Suho Lighthouse

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
Ilmarinen
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 13:03
Location: Finland

Post by Ilmarinen » 22 Dec 2005 12:39

Hi,

This is my personal opinion and you can take it as such. The problem with the Baryshnikovs (and Seppälä to some extent) is their apparent political motivation that would seem to go ahead of historical objectivity sometimes. There are clear and odd misinterpretations of original Finnish sources in the Baryshnikovs' (father and son) works. The ones regarding Tuompo's diary mentioned above are not the only ones concerning that source; in fact it seems they have a "slightly different edition" of the book in use. I've not always been able to find what they quote in the original they refer to. A clear statement of their political bias - again in my opinion - is the dedication of their book "Finland and the Siege of Leningrad" (English language version, if I remember right - could be one of their other books) to "the men who brought democracy to Finland", or something to that effect, by which I take they mean that the Soviet Union did it after 1944. After reading this in the opening page it is difficult for any Finn to take what follows seriously.

Their (English and Finnish language versions at least) and Seppälä's later books are published by the same publisher, Johan Beckman Institute, whose statements seem pretty political and always well aligned with their way of thinking. Seppälä and Baryshnikovs also like to cross-reference each other quite a lot.

Form your own opinion by all means, I am just saying that I have some suspicions about the "intellectual honesty" of these sources.

No offense meant!

-J.

Sami_K
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 10 Apr 2002 07:46
Location: Finland

Post by Sami_K » 22 Dec 2005 13:21

Ilmarinen wrote:Hi,

This is my personal opinion and you can take it as such. The problem with the Baryshnikovs (and Seppälä to some extent) is their apparent political motivation that would seem to go ahead of historical objectivity sometimes. There are clear and odd misinterpretations of original Finnish sources in the Baryshnikovs' (father and son) works.


Here's a part of a post I once made in the RBF forum, commenting Baryshnikov senior's article in JSMS (September 2001 issue of JSMS "Was there any Threat to Leningrad from the North in 1941?"):


Although Mr.Baryshnikov's work and interest in the Finnish-Soviet wars of 1939-1944 is commendable and highly appreciate as he tends to bring a different POV to things, that particular article has some flaws I wish to address.

The first point being the claim, in JSMS p.113, "...Mannerheim decided to advance further along the Leningrad axis beyond the limits of the old borders....This continued to be the case until 9 September, when Mannerheim ordered his I and II Army Corps to halt their attempts to break through and to dig in along the their existing positions". For this, he quotes a Finnish book from 1951.
As we know, in time, more and more documents have become available, and according to a 1992 book "Jatkosodan historia osa 2"(The Continuation War History vol 2"), the above quote is proven utterly wrong.
In fact:
The Operative Section of the Finnish GHQ, after a visit of President R.Ryti, issued on 31 August an order:
...
2. The II and IV Corps will continue the attack to the line
The mouth of Rajajoki River – Aleksandrovka – eastern edge of Valkeasaari – Ohta.
After the objective is reached, both Corps’ will switch for defense. The IV Corps is to prevent the escape of the enemy, especially in the area around Koivisto.
3. The I Corps will continue the attack and destroy the enemy in the Eastern Karelian Isthmus.
4. The 19th Division will be subordinated on 1 September 1941 to the II Corps in order to relieve the 18th and 2nd Divisions’ from frontline duty after the objective has been reached.
(Jatkosodan Historia 2, p.261, Porvoo 1992)

It is to be noted that only the I Corps, attacking on the eastern edge of the Karelian Isthmus (and thus the farthest from Leningrad), did not receive precise geographic objectives. Instead, the objectives were to be specified later, according to the situation. On 2 September, the I Corps Commander, Colonel Mäkinen issued an order to keep attacking until stiff enemy resistance was met. On 3 September, the I Cops started their tactical maneuvers to straighten the frontline in the Karelian Isthmus, and to achieve a tactically sound defensive line.

(The main idea of the advance in the Karelian Isthmus was to have the frontline on the western and eastern sides of the Isthmus to rest on the old border, and the bulge in between removed and the fronline straightened. See: http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/J ... siosa.html
for a map of the isthmus and the Finnish advances.)

The Finnish divisions advanced up to their ORDERED objectives, the final battles in the II and IV Corps sectors were fought over terrain points that were set as objectives, i.e. they were NOT attempts to break through the Soviet defenses.

The second one mentioned is Wolf Halsti, who, according to the article, wrote:”The fall of Leningrad was viewed as vitally important both during the war and it its final outcome”.
This quote puzzles me, as even though what Mr.Halsti wrote is 100% correct, I fail to see its connection to strenghten the case of ”planned” Finnish aggression against Leningrad city itself.

The third person to be quoted in the article is Helge Seppälä.
I read about 15 pages before and 15 pages after the page 136 in Helge Seppälä’s ”The Battle of Leningrad and Finland”, that was marked in the footnotes. According to the footnote of the article, Mr.Baryshnikov used the Finnish language issue, printed in Porvoo 1969, the same that I have, and I FAILED to find the quote ”According to the views of the Finnish Headquarters, within the breadth of German planning, the capture of Leningrad was the fact [essential element] of our participation in this operation”.
Instead, on page 136, Mr.Seppälä specificially writes: ”Strategically, the German and Finnish situation was favorable for subsequent operations (after the Finns had advanced to their line in the Karelian Isthmus and the Germans severed the land connections to the SE on 8 September -Sami). However, the situation was not exploited as Mannerheim, using different excuses, forbade any subsequent attacks against Leningrad”.
On page 137, Mr. Seppälä writes:”The President of the Finnish Republic opposed unconditionally any action against Leningrad. He checked several times that Finns did not bombard Leningrad. Mannerheim assumed the view of the political leadership although it was from a military point of view erroneus.”



Another point, which caught my attention was Mr. Baryshnikov’s claim that the Finnish leadership had actually intended to fulfill the (1941) aim to advance to the so-called ”strategic border” (Karelian Isthmus – River Svir – Lake Onega), already during the 1939-1940 Winter War !!!
As proof, Mr.Baryshnikov represents the Finnish 11 November 1941 Memorandum, which Finland sent to the US as an response to an US appeal to cease seizing Soviet territory.

First point, which I have to address is that the US Memorandum, handed over to the Finns on 30 October, was anything but an ”appeal”.
A part of the US Memorandum: ” Without contributing to the future security of Finland itself, these operations have become in fact a direct threat to the security of the United States. Therefore it must be clearly understood that, if Finland does not immediately discontinue this course of action, the friendly support of the United States, in future difficulties which will inexorable arise as the consequence of such a decision, must be forfeited by Finland. It is the desire of the American Government that the Finnish Government be informed in unequivocal terms of the alternatives it faces so far as the United States is concerned before a final decision has been reached. The Finnish Government should fully appreciate that the demands of the defense of the United States of America make necessary steps which, though taken with regret, are no less imperative for that reason.

So the Finnish Memorandum, which BTW was somewhat wrongly translated by Mr. Baryshnikov (at least when I compare it to the English version of the Memorandum that I have, which was translated by the Finnish Foreign Ministry), was a response to that. The Memorandum itself was very long, and the phrases, which Mr.Baryshnikov uses as ”evidence” has been taken out of its context and some vital parts have been excluded.
Mr.Baryshnikov’s writes* ”Finland is seeking to neutralize and occupy enemy offensive positions, including those that lay beyond the 1939 borders of 1939. It would be urgently necessary for Finland in the interest of the defense effectiveness to have undertaken such measures in 1939 during the first phase of the war, if only her forces had been sufficient for this end.”
* = According to the footnote, Mr.Baryshnikov is quoting a Finnish book by T.Polvinen, 1979. So the discrepancy between Mr.Baryshnikov’s version and the text that the collection ” Documents Concerning the relations between Finland, Great Britain and the United States of America During the Autumn of 1941” has, is probably due to translation errors.

As we now know to what the Finnish memorandum was an answer, perhaps we should take a look at a much revealing (and a somewhat different English version, of a part of the text of the Finnish memo:
” The character of Finland’s struggle is not altered by the circumstance that, on the grounds of her natural views of her own security, Finland is striving to render innocuous and to occupy the enemy’s offensive positions also beyond the 1939 frontier. Precisely the same considerations would have made it urgently necessary for Finland, in the interests of the effectivity of her defense, to undertake such measures already in 1939-1940 during the first phase of the war, if only her strength had been equal to the task. On that occasion there would hardly have been any doubt as to the justification of these Finnish military operations.”

You have to see the Finnish answer for what it was. An answer and an EXCUSE for the Finnish operations (directed to the Americans). The Finnish leadership exploited the 1939 Soviet aggression, like ”Look, they attacked from that area in 1939 and as they did it again, we now remove the enemy offensive positions for Finnish security.” (I have to emphasize that back in 1941 the official stand WAS, correctly or not, that the USSR was again the side that started hostilities). The Finnish answer is definitely NOT an ”evidence” that such ideas were present in the Finnish leadership in 1939."


I had hoped that I would've addressed the other "odd quotes and conclusions" but never found the time to it.

Cheers,
Sami

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 22 Dec 2005 20:40

Ilmarinen wrote:Hi,

This is my personal opinion and you can take it as such. The problem with the Baryshnikovs (and Seppälä to some extent) is their apparent political motivation that would seem to go ahead of historical objectivity sometimes. There are clear and odd misinterpretations of original Finnish sources in the Baryshnikovs' (father and son) works. The ones regarding Tuompo's diary mentioned above are not the only ones concerning that source; in fact it seems they have a "slightly different edition" of the book in use. I've not always been able to find what they quote in the original they refer to. A clear statement of their political bias - again in my opinion - is the dedication of their book "Finland and the Siege of Leningrad" (English language version, if I remember right - could be one of their other books) to "the men who brought democracy to Finland", or something to that effect, by which I take they mean that the Soviet Union did it after 1944. After reading this in the opening page it is difficult for any Finn to take what follows seriously.

Their (English and Finnish language versions at least) and Seppälä's later books are published by the same publisher, Johan Beckman Institute, whose statements seem pretty political and always well aligned with their way of thinking. Seppälä and Baryshnikovs also like to cross-reference each other quite a lot.

Form your own opinion by all means, I am just saying that I have some suspicions about the "intellectual honesty" of these sources.

No offense meant!

-J.


Actually there is one dedication in the "Mannerheim without a mask" book. it's from publisher. It says (verbatim)
"This book is published in the Honour of the 60th Anniversary of the Victory Day of the Great Patriotic War on MAy 9th 2005 and dedicated to all Finns who during and after the war made democratization of Finland possible". True, seems quite political.
Well, Baryshnikov's books do seem to have an agenda. But I wouldn't put Seppälä in the same group. For example, Seppälä quotes Baryshnikov only a couple of times, and he quotes other Soviet/Russian historians as well, but he critisizes them a lot there. The only thing I found clearly wrong in Seppälä's book about Leningrad was some statistics' figures unrelated to the main subject.
But after all, can you claim that official Continuation war history is totally devoid of agenda or certain bias?
History has always been and will be a representation of the certain discourses in the society.

User avatar
KalaVelka
Member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 16:12
Location: Suomi Finland Perkele

Post by KalaVelka » 22 Dec 2005 21:39

"This book is published in the Honour of the 60th Anniversary of the Victory Day of the Great Patriotic War on MAy 9th 2005 and dedicated to all Finns who during and after the war made democratization of Finland possible".

Excuse me??

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 22 Dec 2005 22:08

Well, it's just your personal opinion against Seppälä's opinion.


No, it is not. There are also other sources than Seppälä. If Seppälä is so excellent in your eyes then why do you then quote Seppälä instead of Baryshnikov?

There is something wrong in your last phrase. It doesn't make any sense. :?
And a friendly dvice. if it is not just your personal opinion you should provide some argumentation for it, and at least some hint on the sourse behind it.
batu wrote:Beides, instead of "it's not true", you should've written "I personally think, it's not true". But anyway you haven't presented any proof or argument behind your opinion.


You don't have to tell me what I can write. I have told the Finnish view. You have told yours based on Baryshnikov's view.

So you represent the whole "Finnish view?" And the military historian Seppälä is not included in it?
batu wrote:And at the end, it doesn't matter much whether it was Talvela's or Kijanen's idea.


Of course it does. If that is not known or true then also the rest of your argumentation is on a very weak ground. There is no room for inaccuracies in serious history research because if the interpretation in that level is wrong then also the conclusions are wrong.

What do you know about the plan Col. Järvinen presented to Talvela? What do you know what Talvela has discussed with Mannerheim (if he had)? What do you know what Talvela has discussed or proposed to Germans? And the last question: what do you know about the reaction in Finland when the German message that these naval units will be sent was received in Finland? Show us that essential information and the plan, and we will believe in you. If you can't do it then you or someone else (Baryshnikov?) have again "guessed" a bit.

You don't know anything directly from the original Finnish sources, all has come through Baryshnikov and the rest is either Baryshnikov's or your own "guesses"?

My last quote was from Seppälä's book, if you noticed. And it is Seppälä's claim that it was Talvela's idea. But my initial point was that it was Finnish idea (whether Talvela'a or Kijanen's doesn't matter). And it was directed agaisnt Leningrad, more presisely it was directed agaisnt starving civilians in it. And whatever Mannehreim's personal view was on this issue (which we don't know but can only guess) he was aware of the whole operation, didn't stop it, though had a power to do so, and gave medals to the people participating in it.


batu wrote:It was Fininsh idea.


So what? That's what I have said for the very beginning. Am I now guilty of killing people of Leningrad?

Who said that? I only said it was an initiative of the Finnish military command. So the claim (not yours) that Mannerheim
refused to participate in the seige out of sentimental personal feelings is unfounded.

batu wrote:Mannerheim was aware of it and he didn't do anything to stop it.


Whose opinion is that?

I think it's general opinion. Mine, definitely Seppälä's. Topspeed said the same. If you don't think so tell me what is the base for your different opinion?

batu wrote:WE don't know whether he was happy about it or not, but he gave medals to all German and Italian participants of the war on Ladoga, which suggests that he appreciated their job.


WE = ?

But we know.

Giving medals to each others is a common practise. If you finally would read the mentioned Gen. Wiljo Tuompo's diaries then you'd get much information also on that side (Tuompo was actually the General who made the final proposals of awards to Mannerheim who accepted them).

What is medal? correct me if I am wrong but medal is usually a sign of appreciation. One owuldn't give a medal to people whose activity one thinks is harmful, wrong or against one's wishes or principles.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 22 Dec 2005 22:16

KalaVelka wrote:
"This book is published in the Honour of the 60th Anniversary of the Victory Day of the Great Patriotic War on MAy 9th 2005 and dedicated to all Finns who during and after the war made democratization of Finland possible".

Excuse me??

you're excused

User avatar
Uninen
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2004 19:26
Location: Festung Europa, Finnland

Post by Uninen » 23 Dec 2005 05:10

batu wrote:
KalaVelka wrote:
"This book is published in the Honour of the 60th Anniversary of the Victory Day of the Great Patriotic War on MAy 9th 2005 and dedicated to all Finns who during and after the war made democratization of Finland possible".

Excuse me??

you're excused

Finland has ALWAYS been a democrazy, long before "the great patriotic war".. (if thats what you want to call a 4 year rape and destruction of Europe which led to almost 40 years of enslavement of free nations of Europe under the yoke of satanic communism.. then fine..) not just during and after this "great patriotic war".

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 08:45
Location: Finland

Post by JariL » 23 Dec 2005 11:06

About the democratization. When I was studying I had an interesting discussion about this subject with Anthony F. Upton. He made the same claim in his presentation that Finland became truly democratic first after WWII. I asked him what was the difference between banning the extreme left (communist party) before the war and banning the extreme right after the war (and for a short period during 1930's). There was no good answer to the question because Finnish democracy prevailed by fighting both the extreme left and extreme right when they posed a threat. Finnish communist party in 1920's and 1930's was not the Finnish communist party 0f 1940's, -50's, -60's, -70's or -80's (when they made big headlines in Reuters news by bankrupting themsleves in the stock exchange). To me "democratization of Finland" presented by a Soviet or Russian historian means simply that political behaviour changed in a way that was preferred by Soviet Union, nothing more. The same goes for some other historians when they are writing about Finland as an object and not as a subject in international politics especially during cold war era.

Regards,

JariL

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002 07:06
Location: Finland

Post by Tero » 23 Dec 2005 14:37

By JariL


Finnish communist party in 1920's and 1930's was not the Finnish communist party 0f 1940's, -50's, -60's, -70's or -80's


I think it is worth mentioning the Communist party of Finland was not actually truly Finnish to begin with. It was established in Moscow in 1918 and its name was in its original form Suomalainen (Finnish as opposed to "of Finland" which was its name later). The establishers were Finnish who had been exiled to Soviet Russia after the civil war in Finland.

User avatar
KalaVelka
Member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 16:12
Location: Suomi Finland Perkele

Post by KalaVelka » 23 Dec 2005 16:43

Uninen wrote:
batu wrote:
KalaVelka wrote:
"This book is published in the Honour of the 60th Anniversary of the Victory Day of the Great Patriotic War on MAy 9th 2005 and dedicated to all Finns who during and after the war made democratization of Finland possible".

Excuse me??

you're excused

Finland has ALWAYS been a democrazy, long before "the great patriotic war".. (if thats what you want to call a 4 year rape and destruction of Europe which led to almost 40 years of enslavement of free nations of Europe under the yoke of satanic communism.. then fine..) not just during and after this "great patriotic war".

How ironic. Russian fellow is talking about the democratization of Finland and even more, in the late forties.

/Kasper

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 23 Dec 2005 18:04

KalaVelka wrote:
Uninen wrote:
batu wrote:
KalaVelka wrote:
"This book is published in the Honour of the 60th Anniversary of the Victory Day of the Great Patriotic War on MAy 9th 2005 and dedicated to all Finns who during and after the war made democratization of Finland possible".

Excuse me??

you're excused

Finland has ALWAYS been a democrazy, long before "the great patriotic war".. (if thats what you want to call a 4 year rape and destruction of Europe which led to almost 40 years of enslavement of free nations of Europe under the yoke of satanic communism.. then fine..) not just during and after this "great patriotic war".

How ironic. Russian fellow is talking about the democratization of Finland and even more, in the late forties.

/Kasper


No, it was Finnish publisher who wrote it.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4214
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 23 Dec 2005 20:14

batu wrote:No, it was Finnish publisher who wrote it.


But there doesn't seem to be any doubt were the money and order to print the mentioned text has come: "the one's song you sing whose food you eat". :roll:

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4214
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 23 Dec 2005 21:11

batu wrote:
batu wrote:Well, it's just your personal opinion against Seppälä's opinion.

No, it is not. There are also other sources than Seppälä. If Seppälä is so excellent in your eyes then why do you then quote Seppälä instead of Baryshnikov?

There is something wrong in your last phrase. It doesn't make any sense. :?


It makes sense: why do you loan Seppälä from Baryshnikov instead of quoting Seppälä? Like Sami wrote there seem to be odd differences between these two texts (which should be same)...

batu wrote:
batu wrote:And a friendly dvice. if it is not just your personal opinion you should provide some argumentation for it, and at least some hint on the sourse behind it.
batu wrote:Beides, instead of "it's not true", you should've written "I personally think, it's not true". But anyway you haven't presented any proof or argument behind your opinion.
Harri wrote:You don't have to tell me what I can write. I have told the Finnish view. You have told yours based on Baryshnikov's view.

So you represent the whole "Finnish view?" And the military historian Seppälä is not included in it?


Seppälä represents a minority in Finland.

batu wrote:
batu wrote:And at the end, it doesn't matter much whether it was Talvela's or Kijanen's idea.

Harri wrote:Of course it does. If that is not known or true then also the rest of your argumentation is on a very weak ground. There is no room for inaccuracies in serious history research because if the interpretation in that level is wrong then also the conclusions are wrong.
What do you know about the plan Col. Järvinen presented to Talvela? What do you know what Talvela has discussed with Mannerheim (if he had)? What do you know what Talvela has discussed or proposed to Germans? And the last question: what do you know about the reaction in Finland when the German message that these naval units will be sent was received in Finland? Show us that essential information and the plan, and we will believe in you. If you can't do it then you or someone else (Baryshnikov?) have again "guessed" a bit.
You don't know anything directly from the original Finnish sources, all has come through Baryshnikov and the rest is either Baryshnikov's or your own "guesses"?

My last quote was from Seppälä's book, if you noticed. And it is Seppälä's claim that it was Talvela's idea. But my initial point was that it was Finnish idea (whether Talvela'a or Kijanen's doesn't matter). And it was directed agaisnt Leningrad, more presisely it was directed agaisnt starving civilians in it. And whatever Mannehreim's personal view was on this issue (which we don't know but can only guess) he was aware of the whole operation, didn't stop it, though had a power to do so, and gave medals to the people participating in it.


No, I didn't notice which excerpt came from which book. Even if something would have been a "Finnish idea" (of which contect is not known) it is very doubtful to create theories based only on that. Basically the whole "story" is worth a fairy tale. All is mere assumption and speculation what might have been. Making such claims based on so little piece of information and evidence is like shooting a fly with a shotgun: it may hit but most of the shots anyway miss the target partly or completely.

batu wrote:
batu wrote:It was Fininsh idea.
Harri wrote:So what? That's what I have said for the very beginning. Am I now guilty of killing people of Leningrad?
Who said that? I only said it was an initiative of the Finnish military command. So the claim (not yours) that Mannerheim refused to participate in the seige out of sentimental personal feelings is unfounded.


Once again: there is no proves that the initiative would have gave from "the Finnish military command". If one or a few officers made some plan and even presented it in the Finnish Supreme HQ there is no proves that Finnish Supreme HQ would have been active in this case. But Gen. Talvela could have well been the active party: there are many known cases Talvela worked behind his superiors backs. That was perhaps one reason he was sent to Germany in 1942. Talvela was very angry of that and could well have presented with his own ideas to Germans although there are no certain proves of that either. It just would fit best to the total view: hence the surprise in the Finnish Supreme HQ when the announcement from Germany came.

batu wrote:
batu wrote:Mannerheim was aware of it and he didn't do anything to stop it.

Harri wrote:Whose opinion is that?

I think it's general opinion. Mine, definitely Seppälä's. Topspeed said the same. If you don't think so tell me what is the base for your different opinion?


General opinion where?

The problem is that you (or Baryshnikov) make so big deal of what Mannerheim knew or what he didn't knew. I have at least equal proves to claim that Stalin and Stavka knew well what happened in Leningrad but they didn't do anything to stop the madness because Leningrad was so important industrial and also symbolic centre. Instead they let people die. Zhdanov and other top guys (who looked as healthy as always in 1940 and 1944) ate oranges and all kinds of delicates while people starved to death around.

Like I told when Germans had accepted the supposed proposal of Talvela (not accepted by the Finnish Supreme HQ) and worked out their own plans and announced it to the Finnish Supreme HQ wheels were already rolling and there was no chance to stop them. So, the Italian And German units arrived and a few missions were established on Lake Ladoga the destroying of Suho lighthouse being their last mission.

batu wrote:
batu wrote:WE don't know whether he was happy about it or not, but he gave medals to all German and Italian participants of the war on Ladoga, which suggests that he appreciated their job.

Harri wrote:WE = ?
But we know.
Giving medals to each others is a common practise. If you finally would read the mentioned Gen. Wiljo Tuompo's diaries then you'd get much information also on that side (Tuompo was actually the General who made the final proposals of awards to Mannerheim who accepted them).

What is medal? correct me if I am wrong but medal is usually a sign of appreciation. One owuldn't give a medal to people whose activity one thinks is harmful, wrong or against one's wishes or principles.


In your logic all who received German medals were automatically Nazis and all Finns who gave medals to Germans and Italians were actually same gang.

That was not the case. The simple truth is that usually medals were given and received according to a following principle: "I give a medal for you and you give a medal for me." Basically so, but for example Mannerheim didn't award any medals using that principle. I again suggest you would read Gen. Wiljo Tuompo's diaries. That would tell the clear answers to your questions and doubts. For example "the medal episode of Heinrich Himmler" is really interesting and tells a lot of Mannerheim.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 23 Dec 2005 23:41

Harri wrote:
batu wrote:No, it was Finnish publisher who wrote it.


But there doesn't seem to be any doubt were the money and order to print the mentioned text has come: "the one's song you sing whose food you eat". :roll:


Yeah, the money must have definitely come from underground communist organization with HQ in Mausoleum on Red Square :D
why don't you write a letter to SUPO about it? one should protect one's country from foreign subversion with the use of fifth column! :wink:
Last edited by batu on 24 Dec 2005 00:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 24 Dec 2005 00:02

It makes sense: why do you loan Seppälä from Baryshnikov instead of quoting Seppälä? Like Sami wrote there seem to be odd differences between these two texts (which should be same)...

I quoted Seppälä from Seppälä. You even translated difficult words to me like häsäkkä. Why don't you scroll back and see it again?
your phrase:
If Seppälä is so excellent in your eyes then why do you then quote Seppälä instead of Baryshnikov?

doesn't make any grammatical sence. I guess after your last post that you thought I quoted Seppälä from Baryshnikov. So you probably meant to say: why
don't
I quote Seppälä instead of Baryshnikov. Which I actually did.

No, I didn't notice which excerpt came from which book. Even if something would have been a "Finnish idea" (of which contect is not known) it is very doubtful to create theories based only on that. Basically the whole "story" is worth a fairy tale. All is mere assumption and speculation what might have been. Making such claims based on so little piece of information and evidence is like shooting a fly with a shotgun: it may hit but most of the shots anyway miss the target partly or completely.

true, not much evidence, but I didn't build wild theories. From the Talvela-Kijanen discussion it is clear that it was either Kijanen's or Talvela's idea. Knowing who was Talvela we can easily assume that he could easily come up with it. Actually you don't argue with that. The written estimation of the situation (see my Seppälä's quote) showing Kijanen's excitement at the prospect of the Naval war against suply routes on Ladoga is interpreted by Seppälä ( Seppälä doesn't actually refer to any sourse just quotes Kijanen) as a proof of Talvela's being behind it. It's Seppälä's claim, not mine. And It is Seppälä's claim tht Mannerheim was aware of it. Your cllaim that it was Kijanen's idea and Talvela was just a messanger is stil unsupported by any evidence. But as I said it doesn't matter. It was either Kijanen's or Talvela's idea (Finnish) wihch was transmitted to Germans, GErmans took it well, proposed Italian-German fleet, Finnish HQ were surprised but as Seppälä writes
In any case the HQ was immideately informed about the matter and it appears that it (HQ) was already aware of the arrival of the German boats, because according to the Commander-in-Chief's order of 17.4.1942 the Ladoga Naval-unit K (Kijanen) was established, which provided for the boats coming from Germany and Italy together with Finnish torpedoboat Sisu
. After the end of the operations Mannerheim gave medals to its participants. I still haven't got your idea how giving medals by Mannerheim was something else than the expression of appreciation however symbolic. If you know that Mannehrime had its own strange way to give medals to people whose activities he despised, why don't you say it straight in simple words instead of sending me to some place to find out for myself?
My quote from Seppäläis on the page 2 of this thread.

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”