@ Anne G.
I didn't invent this, it was felt by many woman at that time.
If they thought that the Lottas had been more important in the War and should have been more present in the novel, I can appreciate the feeling. However, if "Unknown Soldier" was to be turned in that direction - which I agree would be interesting - is would be a completely different book and not the book that Linna wanted to write - or maybe even could
write even if he wanted to. It doesn't work to blame writers for not writing the books we want them to.
With regard to the trilogy, I think the problem some people might have lies in Linna's sympathy for a certain kind of women that are not fashionable today. Unlike today's Feminists who claim such woman were practically living in slavery, Linna shows us that they - or at least some of them - actually felt proud about their role and their work. This wasn't recognised at the time, and it is still not recognised. But Linna is nothing if not a believer in giving credit where credit is truly due - and that is what he does here too, bless him.
May I ad that my wife finds him absolutely spot on in this regard, as well.
I don't think it was a coincidence. Either Linna was opposing the Finnish war-time propaganda about the enemy and/or he was shielding from his men by only mentioning (one is a pimp) but not actually describing how their real relationships with local women were.
Sometimes the Lord works in mysterious ways. Whatever the reason behind this, it works fantastically well in print and on the screen.
However beautiful a scene, this is supposed to be a realistic novel. Why would we then be allowed to ask why Linna makes such a non-realistic scene? As a contrast or an ideal? That's okay.
Once you really dig into Linna's novel it is actually extremely "unrealistic" on many points. The kind of compromises you have to make with realism in order to compose a long historical collective novel are truly frightening. The best you can achieve in that direction is to be realistic on an overall level.
But in reality it wasn't so: there were men who pleaded for mercy, and there were woman who didn't cry.
As always I very much appreciate the sources and quotes you give, but I don't think it is reasonable to cling on to this one point. It sounds to me like the author you mention has some kind of personal paranoid agenda against the male sex and is desperate to prove that it fits poor old Väinö Linna, one of the greatest writers of all time. Next time I suggest she tries going out with a man that's less good looking. We're usually much easier to get along with.
In Kenttäoikeudet (Kenttäoikeudet) Marko Tikka tells that many Reds weren't very heroic after the defeat: they f.ex. told about the acts of their comrades that got them death sentence, but they didn't save themselves by this.
I won't go into this. Danes have a strict rule about people in the War: We do not judge anyone for what they did or didn't do under torture.
The author Hannu Raittila says that Linna's soldiers are much more urban and modern than the real soldiers were, and that's just the reason they became so dear to the Finns moving from the country to town.
Interesting point. Still, that is just another necessary compromise that goes with writing a historic novel.