"Finland shot 1000 POWs"
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
It is becoming increasingly clear that the relatively high mortality of Soviet military and civilian detainees held by the Finnish Government, as well as that of inmates of Finnish prisons and mental hospitals, was primarily a result of a general food shortage that had been caused partly by internal factors but mainly by the British blockade, which prevented the importation of food from outside Europe to cover the internal food deficit.
As I have previously pointed out, Finland was democracy and in no sense a '"fascist" state. There is no observable ideological factor that could have led to the mortality of the above mentioned groups, whose food supply was controlled by the Finnish Government. And as has been stated, there is no evidence of any malice on the part of the Finnish Government.
What the Finnish example shows is that mass-dying can occur among populations controlled by a liberal democratic government during wartime, if that government is faced with a situation over which it has little control, even without any malicious intent.
However, the Finnish example did not occur in isolation. Finland was de facto part of the economic sphere controlled by Germany, due to the British blockade which cut Finland off from access to resources other than those available within the German-controlled economic sphere. Hence, the objective factors which caused the mass-dying among the population groups under Finnish control were the same as those which caused the mass-dying among other population groups within german-controlled Europe, and the mass-dying within Finland was simply a sub-set of the mass-dying which occurred elsewhere in german-controlled Europe, particularly within Poland and occupied Soviet territory.
For example, the high mortality of Soviet POWs in Finnish hands occurred mainly in the winter of 1941-42, at precisely the same time as Soviet POWs were dying in huge numbers in German camps. The deaths must have been the result of similar factors in both cases.
That in turn suggests that much of the elevated mortality in German-controlled Europe was due to the objective factors that caused a similar elevated mortality in areas controlled by the liberal democratic Government of Finland, and not only or even primarily to malice on the part of the German Government. For example, the starvation that occurrred in occupied Greece was most probably the result of objective factors rather than to malice on the part of the German and Italian Governments.
It should be the task of the historian to determine how much of the mortality that occurred in populations under German control was due to objective factors such as food shortages, and how was due purely to malice, ie what were the deaths that would have been inflicted by the German Government even in the absence of the afore-mentioned objective factors. Another task should be to analyse how the objective factors inter-acted with ideological malice on the part of the German Government to produce millions of excess deaths; a start on that task has in fact been made by historians such as Götz Aly and Gerlach.
As I have previously pointed out, Finland was democracy and in no sense a '"fascist" state. There is no observable ideological factor that could have led to the mortality of the above mentioned groups, whose food supply was controlled by the Finnish Government. And as has been stated, there is no evidence of any malice on the part of the Finnish Government.
What the Finnish example shows is that mass-dying can occur among populations controlled by a liberal democratic government during wartime, if that government is faced with a situation over which it has little control, even without any malicious intent.
However, the Finnish example did not occur in isolation. Finland was de facto part of the economic sphere controlled by Germany, due to the British blockade which cut Finland off from access to resources other than those available within the German-controlled economic sphere. Hence, the objective factors which caused the mass-dying among the population groups under Finnish control were the same as those which caused the mass-dying among other population groups within german-controlled Europe, and the mass-dying within Finland was simply a sub-set of the mass-dying which occurred elsewhere in german-controlled Europe, particularly within Poland and occupied Soviet territory.
For example, the high mortality of Soviet POWs in Finnish hands occurred mainly in the winter of 1941-42, at precisely the same time as Soviet POWs were dying in huge numbers in German camps. The deaths must have been the result of similar factors in both cases.
That in turn suggests that much of the elevated mortality in German-controlled Europe was due to the objective factors that caused a similar elevated mortality in areas controlled by the liberal democratic Government of Finland, and not only or even primarily to malice on the part of the German Government. For example, the starvation that occurrred in occupied Greece was most probably the result of objective factors rather than to malice on the part of the German and Italian Governments.
It should be the task of the historian to determine how much of the mortality that occurred in populations under German control was due to objective factors such as food shortages, and how was due purely to malice, ie what were the deaths that would have been inflicted by the German Government even in the absence of the afore-mentioned objective factors. Another task should be to analyse how the objective factors inter-acted with ideological malice on the part of the German Government to produce millions of excess deaths; a start on that task has in fact been made by historians such as Götz Aly and Gerlach.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
Michael -- You wrote:
If Finland didn't have the cash, it's because the country was in a life and death struggle with the USSR. The country has always been known for its honorable financial dealings with other nations.
I don't think this point is clear at all. There was nothing to keep Finland from buying (if they had the cash) food imported into adjacent Sweden, a neutral country unaffected by the British blockade. The "British blockade" hypothesis may have been part of Finland's problem in the 1940-1941 period, but it wasn't the insurmountable obstacle that you're suggesting.It is becoming increasingly clear that the relatively high mortality of Soviet military and civilian detainees held by the Finnish Government, as well as that of inmates of Finnish prisons and mental hospitals, was primarily a result of a general food shortage that had been caused partly by internal factors but mainly by the British blockade, which prevented the importation of food from outside Europe to cover the internal food deficit.
If Finland didn't have the cash, it's because the country was in a life and death struggle with the USSR. The country has always been known for its honorable financial dealings with other nations.
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
By David Thompson
Juha posted the actual table I found.The figures themselves are selfexplanatory. The imports remained at the same level from 1941 to 1945. Domestic harvest was what counted the most. Finland had lost IIRC 10% of its arable land as a result of Winter War. The reclaimed and occupied territories account for a significant part of the harvests after 1941-42. The drop in 1945 harvest mirrors the harvest from these territories vanishing from the figures.There was nothing to keep Finland from buying (if they had the cash) food imported into adjacent Sweden, a neutral country unaffected by the British blockade.
I for one have never seen any Finnish sources which would even try to suggest the blockade would have been a major reason for the food shortage or that the shortage could have been alleviated had there been no blockade.The "British blockade" hypothesis may have been part of Finland's problem in the 1940-1941 period, but it wasn't the insurmountable obstacle that you're suggesting.
Another reason might have been Sweden had to maintain sufficient stocks for herself so they simply could and would not sell the amount requested by Finns.If Finland didn't have the cash, it's because the countyry was in a life and death struggle with the USSR. The country has always been known for its honorable financial dealings with other nations.
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
Though the situation between Finland and Germany is completely different. There was without a question, deliberate malice towards Soviet POW's in German captivity.
Certain questions arise with Finland however, such as how prepared was Finland to care for the number of POW's they captured? As with their military being more militia/ad hoc style, one would have to suppose they were ill-prepared to care for them, never having had to care for POW's before. Also contributing factors could be a harsh winter climate that would have been particularly deadly to POW's that had been wounded in action before their capture, which could explain higher casualty rates earlier in their general captivity.
regards
Certain questions arise with Finland however, such as how prepared was Finland to care for the number of POW's they captured? As with their military being more militia/ad hoc style, one would have to suppose they were ill-prepared to care for them, never having had to care for POW's before. Also contributing factors could be a harsh winter climate that would have been particularly deadly to POW's that had been wounded in action before their capture, which could explain higher casualty rates earlier in their general captivity.
regards
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
Churchill seemed to think that Britain had subjected Finland to a very severe blockade. At least that is what he told Stalin in 1941.I for one have never seen any Finnish sources which would even try to suggest the blockade would have been a major reason for the food shortage or that the shortage could have been alleviated had there been no blockade
But perhaps he was deceiving himself, perhaps the blockade was entirely imaginary.
Although Sweden was a neutral country, it was still affected by the Allied blockade. The British Navy certainly had the physical power to prevent imports reaching Sweden, so in order for that not to happen Sweden had to abide by rules imposed by the Allies, which included not selling anything to any country against which Britain had declared a blockade, eg Finland, except with Allied approval.
Britain certainly allowed Sweden to carry out humanitarian acts, such as evacuating children from Finland, but not to do anything that would enhance Finland's ability to wage war against Britain's ally, the Soviet Union.
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
By michael mills
I would imagine it is more like the blockade was pretty much the only real and tangible act against Finland Churchill could show Stalin.Churchill seemed to think that Britain had subjected Finland to a very severe blockade. At least that is what he told Stalin in 1941.
But perhaps he was deceiving himself, perhaps the blockade was entirely imaginary.
How does that reflect against the Swedish trade directly with Germany during the war ?Although Sweden was a neutral country, it was still affected by the Allied blockade. The British Navy certainly had the physical power to prevent imports reaching Sweden, so in order for that not to happen Sweden had to abide by rules imposed by the Allies, which included not selling anything to any country against which Britain had declared a blockade, eg Finland, except with Allied approval.
Britain certainly allowed Sweden to carry out humanitarian acts, such as evacuating children from Finland, but not to do anything that would enhance Finland's ability to wage war against Britain's ally, the Soviet Union.
-
- Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 30 Jun 2008, 21:25
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
But Sweden exported food to Norway all the years 1940-44 and imported as well.Tero wrote:B
Another reason might have been Sweden had to maintain sufficient stocks for herself so they simply could and would not sell the amount requested by Finns.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
I would question the degree of difference between the situation in Finalnd and that in German-occupied territories. The objective factors cited by dragoner (lack of preparedness to care for a large number of POWs, a harsh winter climate deadly to wounded POWs) also applied in the case of Soviet POWs.Though the situation between Finland and Germany is completely different. There was without a question, deliberate malice towards Soviet POW's in German captivity.
Certain questions arise with Finland however, such as how prepared was Finland to care for the number of POW's they captured? As with their military being more militia/ad hoc style, one would have to suppose they were ill-prepared to care for them, never having had to care for POW's before. Also contributing factors could be a harsh winter climate that would have been particularly deadly to POW's that had been wounded in action before their capture, which could explain higher casualty rates earlier in their general captivity.
Furthermore, the pattern of mortality in the Finnish POW camps mirrored that in the German camps, with mortality peaking in the winter of 1941-42 and falling thereafter.
The deaths of POWs and detainees in Finnish hands needs to be seen as part of the enormous mortality that occurred throughout German-controlled Europe, and resulting from essentially the same objective factors.
Finns certainly had reason to feel malice toward Soviet prisoners, since they had been the victims of Soviet aggression just two years before, and in 1918 had had to fight an internal civil war against Bolshevik insurgents aided by Soviet Russia. In fact, the civil war of 1918 had seen quite a few atrocities committed by both Finnish Reds and Whites, so Finns were in fact quite capable of acting maliciously under particular circumstances.
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
Hi,
When the war started Finns were prepared for about 25.000 POW's. They got more than twice that amount. GHQ gave orders on treatment of POW's that by and large followed international law. Food rations were set much lower than those given to Finnish soldiers but only if POW's did not work. If POW's were put into work it was explicitly ordered that higher rations, comparable to those given to civilians in hard work, should be used.
In practise orders from GHQ were not followed either deliberately or because they could not be followed. It was especially typical to put POW's into work but not to increase their rations. It seems that on many occasions food stuffs were used that directly caused the death of hundreds of prisoners. Cause of death was food poisoning which in the statistics goes under diarria, heart failure etc. It is hard to say weather bad food was given because of negligence or because nothing else was available, -perhaps both? It took its time before the GHQ became aware of the situation and in the beginning they seem to have reacted only by renewing their orders. When POW's started to die in great numbers GHQ intervened more directly. But the conditions became tolerable first in 1943 when GHQ took POW issues directly under its command from Civil Guard.
The most interesting case was the IV Army Core in Karelian Isthmus in 1941 under general Öesch. His staff gave written orders on treatment of POW's that were clearly against the orders given by GHQ. They for example allowed liberal use of fire arms against the prisoner. On attitude level IV Army Core's orders made it clear to anyone reading them that POW's life was not worth much. This lead to many cases of murder and also goes a long way explaining the bad treatment of POW's in so called fortification companies. When GHQ found out about the orders given by IV Army Core they renewed their orders on POW treatment. This time IV Army Core passed them on but simultaneously gave oral orders to forget them and follow the standing orders given by the Army Core HQ. The unlawful state of affairs continued until Spring of 1942 when the GHQ finally understood what was going on. Chief of staff general Heinrichs started a legal investigation that revealed the whole affair. Heirnrichs's reaction was "This cannot have happened. It tarnishes the reputation of the whole army". He most likely took the affair to Mannerheim who approved Heinrichs's decision to postpone the case until the end of the war. This is not surprising given that generals Öesch, Vihma and Pajari were suspected of being involved and that putting them to trial could have had serious repercussions to troop morale. Not to speak of the international attention it would have drawn to Finland.
In 1944 when the fighting was already over, general Heinrichs got ill. He was temporarily replaced by general Öesh in GHQ. Heinrichs, as it was already clear that there would be war crime trials after the war, probably hinted to Öesh that a case against him had been prepared and told him where the documents were. In any case Öesh destroyed the material. However, this was to no avail. After the war someone hinted the allied control commission about the case and it surfaced again. One of the last duties in office for general Öesh was to open the case against himself again. This seems to have happened on Mannerheims direct order. General Pajari was also arrested whereas general Vihma had become KIA in Ihantala in August 1944. Contrary to some other war crime cases against high ranking officers Mannnerheim acted in no way on behalf of general Öesh. He got first 10 a year sentence which was later reduced to 3 by the high court of justice. Pajari was never put on trial as not enough evidence against him could be found. He was released after 3 years in prison. Allied control commission had nothing against the acquittal.
In general the bad treatment of POW's seems to have been a deadly cocktail of hatred, negligence, expectation of short war and bad organisation. The icing on the cake was the almost total mobilisation of the population which meant that unfit persons (too old, too young, unfit to military service etc.) were put in charge of POW's. Large scale mobilisation also meant that there were shortages which led to too many add hoc measures. There is no indication that the government or GHQ was intentionally letting POW's die. But these organs were naturally ultimately responsible for the well being of the POW's and what happened to them.
Regards,
Jari
When the war started Finns were prepared for about 25.000 POW's. They got more than twice that amount. GHQ gave orders on treatment of POW's that by and large followed international law. Food rations were set much lower than those given to Finnish soldiers but only if POW's did not work. If POW's were put into work it was explicitly ordered that higher rations, comparable to those given to civilians in hard work, should be used.
In practise orders from GHQ were not followed either deliberately or because they could not be followed. It was especially typical to put POW's into work but not to increase their rations. It seems that on many occasions food stuffs were used that directly caused the death of hundreds of prisoners. Cause of death was food poisoning which in the statistics goes under diarria, heart failure etc. It is hard to say weather bad food was given because of negligence or because nothing else was available, -perhaps both? It took its time before the GHQ became aware of the situation and in the beginning they seem to have reacted only by renewing their orders. When POW's started to die in great numbers GHQ intervened more directly. But the conditions became tolerable first in 1943 when GHQ took POW issues directly under its command from Civil Guard.
The most interesting case was the IV Army Core in Karelian Isthmus in 1941 under general Öesch. His staff gave written orders on treatment of POW's that were clearly against the orders given by GHQ. They for example allowed liberal use of fire arms against the prisoner. On attitude level IV Army Core's orders made it clear to anyone reading them that POW's life was not worth much. This lead to many cases of murder and also goes a long way explaining the bad treatment of POW's in so called fortification companies. When GHQ found out about the orders given by IV Army Core they renewed their orders on POW treatment. This time IV Army Core passed them on but simultaneously gave oral orders to forget them and follow the standing orders given by the Army Core HQ. The unlawful state of affairs continued until Spring of 1942 when the GHQ finally understood what was going on. Chief of staff general Heinrichs started a legal investigation that revealed the whole affair. Heirnrichs's reaction was "This cannot have happened. It tarnishes the reputation of the whole army". He most likely took the affair to Mannerheim who approved Heinrichs's decision to postpone the case until the end of the war. This is not surprising given that generals Öesch, Vihma and Pajari were suspected of being involved and that putting them to trial could have had serious repercussions to troop morale. Not to speak of the international attention it would have drawn to Finland.
In 1944 when the fighting was already over, general Heinrichs got ill. He was temporarily replaced by general Öesh in GHQ. Heinrichs, as it was already clear that there would be war crime trials after the war, probably hinted to Öesh that a case against him had been prepared and told him where the documents were. In any case Öesh destroyed the material. However, this was to no avail. After the war someone hinted the allied control commission about the case and it surfaced again. One of the last duties in office for general Öesh was to open the case against himself again. This seems to have happened on Mannerheims direct order. General Pajari was also arrested whereas general Vihma had become KIA in Ihantala in August 1944. Contrary to some other war crime cases against high ranking officers Mannnerheim acted in no way on behalf of general Öesh. He got first 10 a year sentence which was later reduced to 3 by the high court of justice. Pajari was never put on trial as not enough evidence against him could be found. He was released after 3 years in prison. Allied control commission had nothing against the acquittal.
In general the bad treatment of POW's seems to have been a deadly cocktail of hatred, negligence, expectation of short war and bad organisation. The icing on the cake was the almost total mobilisation of the population which meant that unfit persons (too old, too young, unfit to military service etc.) were put in charge of POW's. Large scale mobilisation also meant that there were shortages which led to too many add hoc measures. There is no indication that the government or GHQ was intentionally letting POW's die. But these organs were naturally ultimately responsible for the well being of the POW's and what happened to them.
Regards,
Jari
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
Jari, thank you for this summary.
For some years now I've been trying to find information about the case against Lt. Gen. Karl Lennart Oesch. May I ask what sources you have used regarding the situation in the IV Army Corps and the ensuing investigation?
For some years now I've been trying to find information about the case against Lt. Gen. Karl Lennart Oesch. May I ask what sources you have used regarding the situation in the IV Army Corps and the ensuing investigation?
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
For interested readers -- There is a summary list of Finnish war crimes defendants at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 51#p241251
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11562
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
As Jari mentioned, the number of POW's was unexpected high.dragoner wrote: how prepared was Finland to care for the number of POW's they captured?
?dragoner wrote: As with their military being more militia/ad hoc style,
During Finnish Civil War even higher number and during Winter War lesser number of POW's were captured.dragoner wrote:one would have to suppose they were ill-prepared to care for them, never having had to care for POW's before.
Yes.dragoner wrote:Also contributing factors could be a harsh winter climate that would have been particularly deadly to POW's that had been wounded in action before their capture, which could explain higher casualty rates earlier in their general captivity.
There was no Finnish Einsatzkommando type actions and the food situation was, as mentioned earlier, different: Germany exported and Finland imported food.michael mills wrote:the pattern of mortality in the Finnish POW camps mirrored that in the German camps, with mortality peaking in the winter of 1941-42 and falling thereafter.
The deaths of POWs and detainees in Finnish hands needs to be seen as part of the enormous mortality that occurred throughout German-controlled Europe, and resulting from essentially the same objective factors.
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
Hi Mikko,
Case against general Öesch has been explained in detail in Antti Kujala's new book "Vankisurmat-Neuvostosotavankien laittomat ampumiset jatkosodassa". Öesch's sentence was reduced mainly because the prosecution could not show that he had personally given the order.
Best regards,
Jari
Case against general Öesch has been explained in detail in Antti Kujala's new book "Vankisurmat-Neuvostosotavankien laittomat ampumiset jatkosodassa". Öesch's sentence was reduced mainly because the prosecution could not show that he had personally given the order.
Best regards,
Jari
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
Thanks again, Jari. Yet another book I need to check out.
Gen. Oesch has always impressed me as a very moderate and cool-headed person, so it comes as a surprise that his role in this affair was so sordid.
Gen. Oesch has always impressed me as a very moderate and cool-headed person, so it comes as a surprise that his role in this affair was so sordid.
-
- Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 30 Jun 2008, 21:25
Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"
Nope, Germany in total imported ( looted) more food than they exported.Juha Tompuri wrote: ................
Finnish Einsatzkommando type actions and the food situation was, as mentioned earlier, different: Germany exported and Finland imported food.