StrangerHereMyself wrote:Extraordinarily insular and entitled attitude of Finnish President Ryti, expecting the world’s help irrespective of his nation’s behaviour (courtesy of USG’s Office of the Historian)
Still cluttering up the thread with your irrelevance, ignorance and hate?
Thread's not about America, who didn't declare on the USA, BTW.
That "entitled" Ryti, being upset about the ceasefire agreement with the Soviet Union that required Finland to pay the USSR more reparations than's Finalnd's pre war GDP. It's almost like the USSR wanted Finland to default. A bit like when Lenin agreed to Finland's independence while arming Finnish communists and helped plan their (thankfully unsuccessful) revolution.
Why's your profile's signature: На Берлин! BTW?
StrangerHereMyself wrote:antwony, Britain, although not viewing the Bolsheviks with great favour (warring against them up to 1919),
1919... read some more British history На Хельсинки!
had just as unfavourable a view of the expansionist aims of Finland (and Poland as well*), to the point of British units fighting against White Finns.
When it became clear that the White [Finnish] forces were certain to win the [Finnish civil] war, a fear arose within the Foreign Office that these forces would lay claim to territories belonging to Russia, such as Karelia and Murmansk. The British naval units based at Murmansk were ordered to take action against the White Finns and fight alongside the remnants of the defeated communists. The Foreign Office had little reason for feeling generous towards the Soviet government which had left the war against Germany. It was in fact the fear of German expansion in the Northern region and the effect this might have on the broader European conflict which conditioned the British response. Ideology was not a consideration.
Your Gerrard is an idiot. Ideology was most certainly a consideration. But, yes, White Finland was very pro German, uptil Nov. 1918, when they allied to France and the UK to oppose the USSR.
StrangerHereMyself wrote:Finland formally concluded peace with Germany in March 1918, ratifying the treaty in June:
You moron... I'm not even going to touch that steaming pile of dumb. Explain the context of that before trying to claim such stupidity. На Хельсинки!
The pro-German atmosphere in Finland was intertwined with the prospect of at least annexation of East Karelia to Finland. The government of White Finland was openly expansionistic and reckoned to get their aims either as a diplomatic solution, in which Germany would safeguard the creation of Greater Finland, or a military solution, whereby Finns, hopefully with the assistance of the Germans, would incorporate the regions. … For the British, the Finns were nothing but German underlings, who had to be pushed back to Finland.
Summer 1918, Roselius was completely right. Did you want to explain the context?
1919, RAF/ RN were based in Finland and the British Army was in Karelia, fighting Communists.
antwony, with respect to Eastern Karelian ethnicity, you would be better taking up your dispute directly with Ville Kivimäki as I simply used his description (his email is in the book):
Finnish Karelia must be separated from “Eastern Karelia” or “Soviet Karelia,” which has never been part of Finland and the Karelian population of which, unlike the Finnish Karelians, is an ethnic Finnic people of its own.
I don’t really care about Finnish ethnicities
Then why were you mentioning ethnicity? Similarly irrelevant and incorrect to the rest of your "points".
Can't be bothered trying to work out the correct context for this "paste- a- quote" of yours. Kivimäki was probably talking about population transfers during the Protestant Revolution which resulted in large areas of eastern Sweden being resettled by people from western Finland. На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:—I mainly object to my country being blamed for other countries’ actions.
Seriously, of all the anti British stupidity here you object to someone who, vaguely, has a point? На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:Far as I’m concerned, Finland is Russian clay… or Swedish—they should toss a coin for the place (loser is stuck with it).
Does that make you feel like a man? That's put big bad Finland in its place, champ.
When I first read your posts, I just thought you were misinformed about an obscure topic. But no, you're a troll.
Enjoy my reply and try to learn something, rölli, this will be my last reply to you. На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:More relevant than ethnic quarrels is how tenaciously the Eastern Karelians fought against the Finns in 1918, ‘almost annihilating the White Finns along the White Karelia waterway’ (Roselius, 136), suggesting that East Karelians were not overly keen on becoming part of any Suomen valtakunta.
Context, again, plus you're ignorance (again). The Aunus Expedition was initially opposed be Finnish Communist refugees who had, to some extent, also recruited locals. They did not fight tenanciously, they retreated. Later reinforcements of ethnic Finnish Communists and other Leningrad Reds "almost" annihilated that expedition.
What was the UK doing at the time? На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:In what sense, antwony, is it ‘questionable’ that Finland had ‘more than one opportunity’ to avoid conflict with Britain? Did we send in the tanks and the Lancs without prior declaration of war? Or did we send Finland first a warning, then an ultimatum (followed by a personal letter from our PM offering one of the most painless exits from a war ever), and only declared war in response to their rejection of our terms?
Read you claim I was objecting to again. You're even out of context in regards to material you've produced. Does this second claim of yours = (the Finnish equivalent of) screaming banzai.
Churchill might have considered himself an officer and and an anti- Communist, but Mannerheim was the real deal. Corresponding with a foreign politician would have been career suicide, and probably illegal, for Mannerheim. На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:There’s a bit more to the 1918–19 episode, antwony:
Don't try and teach me about the Civil War. I'm qualified to teach history in Finland. На Хельсинки!
Great Britain warned Finland, up to the threat of its declaration of war on Finland, from entering into Eastern Karelia. Great Britain’s warnings and its presence in Viena Karelia (and in the region north of it) supporting and organizing East-Karelians to fight the Finns (Finland was regarded as an ally of Germany) restrained the Finns from proceeding to larger interventions …
Context На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:antwony, my reference to 1921 was to the Karelian uprising against Soviet rule, of which the Repola vote for secession was but one component, which some irredentist Finns tried to exploit (Roselius, 148)—Russia’s difficulty is Finland’s opportunity, as they might have said. That episode finished with the Finns showing their solidarity with Eastern Karelians by returning Repola and Porajärvi—again—to the Soviets in exchange for some Russian land.
No, your intial claim about Finland invading was a complete lie. You're attempts to cover your mendaciousness, along from an out context Roselius quote don't even make any sense. На Хельсинки!
‘Greater Finland’ had its adherents. Note Mannerheim’s Order of the Day of July 10, 1941 (the ‘Scabbard Order’):
In the War of Liberation in 1918...
(Reproduced in Fingerroos, 489.)
Mannerheim sabotaged Greater Finland in 1918, he's not the best person to be quoting. It's rather questionable whether he was any kind of Finn in 1918 anyway. На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:The US State Dept.’s
irrelevant as the US didn't declare war on Finland. На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:More interesting material from USG’s
irrelevant as the US didn't declare war on Finland.На Хельсинки!
StrangerHereMyself wrote:same goal of ‘Suur-Suomi’ pursued from the moment Finland’s independence was unilaterally declared in the wake of the collapse of Tsarist Russia.
This isn't the best thread, but your crayoning all over it just cheapens the site. Keep schtum