Book Hitler's Nordic Ally? Finland and the Total War 1939-45

[Claes Johansen]

@Juha Tompuri

You are playing peek-a-boo all over the place again and have been reported for it once more. I simply have no idea what you are trying to say in your last posting.

I think perhaps you are taking your job here a little too easily and believe you have found a way to compensate for your lack of linguistic skills. However, you need to specify exactly why you want the rest of us to click onto a link to an other posting.

We are not here to waste our time guessing what you are thinking would work as answers. You need to answer in full yourself and then add the link as backup.

Then again, if one is the moderator of the thread then one can do whatever one likes, I suppose.

[Juha Tompuri]

"Not getting people's names right" makes sense, but "calling people false names" looks pretty strange in English, like something Donald Trump could have said.

Trump?
You don't have go that far. Just read how you self call people:

Juha "Trumpuri"

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 4#p2109982

Here the meanings of the author seems to disagree with how the readers read the written text.

Again, this is a kind of statement that doesn't really make much sense.

Preface xii: ”there existed among the Finnish upper class, particulary in business and academic
circles, strong pro-German passions.”

One can indeed say so if one uses only one sentence, except regarding business.

Thank you Anne for confirming one of my wonderings about the book, that had puzzled me.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 5#p2110942

Neither Anne nor I agree with the sentence in question.

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

Moving on:

SA-photo 1264

”Väinö Tanner (left, 1881- 1966) and Juho Paasikivi (1870-1956) on
their way to negotiations in Moscow, October 1939”

What is your source for your photo caption?
According to the SA-photo caption the gentlemen are returning from the negotiations, and the date also seems to be wrong.

Regards, Juha

[Claes Johansen]

What is your source for your photo caption?
According to the SA-photo caption the gentlemen are returning from the negotiations, and the date also seems to be wrong.

The caption was taken from the SA-site at the time I wrote the book. Some time later they revamped the site and corrected many errors, as you may recall.

These things can happen during the very complicated process of making any book, and sometimes the resulting errors can be a lot worse than this one, to put it mildly. However, I shall contact the friendly ladies at the SA-site and make sure we get it absolutely right next time.

[Juha Tompuri]

The caption was taken from the SA-site at the time I wrote the book. Some time later they revamped the site and corrected many errors, as you may recall.

The photo captions there are original, AFAIK written about the same time the photos were taken.
I really don't remember that someone had changed them. where could we learn more about the claimed change?
How about the the date? Where did you get it?

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

If for whatever reason the caption is wrong, I will find out and it will be corrected in the next edition of the book.

Yep, whatever the reason was, it seems not have been the SA-site. At least no facts, by so far, point out that direction.

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

Oops...
The post I quoted above seems to have been deleted by the author while I composed mine?

Regards, Juha

[Claes Johansen]

@Juha Tompuri

The photo captions there are original, AFAIK written about the same time the photos were taken.

As I recall the information was handwritten on the back of the photographs and c. 70 years later was copied on to the SA website. The error we're talking about might have occurred there, for instance the writing could have been smeared. Also, the info may of course not even have been correct in the first place.

I really don't remember that someone had changed them.

The whole site was revamped, as I already said. Whether you can remember it or not is hardly my responsibility.

Where could we learn more about the claimed change?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "we", but if you personally contact the SA website there might be someone there who recalls the revamp, since apparently it means so much to you to solve this earth-shattering mystery. All I can tell you is that I copied and translated the info from the SA website and there is no reason I can imagine why I should have done it erroneously, so it looks like they have since corrected it, possibly as part of the revamp.

BTW., what about your big peek-a-boo posting that still needs to be explained properly? Or are you somehow above the forum rules?

[peeved]

Re: photo captions; How was the photo mentioned by this online reviewer captioned in the book?
From https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/265 ... er_reviews

Sarah_loves_books added it
ETA: The picture of the skeletal Russian PoW in the book (that also another reviewer mentioned) started to bother me so much I checked it from the source, SA-kuva (the archive of Sotamuseo, Museum of War, Finnish Defence Force). This archive is open to anybody. There indeed was such a picture, the PoW had died of diarrhoea, which information the author didn't give. There were other pictures with PoWs in the barracks for the sick at that same Naarajärvi camp. For example this...

...This is not to say the conditions at the camps weren't often poor (cold, undernourishment) or that there wasn't cruelty. This is just to add to the one-sided account the author overall gave of this matter, including the selection of the one picture that would be sure to shock people the most. To see all the pictures from the Naarajärvi camp you'll have to do the Finnish text search 'Naarajärvi AND sotavank*'. You'll also have to tick the box saying 'päivättömät' (without date).

Markus

[Juha Tompuri]

A sad sidetrack to this thread, but hopefully this clears some issues, so that we can move on to the next case.

What is your source for your photo caption?
According to the SA-photo caption the gentlemen are returning from the negotiations, and the date also seems to be wrong.

The caption was taken from the SA-site at the time I wrote the book. Some time later they revamped the site and corrected many errors, as you may recall.

As you advised, I contacted the SA-photo website, and they disagree with the info you have delivered here to us, according to this case.
I was informed that there has been no corrections. Only some additional info has been added.
So, the your caption could not have been taken from the SA-photo in question. At no time.

@Juha Tompuri

The photo captions there are original, AFAIK written about the same time the photos were taken.

As I recall the information was handwritten on the back of the photographs and c. 70 years later was copied on to the SA website. The error we're talking about might have occurred there, for instance the writing could have been smeared. Also, the info may of course not even have been correct in the first place.

Mainly the photos have been stored as negatives, and the photo info written to a separate paper.

I really don't remember that someone had changed them.

The whole site was revamped, as I already said. Whether you can remember it or not is hardly my responsibility.

Still wonder what "revamp" you mean? The one when they added the colour photos and SA-newsreels there in 2014?

Where could we learn more about the claimed change?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "we",...

You, me and the rest of the AHF

...but if you personally contact the SA website there might be someone there who recalls the revamp,...

Thank you very much for the very useful advise, but... they only had at some cases added info to the photos.

...since apparently it means so much to you to solve this earth-shattering mystery.

What at the beginning was just a question about how you made the apparent mistake, when using the SA-photo info, now has turned something more strange - your story how you made your mistake in quoting the SA-site seems not hold water very well.

All I can tell you is that I copied and translated the info from the SA website and there is no reason I can imagine why I should have done it erroneously, so it looks like they have since corrected it, possibly as part of the revamp.

As mentioned above, the SA-site officials have not corrected anything at the photo in question. They only have added info there. Originally, at the photo, there was only mentioned about the persons at the photo. Later they have added the "arriving from the negotiations at Moscow".

BTW., what about your big peek-a-boo posting that still needs to be explained properly? Or are you somehow above the forum rules?

Really can't guess what you at this time mean.

Regards, Juha

[Claes Johansen]

@peeved

How was the photo mentioned by this online reviewer captioned in the book?

It reads:

The dead body of a Russian PoW in the Finnish Naarajärvi Camp (SA-Kuva)(p. 235)

If you have anything further to say about the book, I suggest you go and read it first yourself and form your own opinion rather than rely on over emotional reviews such as the one you have so kindly posted here. You don't have to buy it, as it should be easily available through the Finnish library system.

The photograph used to be numbered 78913 in on the SA-Kuva website, but that may have changed since then.

[Juha Tompuri]

The photograph used to be numbered 78913 in on the SA-Kuva website, but that may have changed since then.

Why would they have changed the original numbers?
Would it be possible to have the SA-photo numbers of the SA-photos you have used at your book?
A couple of them are for some unknown reasons quite difficult to track, even using your photo captions at your book.

Regards, Juha

[Claes Johansen]

@Juha Tompuri

As you advised, I contacted the SA-photo website, and they disagree with the info you have delivered here to us, according to this case.

I don't know who you think you're fooling, but at least try not to insult the average member's intelligence. What SA-Kuva told you in no way contradicts but in fact unambiguously confirms exactly what I have been saying from the start and more besides - as will become clear further on.

Nothing has been corrected. Only some additional info has been added.

This is just plain nonsense since these terms are not necessarily contradictory in the English language. Primarily, adding more information can often be described as making a correction, which is exactly what has happened in this case. Besides, it doesn't matter what you call it, what was done was done, and in this case it was exactly what I had told you.

So, the your caption could not have been taken from the SA-photo in question.

Since your premise is fundamentally flawed, it is no wonder that its conclusion is nonsense, too, and in direct opposition to the "truthfulness" you claim to love so much. (And just to make sure you understand and don't ride off on some new irrelevant tangent: My caption wasn't "taken" word for word from the SA-Kuva site, but it was based on it.)

Still wonder what "revamp" you mean?

You "still" wonder? That's kind of strange because you clearly insinuated that I was lying when I told your there had been even one revamp, and only now - because SA-Kuva have confirmed that I was right - do you realise there was in fact several.

So which one exactly was I referring to? I really can't remember since, believe it or not, I had other things going on in my life than keeping a day-to-day diary of the developments at the SA-Kuva website. What I do remember, though, is that for certain periods things seemed to be just a little more chaotic over there than they apparently like to let on these days. Not that I'm slagging them off, they are very kind and helpful people.

JT: Where could we learn more about the claimed change?
CJ: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "we"
JT: You, me and the rest of the AHF

When you use the word "we" in a context such as this in English, the impression you make is of someone grossly patronising and gloating in his own imagined superiority - or a humiliated alpha male clutching at straws, choose what you like.

What at the beginning was just a question about how you made the apparent mistake, when using the SA-photo info, now has turned something more strange - your story how you made your mistake in quoting the SA-site seems not hold water very well.

On the contrary, my "story" makes even more sense now than I realised from the start, when it was more of a theory meant to help you find a possible solution to this mystery that seemingly haunts you so much.

Originally, at the photo, there was only mentioned about the persons at the photo. Later they [SA-Kuva] have added the "arriving from the negotiations at Moscow".

Which shows that I was exactly right all the way from the start, where in fact this whole childish and idiotic discussion should have ended. I mean, I told you I would double check and if necessary correct the caption in the next edition of my book, which should have been more than enough for you. Instead you have gone on, wrongly accusing me of lying, wasting the time of the officials at the SA-Kuva site, and generally humiliating yourself with a primitive and pathetic manipulative attempt to turn the whole story on its head and mess up the facts to make it look to the forum as if you were right and I was lying.

CJ: BTW., what about your big peek-a-boo posting that still needs to be explained properly? Or are you somehow above the forum rules?
TJ: Really can't guess what you at this time mean.

So clearly you do consider yourself above the forum rules, you're even gloating over it like some little underdog mafioso. That's neat.

[JariL]

"... a Finnish mini empire with the highest possible degree of autonomy but still inevitably subordinated to the New Europe – Neuropa – which the Finnish leaders were convinced would come true under Nazi German rule." (p. 172)

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, you actually have the Finnish war aims by the start of the Continuation War, which is something Finnish historians have never fully managed to formulate, perhaps because it is not a beautiful sight.

The Finnish war aims later changed as the Germans started losing the war, but that's another story. You need to read the whole book for that, despite the fact that certain people around here are trying desperately to steer you away from it. Perhaps you're now beginning to see why.

Finnish leaders were hoping that Germany would beat Soviet Union and that Finland would regain the territory lost in the Winter War. This was the stated goal of the Finnish war effort.

Without any doubt Soviet Union's collapse would have opened the possibility to expand Finnish territory to the East, given of course that Germany would have allowed it, which was far from certain. German government, in order to get Finland more securely tied to Germany, asked Finnish government to write down it's demands for the eventual peace negotiations with the Soviet Union. The official answer was 1939 borders. On top of this a book "Suomen Idänkysymys" ("Finnish Eastern Problem") written by professor Jalmari Jaakkola was published that tried to motivate why Russian Karelia and Kola Peninsula were Finnish. President Ryti asked professor Jaakkola to write the book but the manner in which is was done was chosen precisely because the Finnish leadership was not willing to nail down any goals that could be used against Finland in the West. Thus expanding Finnish territory was never presented as an official war goal but the book gave Germans the answer they had asked for but without the commitment that Germany really was hoping to get.

The optimal outcome of the war from the point of view of the Finnish leaders was repeat of WWI; Germany beats Russia and then the Western allied beat Germany. President Ryti even said as much early on during the war and marshal Mannerheim probably agreed given his opinion about Germany (and not only Nazi Germany).

German victory over Russia was the second best outcome but Finnish leaders did see the dangers embedded in this scenario. And they were right, Hitler was planning on annexing Finland to Germany as a state and Germanizing the country. One consequence of these suspicions was that Finns were very careful in all fields of co-operation with Germany and tried to avoid making any commitments that would make Finland an integral part of German political, military or economic system. This policy worked surprisingly well given that Germany could have put a lot of pressure on Finland by limiting food supplies. Probably Hitler thought that Finland could easily be handled after the war and that there was nothing to be gained by being too "bossy". Imperial Germany had not been quite as subtle in 1918.

The worst outcome was Soviet victory. Finnish war time leaders could not really see a future for Finland under this scenario. That there was a future after all was partly explained by Finnish war time leaders not openly committing to expansion nor New Europe.

The policy chosen by Finnish war time leaders in 1940-1941 (or until 1944 if you like) was not pretty but it worked. While there are many things that can be criticized one thing is clear, decisions were not based on emotional ties. That Soviet Union was seen as a deadly threat was a major factor as was repulsion towards communism as an ideology.

[Claes Johansen]

@JariL

I have always enjoyed your postings on this forum and found them of a very high standard indeed, knowledgeable, informative and open-minded about certain controversial issues. On the subject of the early Finnish war aims we by and large agree, also, though to my surprise your are prettying things up a bit and holding back a few essential facts.

Much more I cannot really say here and now, since you yourself have previously declared that you haven't read my book properly, only skimmed it - as is clear from your posting here, too, which seems to suggest I'm a total amateur who needs some kind of a lecture on the very basics of the Finnish motivation for starting the Continuation War. In fact, there is quite a lot of in-depth information in the book about this subject, even some that might be new to you, so if I discussed it with you now I would just be sitting here quoting myself.

As I've said to others, if you consider £25 too much for a beautifully made hardback book, printed on high quality expensive paper with loads of super sharp photographs, by all means go to the library instead, but please don't expect me to sit here and discuss my book with you if you haven't even bothered to read it properly.

I hate to sound harsh, but to be honest this is just a little bit below what I would have expected from you in particular.