Finland and Russia

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#31

Post by Hanski » 13 May 2003, 22:33

It seems like there is again need to continue this thread, which is a more appropriate forum for discussing the differences between Finland and the USSR in WWII than the thread about Soviet Partisans, which finally went on to discuss acts of terrorism against Finnish civilians by “Partisans” raiding Finnish territory from their bases in Soviet Karelia ( http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=9541 ).

I am well aware that various previous (and future?) postings on this thread do contain nationalistic bias, but despite that I am sure the readers of the Forum are used to it and still may find the arguments interesting.

To give some basic facts for those willing to understand the historical background of the Russo-Finnish wars, and to read about the Karelian territory involved therein, may I also recommend a more scientifically neutral website outside our forum: http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/karjala.html

Especially, if anyone has historical facts about the nature of the Finnish occupation administration of Soviet Karelia in 1941-44, or evidence of atrocities against Soviet civilians there, I would like the discussion about it to continue on this thread.

Cheers,
Hanski

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#32

Post by Harri » 14 May 2003, 00:31

From where did you find that tread, Hanski?

Well, unfortunately I had to "abandon" this discussion earlier but I didn't do it because I would have liked to "escape". Has Oleg been "on the lines" recently?
Bair wrote:It is funny to see how any discussion about Finland - USSR in WWII raises hell of emotions and ends up in mutual insulting :) It is history, what is done, is done. We just have to live with it now and study it as something that we cannot change.
I agree with you, Bair. The reason is that none of the 400.000 Karelian refugees and their children (including me) can't forget what USSR did to them (twice). Fortunately we haven't seen something like in Israel/Palestine or Chechenya. :|
Bair wrote:All we know about this in Russia is that Finnish military administration set up concentration camps for local Russians in some areas.
As far as I know the Finnish name "Keskitysleiri" came from the fact that Russian (or non-Finnish) people would be planned to be moved away from Karelia in the near future. People were "concentrated" to these temporary camps (part of a town) for this moving which never realized. That is partly the explanation why the supply of these camps failed in 1941/42. It is only coincidental that German camps are also called "concentration camps". When Finns noticed that this name was changed. Also a major part of Ingrians (Finns) were moved from Russia to Finland during the war by Germans.
Bair wrote:Anyway, I am now reading a book called A History of Finland by Eino Jutikkala and Kauko Pirinen, which seems to be really Finnish official point of view.
Academian Jutikkala has his "own cow in the ditch". IIRC he was the top officers in the Information Department of Finnish HQ during the war. On the other words it was our "propaganda department".
Bair wrote:In that book the authors state that Finland took Eastern Karelia in 1941 as a pawn in future negotiations with USSR... I do not agree with that. BTW, how widespread was the Great Finland idea from Botnian Gulf to the Urals? Mr. Baryshnikov states that this was the intention of the Finnish government. This I also cannot agree with.
Everyone can see that the intention of the taking of East Karelia was to meet advancing German troops south of Lake Ladoga (163.I.D. was there for that) as well as to "liberate" our relative nations. The probable loss of Germans was realized to all Finns by 1943 and after that East Karelia was something to use in further peace negotiations of course.

I think the Great Finland idea "...to the Urals" is/was more a joke than reality, also in 1941. We have a following saying even today: "Steel to the border and border to the Urals" which may sound a bit odd but ... is just a kind of boasting (others may explain :lol:).


User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#33

Post by Harri » 14 May 2003, 14:56

Bair wrote:Mr. Baryshnikov is completely and maybe intentionally wrong in making an opinion of a single right-wing MP to look like the official viewpoint of the Finnish government of those days.
Well, there have been clowns among politicians - and unfortunately will be... :D
Bair wrote:Also, it is not only Karelians who are related nation to the Finns. AFAIK the Mordva, and other nations to the east from Karelia are also related to the Finns, much more loosely, though. AFAIK the Karelian Academic Society had the idea that Finland should unite all Finnish-related nations/tribes under the umbrella of the Finnish state. From this comes Russian belief that Finns wanted to go as far as the Urals.
I think also Germans and Russians had similar kind of "plans" to unite the whole nation during the 20th Century. Finnish plan to unite all Finno-Ugrig tribes was to my opinion a bit unrealistic but there were people who really belived in these plans. I know that the majority of Finns didn't support these nor any other expansive plans in the 1920's or 1930's. It was more an academic issue.
Bair wrote:when I spoke about heated debates and emotions I first of all pointed out the overreaction from the Russian side.
I see. I think many people on your side still believe in all that has been told (or not told) to them as the final truth. That kind of opinions are hard to change even if all the facts are seen.
Bair wrote:Somehow, most of the Finns that I have met (maybe I am just lucky) were quite calm and did not start shouting Karjala takaisin, waving a big red-black flag when they spoke to me about the Winter War.
That's our nature, we Finns are just realists.

We are now arguing with the real colors of Karelian flag and coat of arms. According to experts original colours of Karelia should be white and yellow not black and red... :lol:

Perhaps you have heard what these latter colors mean? Red is for all the blood flooded for Karelia during the Centuries and black is for the sorrow caused by the killed people. It also describes the loss of Karelia. That is why people are against these other colours. Actually black is the traditional colour of Savo not Karelia.
Bair wrote:You should have seen a couple of threads in Russian-language military forums about Winter War and Continuation war... It was really overheated.
:lol: I can Imagine. And I can understand the reasons why...

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

#34

Post by Hanski » 14 May 2003, 20:07

I am delighted to see the high level of the discussion that has now continued on this thread, and especially I would like to thank Bair for his way of presenting elegantly the Russian viewpoint - which undoubtedly he does differently from the "heated atmosphere" which presumably surrounds this subject on the Eastern side of the border. This discussion proves there is no need of mutual insulting indeed.

Also, the Finnish contributors have summarized brilliantly the essential of what is known about the various motives behind the Finnish occupation of Karelia (the nationalistic tribal idea of uniting all ethnic Finns and related population groups; the military rationale for advantageous defensive positions; the political rationale of Eastern Karelia as a pawn for bargaining on peace terms). It is easy for me to subscribe to all this.

What I would hope especially the readers of this Forum in the former Western Allied countries to pay attention to, are the following:

1. It is totally misleading to make the assumption that since Finland was an Axis country, therefore inevitably the Finns behaved towards their enemy just like Hitler's troops on the Eastern Front.

First of all, Finland was not an Axis country proper, but a co-belligerent of Germany (see the thread "What defines an Axis nation?").
Secondly, there was no political or ideologic motive to treat the population of the occupied territory as "subhumans", or destroy them in what is nowadays called "ethnic cleansing". So it is totally a false assumption to extend to the Finnish theatre of war the disregarding the Geneva Convention etc. on the Eastern Front of WWII.

2. Atrocities against the civilian population in the occupied territory were not committed.

Yes, there were indeed some fenced camps, even surrounded by barbed wire, where local civilians were "concentrated", or "transit camps", as they were later called. This arrangement was made for reasons of security, just like the U.S.A. placed her citizens of Japanese origin in camps during the WWII, for that matter. I wonder if there is any participant country of the WWII which never needed to keep a number of enemy civilians or own citizens suspected of collaboration with the enemy involuntarily detained.

But they were by no means death camps, meant to deliberately starve people to death, to kill them by forced labour, or to simply execute them by shooting beside mass graves. I believe Stalin's GuLag did have camps just for that purpose, but certainly not the Finnish authorities responsible for the administration of occupied Eastern Karelia.

There are individual criminals in wartime just like in peace time, so yes, war crimes do happen, and like it has been pointed out in the previous postings, the Finnish ones were tried in tribunals and some found guilty and convicted. But that has nothing to do with systematic atrocities, ordered from the top of the administrative hierarchy.

Also, it is good to keep in mind that at times there was genuine shortage of food in wartime Finland, from which the Finnish own civilian population suffered as well as the population of the occupied Karelia. The starvation was not limited to the people interned in camps, although starving to death or to diseases, to which starvation contributed, was more common in the camps. But is it untrue to claim that those camps were planned to starve people to death.

Please remember: despite fighting on the Axis side, Finland was a Western parliamentary democracy throughout the WWII and remains so even today, and the values regarding humanity did prevail accordingly, unlike in the states governed by totalitarian regimes.

Sami_K
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 10 Apr 2002, 08:46
Location: Finland

Baryshnikov Senior

#35

Post by Sami_K » 17 May 2003, 01:16

Bair,
at least Baryshnikov senior is interested in the Finnish-Soviet wars, got to give the man some credit for that. :wink:

Too bad that he's picky to select only those new archival findings which fits his view of things.
:(

Remember my post on the RBF forum about Baryshnikov's article in the Journal of Slavic Military History?
- Quoting out of context, giving meanings to events that were insignificant and disregarding events that would undermine his "message". He knows how to do that. :wink:

Cheers,
Sami

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

#36

Post by Hanski » 17 May 2003, 12:51

Again, I am grateful to Bair for letting us know what kind of information is available to the general public on the Russian side about the WWII.

Harri already commented Baryshnikov's text, so there is very little I need to add to that.

The following quotation of parliamentary debate may quite well have been correct and accurate:


"The most honest in expression of goals of Finland in the new war was the representative of a pro-fascist party "Patriotic People's Movement" Salmiala in his speech: " we now need to unite all the Finnish tribes together - he said - we need to make idea of Great Finland a reality and we need to move our borders (a question from the Parliament) - to where? - to the place where is the straight line from White Sea to Ladoga Lake" - "Shouting from the Parliament - Don't say all your thoughts aloud! "


Above all, this is a sample of freedom of speech - something you might hear any day at Hyde Park in London, happened then in the Finnish Parliament and ended up in official records. But it is totally misleading to claim that those extremist views would have represented the opinion of other MP's than this zealot, Mr Salmiala (just like Mr Zhirinovski should not be taken literally as representing the general political opinion in Russia in recent years). It certainly did not represent the attitude of the Parliament, let alone the official policies of the Finnish Government. The shouting "Don't say all your thoughts aloud!" must have been a jeering comment, probably followed by laughter.

As a matter of fact, the nationalistic tribal idea of uniting ethnic groups related to Finns, which JariL so excellently and accurately summarised before, was very inspiring to many in the newborn Republic of Finland, which had gained its independence in 1917. Being free from foreign dominance for the first time in history was a source of pride in itself, and the success in helping Estonia gain her freedom from Russia by sending an expeditionary military force of volunteers, further encouraged daydreaming of a "Greater Finland" in patriotic minds. Academic Karelia Society certainly had support among the elite of the newborn state.

However, fantasies and reality were two entirely different matters, and those responsible for forming the official policies of the nation had more than enough to do in getting the country economically on its feet after the destruction of a bitter Civil War / Liberation War, which left many wounds open. By the 1930s better times gradually arrived, and relative wealth started to accumulate in Finland, which was above all an agricultural society then.

Despite the economically better times, national defence was grossly neglected, and the military was quite well and realistically aware of this, they certainly had no illusions - Marshal Mannerheim resigned from the Defence Council in protest to the political folly of underfunding the Defence Forces. But that, of course, did not prevent zealots like Mr Salmiala from giving speeches.

In fact, there was a song (of the AKS?) with the lyrics "From the Bay of Viena to Ladoga, we shall draw the border with a sword", which corresponds precisely with Mr Salmiala's speech, but to use those as evidence of the Finnish official foreign policy is just like caricatures would be portrayed as "a smoking gun" in proof of serious matters.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr Baryshnikov must have had some particular motives in making those claims still in 1988 (before the collapse of the Soviet Union), selectively using sources that prove his point and consciously omitting those that prove the contrary. I wonder what those motives are, and why does he want to lead his readers to believe a nation of then 4 million people had intentions to conquer territory from a neighbour with a population of nearly 200 million?

instant karma
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 05 Jan 2003, 04:02
Location: new jersey, usa

#37

Post by instant karma » 18 May 2003, 05:53

This thread has been, and I guess will continue to be, very interesting reading. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to write such well thought out, in-depth posts.

It's amazing, it seems that no other topic on these forums brings out such passion.

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

#38

Post by Hanski » 20 May 2003, 20:15

Bair wrote: Try to tell any Russian today that Finland was a democracy in WWII, he will laugh at you.
So, what kind of democracy was it then? Take a look at what the official Finnish history writing tells us:

http://www.eduskunta.fi/fakta/historia/eng/index_5.htm

War time is exceptional, and the extreme executive authority of leading and conducting military operations must reside in the hands of the highest military command, instead of civilian politicians. To decide on the issues of war or peace for the Nation is ultimately in the hands of the highest political lead.

But from the above it should be quite clear that throughout the war there was a multi-party system, there was no dictatorship of any individual or of any single political party. The executive, legislative, and judicial powers were divided among different agencies, according to the ideas of Montesquieu: the executive power to the Cabinet, the legislative power to the Parliament, and the judicial power to independent Courts of Law.

What else should there be to convince today's Russians that Finland in 1939-45 was indeed a democracy at war?

Cheers,
Hanski

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

#39

Post by Hanski » 04 Jun 2003, 20:12

LeoAU wrote: Don't kid yourself, no more than you are typical victim of Finnish one. Actually no, much less than you are, because Soviet propaganda is non-existent for the last 10 years at least, and definately so here, down under.


That exactly is the funny side of it: the events we discuss happened 60 years ago, but for some reason you still need wartime Stalinist propaganda as your frame of reference! Is it the kangaroos or the koalas that you keep using as your sources? :wink: LeoAU, feel free to choose whether you prefer Stalinism to finding out true historical facts. If the former is Gospel to you, then fine, by all means go ahead and just believe it! The problem is not ours, and naturally no amount of evidence will change your mind – it is your view on the world, which you want to keep biased, but at least you are honest in your choice of an avatar.

For those interested in facts rather than opinions I believe the Finnish viewpoints have been clarified.

The group murders committed by "partisans" in Finland were studied in detail at wartime by the methods of the day for scene of crime investigation. The abundant material is still available (no matter what quality, for LeoAU it is all merely Finnish propaganda...), and there is not the slightest doubt that they do fulfil the criteria of war crimes. Charges were however dropped after the war for political reasons on the Finnish side, which must have been quite realistic at that time. In 2003, Finnish taxpayers have paid compensations for the surviving victims. Whether any legal proceedings will be pursued against the perpetrators is hereafter entirely up to the Russian authorities -- personally, I highly doubt that any action will ever take place there.

The truth still deserves to be known for everyone, although it is not a pleasant one. Of course, the same applies to any war crimes committed by Finns (although the legal action against perpetrators already took place right after the war). Will the present-day authorities on both sides of the border promote the emergence and spreading of historical truth? We shall see.

I pay tribute to the moral courage of those who wish to promote the emergence of truth. I admire Mr Stanislav Dashinski (see my previous posting) for his moral spine in this context, as well as Bair for his approach demonstrated in his website and numerous postings.

As Colonel Helge Seppälä, one of the Finnish war historians, has stated, the "partisan" incidents were insignificant, although they do raise emotions by their moral and ethical nature. From the military point of view, they achieved practically nothing, from the civilian casualty point of view, aerial bombardments caused far worse casualties.

When looking at the whole course of the Finnish-Russian WWII, the question of "partisan" raids or camps (whether internment or POW camps, or GuLag camps 1917-198?) are only a sidetrack. The decisive action took place on the fronts, by uniformed soldiers, fighting with conventional warfare and not by terrorist methods.

Also, the Supreme Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces, Marshal Mannerheim, had an entirely different attitude towards Russians than Hitler or the Nazis. Himself a former officer of the Czar, he well understood the resources of Russia and specifically took care to avoid such Finnish action that should be regretted if the fortune turned, as it later did. Treatment of POW's and the population under Finnish occupation was far from indifferent to him.

It would be wrong to over-generalise from exceptional cases and label with stereotypes. Finnish soldiers were returned alive from POW captivity.
There were Red Army units which gained the genuine respect of Finnish front-line soldiers for their endurance, patience and courage despite heavy casualties and failing logistics. Some besieged units chose to blow themselves up rather than surrender, hailing Stalin in their last radio message. And the Red Army learned from experience, improving its quality and performance as the war went on.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#40

Post by LeoAU » 05 Jun 2003, 09:43

Harri wrote:
You said that - again. :roll: I have lived all my life in the free country and I don't have to explain historical facts. I can also rely on my sources.
O please! Free country... free of what? of propaganda? no way. you can see how they change the history that is happening today!
LeoAU wrote:What communist superiority??
Like German Nazis also Communists believe/believed they are better (superior) to other people. That made them do things they wouldn't othervise do, like atrocities etc.
Mate, what on Earth are you talking about? You complitely missed the plot. Communism was all about people being equal! Hence no superiority. Get your facts straight on this one.
LeoAU wrote:Yep, they were not the most 'humane' people, which considering their level of perticipation in the war is quite easily explained. But I don't see any reasons for calling Finns the most humane ones!
If we compare Finnish soldiers to any other soldiers of WW II we can at once notice that Finnish soldiers were among the most humane ones. I'm waiting for your proves that the case was not so. I think that list is not very long...
Most humane? Define humanity at war. War by itself is against humanity. And if those human soldiers take any part in for eg blockade of Leningrade, they do not have any right to be called the most 'human', whatever that means!

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Re: "All there is to it."

#41

Post by LeoAU » 05 Jun 2003, 09:53

Sami_K wrote: But the fact is that many of them would've died regardless of Finnish action. The % of the dead gets flawed when the bulk of the 'healthy' populace were evacuated or made it to eg. across Lake Onega in time.
Had the 'age pyramid' of the population in the Finnish occupied territory been the same as before the war, the % of the dead, compared to the combined numbers, wouldn't have been so high as it was.
You do make a perfect sence on this one, or should I say a perfect excuse. I was always wondering what happened to those some 17mln Soviet citizens killed by German and Finnish and Co occupiers! Now I know, they would've died any way!
Of course, the its the WAR (and all the things linked to it) that killed people more than 'the Finnish occupation'.
I'll take it as the acceptance of the fact that human Finnish soldiers do have some innocent blood on their hands.
The scorched earth tactics, including burning homes, grain & wheat stores (like sinking barges full of grain), had its impact too.
So-called scorched earth tactics hardly existed back at that time!
Had Finland NOT feeled threathened by the USSR, or allowed to seek (military) security eg. from a Nordic defensive alliance (Finland tried, but Molotov put a quick end to it), perhaps there would've been an alternative than Germany. But it went as it went.
Had USSR NOT feeled threathened by Finland and its potential allies (exactly how it happened - Finland joined Germany), there would be no Winter war etc.
I know that the KISS principle is fine in some regards, it still isn't good when discussing history.
What? Kiss principle?

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

Re: "All there is to it."

#42

Post by Hanski » 05 Jun 2003, 10:46

LeoAU wrote: Had USSR NOT feeled threathened by Finland and its potential allies (exactly how it happened - Finland joined Germany), there would be no Winter war etc.
The discussion with Leo is getting more and more absurd, as he shows total ignorance of even the most elementary facts. Do you know anything at all about the background of the Winter War? Have you ever heard of Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, with its agreed spheres of influence? How on earth can you say "Finland joined Germany" and what do you mean with it, when during the Winter War, Hitler's Germany actually sided with the USSR? You are more Stalinist than Uncle Joe himself...

Seriously, I suggest you re-read this thread from the beginning, from page 1 to at least page 5. There are plenty of opinions there, but also useful links and factual information on central issues. I am well aware these parts of WWII history are not generally known in the rest of the world, due to the bias in the media for the victorious Allied side, and to the language barrier.

Cheers,
Hanski

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: "All there is to it."

#43

Post by Mark V » 05 Jun 2003, 19:33

LeoAU wrote:Had USSR NOT feeled threathened by Finland and its potential allies (exactly how it happened - Finland joined Germany), there would be no Winter war etc.
Yeah. One of the greates blunders of Stalin.

Had him left Finland to live their life at peace in late 30s, and maybe sold some strategic materials, grain and even weapons without strings attached (OK - i admit - highly unlikely scenario)...

... Soviet Unions North-Western borders would had been totally secured and protected through whole Great Patriotic War against Germany. Germans would had no chance in he.. to invade Finland over Baltic (Finns had very effective coastal defence and had been training to counter exactly such attack for two decades - the defence of Åland) and even if Norway would had been invaded by Germans (highly unlikely if there hadn't been war in Finland) Finns would had been able to protect their own Lappland against Germans and that way protect Murmansk. And Finnish wouldn't had any reason to join the war on German side.

To any objective observer it is obvious that USSR made Finland to be their enemy (and did that very effectively) by their own actions. Winter War was just first episode in that process. By spring-41 it was very clear to every Finnish decision maker that Finland and USSR could not live in peace in long term.

Some examples of continued Soviet stranglehold after Winter War:

- Enso issue. Soviets demanded, and got border correction to grab important industrial center which would had been left to Finnish side according to border first settled between Finland and USSR after Winter War.
- Shooting down Kaleva (Finnish unarmed Ju-52 passanger aircraft) on it's way from Tallinn to Helsinki.
- Demand to get a share of Petsamos Nickel production.
- Soviet railroad troop transits through southern Finland to Soviet base in Hanko.
- Soviet support to every group or party who was willing to cause internal disturbances in Finland - many times camouflaged through society established after Winter War: "Finnish-USSR Society of Friendship" - Finns really didn't appreciate the joke...
- Constant aggressive attitude against Finland in Soviet media and diplomatic circles.
- August -40 crisis (Finnish intelligence gathered evidence that Soviet Union was making military preparations to attack Finland again).
- And the last straw: Molotov in Berlin, trying to make an agreement with Hitler in "final solution" of Finnish issue...

.... That "final solution" was very clear to anybody here: Soviet Union was aggressive state just waiting to first opportunity to invade Finland. And all facts support that it was not just the opinion here, but long term objective of Soviet Union.

Regards, Mark V

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#44

Post by Harri » 05 Jun 2003, 21:59

LeoAU wrote:O please! Free country... free of what? of propaganda? no way. you can see how they change the history that is happening today!
Free of Soviet oppression. Who change the history?
LeoAU wrote:Mate, what on Earth are you talking about? You complitely missed the plot. Communism was all about people being equal! Hence no superiority. Get your facts straight on this one.
8O Do you really still believe in that bulls**t? :roll:
LeoAU wrote:Most humane? Define humanity at war. War by itself is against humanity. And if those human soldiers take any part in for eg blockade of Leningrade, they do not have any right to be called the most 'human', whatever that means!
Well, there isn't humanity in war. But relatively being effective in plain combat doesn't make Finnish soldiers less humane than others, does it?

The so called "Leningrad siege" was not Finnish fault and Finland didn't partisipate in it. It was purely German operation, assisted by Soviets, like I have told. If Finland would have been involved in any siege people and soldiers in Leningrad had felt it too.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Re: "All there is to it."

#45

Post by Harri » 05 Jun 2003, 22:55

Mark V wrote:- Enso issue. Soviets demanded, and got border correction to grab important industrial center which would had been left to Finnish side according to border first settled between Finland and USSR after Winter War.
I heard yesterday that two missed border marks from the year 1721 (Uusikaupunki/Nystad Peace Treaty) were found at Antrea, Karelian Isthmus. The exact borderline has been a mystery for a long time because all of its markings in the grounds have not yet been found. The reason for that is now clear: they have been looked for in a wrong place.

That is interesting because current border should follow about that same border. Pity, it's just about 22 kms too far in the North-West... :? So, what should be done about it? That clearly proves that Soviet Union captured Enso area illegally because that area didn't belong to so called border of Peter the Great.
Last edited by Harri on 06 Jun 2003, 09:54, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”