a hold of yourself Michael Mills.


best reagrds,

Juke T
Last edited by Topspeed on 20 Dec 2005, 15:15, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

#117

Post by Juha Tompuri » 19 Dec 2005, 08:19

Topspeed,

Personal remarks are not tolerated here.
Post civil or don't post at all.

/Juha

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#118

Post by Hanski » 19 Dec 2005, 09:17

As indeed the topic of Mannerheim's attitudes is not directly related to Suho lighthouse, let me reply to Batu on this thread instead.
batu wrote:Hanski,
thank you for the attempt to enlighten me with the basics :)
but the quote above doesn't say anything about the sentimental motives of Mannerheim not to push further to the attack of Leningrad.
The only motives publicly expressed by Mannreheim were military difficulty of such an attack:
Already at this stage Field Marshal Mannerheim presented to Erfurth those difficulties that Finns would have in breaching the strong line of defence of the Soviet troops, reinforced with permanent structures
.
The Supreme Commander of the Finnish Army at war, communicating with the vitally important partner in the struggle to secure Finland's success and survival in that war, is in no position to present sentimental emotional outbursts. If you keep looking for those among any Finnish statesmen, you will find very few, because 1. such a display of emotion is not a part of the Finnish culture 2. the interests of the country will overrule any personal emotions.

It is true that technicalities are here presented to the Germans as the reason, while the real motives are "between the lines". But diplomatic rules dictate how the German request had to be handled.
I didn't get what is Lead of State and which decree would president Ryti supervise?
Lead of State (valtionjohto) refers to the highest decision-makers from the President down, including key ministers and depending on the context, possibly also the top military. Please remember: Finland was and is a democracy, with civilians leading, and Mannerheim was no dictator, so his position was entirely different from for example Stalin's of Hitler's. President Ryti was keen to supervise the decree not to advance beyond the old border on Karelian Isthmus, aside from straightening the front line for defensive reasons, because that had been a major pre-war political decision by the (civilian) Finnish government.
So, according to the History of Continuation War, Mannerheim refused to actively participate in the seige because (at least as it was officially anonunced to Germans) it was too difficult for Finnish military to attack such a fortifyed city.
This sounds totally normal, Mannerheim saving lives of his soldiers restrains from direct attack, and lets Germans do the job, the fruits of wihch he would reap later.
You are gradually getting there! Precisely, that was the official explanation, because something had to be replied.

Now, imagine yourself in the position of the Finnish High Command. What else could you do? Storm your army against the heavily defended city and lose it to begin with, because you cannot come up with a diplomatic enough reply to Keitel to express a differing view? The point is, there was no such objective for the Finns as the conquest of Leningrad, it was Hitler's goal, and therefore it was left for him to deal with it. Emotional outbursts or not, but the Finnish leadership was realistic, thank God for that. And Finland did fight its own war, not Hitler's - how many times must we repeat this?
So, there is no evidence of Mannerheim "saving" Leningrad out of some personal feelings towards the city.
There is plenty of Finnish literature on the person of Mannerheim, addressing his emotional life as well, and his attitudes towards Russia. If I am unable to present those sources on the AHF at short notice, it does not mean "there is no evidence". I suggest you now spend a day in the Mannerheim museum in Helsinki, study the personality of this very extraordinary character, and ask the guide for sources, and I am sure you will get reading for the next couple of weeks or months.
AS for Mannerheim and Ryti's statements of despise towards Nazis, I don't think it's "basic" info. In fact it would be quite revealing, if soembody came up with the quote of Mannerheim or Ryti about Hitler or Nazism. So don't feel shy to give me this "basics". The same goes towards MAnnerheim-saviour of Leningrad. The above quote didn't add anything to prove that myth. Sure, we can say Mannerheim didn't take part in the direct storm of the city but his motives are far from being clear. And as the factual evidence suggests, they were mostly of military matter rather than humanitarian or personal-sentimental.
To put it short, Mannerheim was a monarchist aristocrat, he felt loyalty to his Russian Czar (pay attention to Czar's portrait in Mannerheim's home!), and he admired the British. For the rest, I would not like to repeat myself. Please do your own research, for Finns with any knowledge of political history these ARE basics.
Besdies, what about the "Greater Finland" idea? Correct me if I am worng, but I guess that was the major propaganda of Finnish government before the Continuation war? Or was it just minor radical movement? What about Lapua movement, ryssän viha, Lotta Svärd?
Why not search this Forum to begin with? These have already been discussed here time and again. Those questions are essential and relevant, there is no doubt about that. But there is a plethora of existing Finnish literature on them, so why not get acquainted with it.

User avatar
Bair
Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 01 Nov 2002, 15:32
Location: Finland, Helsinki
Contact:

#119

Post by Bair » 19 Dec 2005, 09:26

2Hanski,

whatever arguments you might bring up in the discussion about war 1941-1944, they will be beaten by the Russian historians. This discussion Axis/non-Axis Finland, separate war/non-separate war will go forever.

For example, you say Finland had its own goals in the war, Germany had its own. Germany's goal was to destroy the Soviet Union and colonize its territories, Finnish goals - to get back the lost territories and secure future borders.

However, were goals of Hungary and Romania, or Bulgaria in war the same with Germany?To destroy the Soviet Union and colonize it? Definitely not. So this argument does not hold in the Russian view.

Were German weapons shipments and economic aid to Finland completely spontaneous? There was no agreement about that at all? Germans just shipped everything to Finland? What about Finnish Waffen SS volunteers?

Occupation of Soviet Karelia?

I am not trying to be angry or make it hard for Finns, just trying to show you another, Russian point of view on the matter. :)

with best regards, hyvää joulua!

Bair

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#120

Post by Hanski » 19 Dec 2005, 10:37

Bair,

Thank you for some very good points. I agree with what you say about the war goals in the sense that there were several categories of them, which would depend on the progress and outcome of the war. I will try to list them in the order from the highest priority down:

- securing the survival of Finland, in anticipation of an inevitable second round with Stalin
- keeping at least the borders of Moscow 1940 peace treaty if anything else fails
- trying to restore the borders of 1922 Tartu (Dorpat) peace treaty
- destroying the bases used for attacks against Finland
- including those areas within the new borders of Finland
- including the territories of Karelia with Finnish-related tribes within the "Greater Finland"
- including all of Eastern Karelia within the "Greater Finland"
- the above, plus exploiting maximally all the natural resources
- the above, plus expelling ethnic Russians from the "Greater Finland"
- the above, plus X, Y, and Z

I think scientific history research may well make an attempt at examining which of these goals were supported, by whom, and when.

By its nature, warfare is opportunistic, and no one can predict from the outset how the events will unfold. So, if actually Germany had succeeded in causing a total collapse of the USSR, I am not denying the Finnish goals could have come down the list, to more and more ambitious and imperialistic / dominating aims. But certainly there was a limit what minor players like Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria could achieve alone -- the final outcome would necessarily depend on the Germans.

I am sure you know there were differences in the levels of political commitment of other countries fighting on Germany's side, their political systems, and on the degree to which they were able to keep their own goals and refuse the German expectations, and whether they actively fought Germany to get out of the war. A major difference is also, did they need to fight a previous Winter War (which Russian historians prefer to omit). In my opinion, it is important that Finland will not be stamped with a sterotypic label to a category where it does not belong, and the true distinguishing features will be taken into account.
Were German weapons shipments and economic aid to Finland completely spontaneous? There was no agreement about that at all? Germans just shipped everything to Finland? What about Finnish Waffen SS volunteers? Occupation of Soviet Karelia?
Certainly, there was co-operation and joint planning, which is meant by the expression co-belligerence, and there were Finnish independent decisions as well on top of that, based on the appraisal of the situation in a grand strategic scale. I don't see why all aspects of these could not be researched and best estimates presented, even agreed upon, regardless of the personal background of the researchers.
I am not trying to be angry or make it hard for Finns, just trying to show you another, Russian point of view on the matter. :)
I am sure, besides myself, all of us Finns have very clearly noticed this, and we do highly appreciate it!

And from me as well,

Christmas truce to everyone for now! Hyvää joulua!


Cheers,
Hanski

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”