@Jagala
Pray describe the work process, as you see it, in more detail.
It think it's pretty much up to the contributors themselves, and then others can come in and protest later if they feel so inclined. So the process would be that some Finnish "patriot" decides there should be a non-English version of a certain Finnish entry, which he makes leaving out the compromising bits. That's how it looks to me, anyway, and I've been through quite a lot of these cases.
now that we agree there really existed something that rose its ugly head in Finland that did not, for various reasons, exist in Britain or in Scandinavia at least not at the same time or in the same form we can all agree that nothing else existed or meant squat in matters of foreign or military policy.
We still need to look at a few more things under this thread, such as the pulp and paper barons and their role and influence in all of this. The more honest and open Finnish members are about these things, the more believable their overall stance will also be, as I can see a few people are gradually beginning to understand. So far, though I have been digging as much as I can in the dirt around here (which is simply my job), I still haven't found anything that can change my deep admiration for the Finnish people as such and their innocence in what happened.
Anyway, the funny thing is that there were a lot of things that created friction between Sweden and Finland before WWII, but on all of these issues there had been a steady progress towards amicable relations - and there was no turn for the worse or rekindling of old issues in 1941 (as you are so keen to suggest).
What you say here is certainly contradicted by the Finnish historian at Turku University, Lars Westerlund, who writes in his essay "The Mass Deaths of Soviet Prisoners of War in Finland and the Negligence of the Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian Red Crosses" (p. 314) in answer to the mystery of why the Swedish Red Cross (SRK) did not help the Russian POWs on its own initiative:
The answer to this question is related to the different way in which the Swedish public reacted to the Winter War, as compared to the Continuation War. In Sweden, Finland starting an offensive war together with Germany against the Soviet Union did not sit well with many people, and public opinion on the war was divided. The Swedish general public, the labour union movement, and the political left no longer felt the same sympathy for Finland that they had felt during the Winter War, and the fates of Norway and Denmark became the focuses of public interest instead. At the same time as support for "the course of Finland" (Finlands sak) dwindled among the masses and became confined to a small group of people, the interest of the Swedish pro-war activists remained unabated, with the SRK, in the name of humanitarianism, quietly sympathizing with them.
http://www.arkisto.fi/uploads/Palvelut/ ... UT_WEB.pdf
My claim (that the ambition to include parts of Sweden and Norway in the Greater Finland idea was further harmful to Finnish-Swedish relations) is largely my own. It think it would be hard to judge how much it mattered, but my assumption is that it must have had some influence. Try to imagine the opposite scenario and you will see what I mean.
Methinks you are too hard trying to make some kind of oblong argument that Finland cannot have been serious about the proposed Finnish-Swedish defense co-operation and political and and military union, because it would have clashed with their plans to annex a part of Sweden.
No, that would be silly, alone for the fact that the pro-annexation people had no part in these negotiations. All I'm trying to do is find facts that can put some realism into the white-as-snow imagery we are given 99 % of the time on these threads (and of which there is already a copious amount, so why keep repeating it). If intelligent people are to believe in all the positive and admirable things that can be said about the Finns during these years, there needs to be a better balance that shows a human face. Most people today with an open interest in history have been made fully aware of all the mistakes and dirty acts of their own governments during those years - just ask any Norwegian or Dane with a sound and well-informed mind. Why should we believe that the Finnish leaders, who joined the Nazi war machine etc., could possibly be as pure as snow? Why should they be immune to criticism? Why am I being accused of persecuting the Finnish people and being racist against them, when I'm not even being half as critical as most Danes, myself included, are towards their own leaders during those years?
In any case a man I'd much rather have shaken hands with than you. (I hope you accept this as a case of yours truly sinking to your level...)
I'm very conscious about never making personal remarks like that, so I don't see what you mean. In any case I would have no problem shaking hands with you, and it astonishes me that you still can't see we are on the same side. My situation is simply one where the truth is not enough - I need the
whole truth. We already have all the nice stuff, now we need the darkness that makes it real. In that regard you are certainly much more open and honest the many others I have been discussing with, but generally I would say that things are getting better at the moment.
Regards, Vely
), but it seems the AKS had quite an influence on the administration of things in occupied East Karelia, as you can see from the Laine article that I gave a link to. Here is it again: