Finland Mystery

[Harri]

Ok, about Finnish holocaust.
First of all, Finns were allies of Nazi Germany and joined their attack on USSR. As Serb Tiger has already pointed out by doing so they freed part of German forces.

"Finnish Holocaust"...a comment from real expert. When Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany that does not mean anything?

Secondly, they did took part in Leningrad siege. You can post all you want about how morally Finns behave - they bombed only 'military' targets. See, Germans agenda was to destroy Leningrad TOGETHER with its inhabitants, starve/freeze them to death. Accepting that only military objects were targeted, you still DID help your nazi ally to fulfill their objective.

Again false accusation. But I'm glad you said it was "German agenda". Finland took part only in sieging of Soviet troops i.e. encirclements (called "motti" in Finnish). Nothing else. It was Soviet choice to keep industry of Leningrad running and majority of people in the city. They'd have 1.) time to evacuate whole Leningrad before it was nearly encircled 2.) time to evacuate the city during the so called "siege" because Leningrad was never fully encircled.

But. You did bomb targes that were used to save civilians - rail station which were used to carry supplies to the city etc. You helped Germans in this too.

Railway stations are typical military targets during the war. During Winter War Soviet bomber attacked numerous times against Finnish transport network. At the beginning of December 1939 my father was the eye-witness of such an attack against Elisenvaara junction and nearly got killed. That's called war.

As I have already posted you created flotilia to interrupt communication through lake. It DOESN'T matter how big/small the flotilia was, what is important that you tried to do it. If you had a battleship there or something you would've used it, you had little forces there, you used little forces.

As I and the other Finns in this forum have already proved these actions didn't mean anything. The most important thing is that Finnish Navy didn't know anything about this plan before Germans announced that "your request has been accepted". Who made this request is a mystery because it was not done either by Finnish Naval Forces Staff or Chief HQ. Probably it was a German counter-move against our now rather passive activities in war? That's the way they behaved during the war. We didn't fully rely on Germans either.

Please don't try to draw a nice picture how you only wanted your lands back and how human you were.

You placed over third of Slavic population on the Finnish occupied territory in concentration camps. Now, this proportion was never reached even by Germans. Please don't tell me that internment camps weren't conc camps. 1/5 of Karelian population died under Finnish occupation.
Source for numbers - Seppala, 'Finland as occupier'.

Good that you have Finnish sources. Hopefully you have also red the book, not just picked the raisins again...?

That is true, but you forget two things:
1.) the severe lack of food in Finland in 1941 and 1942 (one reason we turned to Germany)
2.) the weak health situation of Soviet civils in East-Karelia before Finns occupied that area
Most Soviet people were already starving. Majority of population was children, women and old men. That is not a typical composition of population and effects to the figures too. By 1943 the situation was improved a lot and mortality had dropped even below figures of Finland. I don't think this happened either in Germany or in USSR?

Younger brother of my grandfather died in tuberculosis in 1942. Not just hunger but deceases killed thousands of people, Finns, Karelians and Soviets, during the war. You can't count that all died Soviet civils were "killed by Finns in conc camps".

While you make such a noise with these figures I must remind you that figures of Soviet Union are much worse. The more serious is that in Soviet Union that same happened also during peace-time.

[Harri]

Exactly the Finns not only took back theirs they invaded the USSR and that is why they were the aggressor and that is why the Finnish Karelia belongs to Russia now for the REPERATION due to Finish aggression on to the Russian Karelia.

"Reparation"? Now that was something real stupid, Serb. Who decided about that "reparation"? Again someone else did something behind our back. That decision was made already in the late 1930's. War didn't change a thing, but was of course a very good excuse.

Secret negotiations between Finland and USSR started already in 1938 (Soviet negotiator was called Yartsev). Soviet demands although didn't lead to any conclusion. In 1939 USSR signed a pact with Germany and new negotiations started now in Moscow. Then we were sure what will happen soon...

Do you see my point the FINNS took theirs back and that is OK but then they INVADED the USSR they wanted more than what was theirs and that is why they lost even Finnish Karelia as REPERATION.

That was militarily wise. That line we reached was called "the line of three isthmuses" which was easy to defend and demanded much less troops. Starting in late 1941 Finnish Army was partly demobilized. Most men who were born in 1911 or earlier were disbanded.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by indirectly assisting the holocaust. Since they provided soldiers to the Reich they prolonged the war and freed up more German troops to commit the holocaust the same goas for all axis nations Hungry, Romania, Bulgaria.

We Finns don't know and understand that kind of theory and I think it was born in your own brains. You can't be involved in something you don't even know about. Using that logic even USA and Sweden were involved in Holocaust...

[edited by webmaster]

[Tiwaz]

That why we went to East-Karelia would be something like Milosevic did in Kosovo because some serb leaded his troops there long time ago. Luckily justice happened in Kosovo with help of NATO, right SerbTiger?

Antti, a very, very bad and inappropriate example. Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia at the moment of Nato AGRESSION. Those territories that Finland invaded in 41 WEREN'T any more part of it. Finland LOST them earlier and it should've RESPECTED its own international agreements.
You decided to take it BY FORCE together with your nazi friends. You lost and those lands were given BACK to USSR as reparations as well as some money and other stuff.
So please try to respect your governments agreements NOW in oreder not to repeat the same mistakes your grandfathers did.
What Nato did was an agression, not some 'justice'. They already have hard time trying to justufy it. And guess what, Kosovo is still part of Yugoslavia.

Why Finns should respect treaty made with gunpoint at their head but Russians have no need to respect treaty they made voluntarily without pressure which clearly gave areas you are talking about to Finland?

[Antti V]

One question:
Why didn´t Stalin evacuated the entire population of Leningrad and East-Karelia when he had time to do that? Finns did evacuate civilians from its territory from Finnish Karelia when Soviet attacked in 1939 and 1944, and therefore thousands lives was saved.

Speaking about the book 'Finland as occupier', there is also theory why entire population wasn´t evacuated by Soviets in 1941 from East-Karelia. Here was these reasons IIRC:
- Population was supposed to support Soviet resistant in area.
- Population went to the forests when order to evacuation did come. They didn´t want live under Communists, but did see Finns as somekind 'liberators' or they didn´t understood what was happening and did what their ancestors had always done. That was very common method in 'Great-Karelia' during its entire history: people did flee to forests and did come back when things were calm down.
- People who were left behind were not allowed to be evacuated, because they were unloyal persons for Communist ideology or were not Soviets but Finns, Karelians or some other 'unthrustful' origin (Germans for example...).
- Here wasn´t enought time to evacuate population due lack of transportation vehicles.

(btw. My grandfather´s cousin, who was visiting in Aunus (Olonets Karelia) when borders were closed in 1920s and therefore was forced to stay to Soviet Union and did live in Petrodavodsk (and his family still does live there), was evacuated to Arkhangelsk(sp) and was there during 1941-1945.
So I can say that I DO know the both sides of this story.

Huoh. After all I think this 'discussion' doesn´t go anywhere.
SerbTiger and Leo seems to listen only sound of arms and they are the children of communist history. I wish them luck with their ideology.

PS. SerbTiger, guess what. Karelia is still part of Finland

[Tiwaz]

Tiwaz said:

Why only Russians have right to get reparations in your world? What our grandparents took durin Continuation war was needed to provide our army with proper defence lines (original border wasn't as easily defendable) BUT they could be seen as OUR reparation for SOVIET AGGRESSION which took place in 1939 already if you prefer to speak in terms of reparations.

So your grandparents needed a better border for protection, well than so did the Soviets in 1940 so I guess by your standard the Soviet Invasion was OK since they needed a better defensive border too. You see you caught you self in a trap you use one standard for Finns and another for Soivets .

You should read my whole message. Specially after that part after BUT.

I'll explain it to you once more... Finland couldn't have been aggressor in Continuation war by your logic since we simply took what was stolen from us by agressor Soviet Union 1939-1940 AND added to that reparations that were rightfully ours based on Soviet aggression.


And about me using double standards when talking about defendable positions... Finland required them since they were at war with larger aggressive nation that had proven how hostile it was in earlier years.

However there was no threat to Soviet union pre Winter War from Finland. Only threat there was existed in the twisted minds of Soviet leaders, Finns wanted to be left alone and that is all. There was no plans to attack Soviets or to let anyone else use Finnish areas to attack Soviet Union and that was clearly told USSR. So there was no need for different border unlike you try to tell.

[SerbTiger]

And about me using double standards when talking about defendable positions... Finland required them since they were at war with larger aggressive nation that had proven how hostile it was in earlier years.

Funny but I seem to recall that in 1941 German troops were in Finland and attacked Soviet Union from the very direction anticipated. Sorry but your own logic Soviet Union needed the new borders in 1940 just as much as Finns did in 1941.
You see there is no way to get around that unless you use doulbe standards and say that Finland has more right to be aggresive than Soivet Union.
Lets add up all the factors:Soviet aggression first but then follows Finnish aggression second so there is no excuses for Finland it wanted to take a bigger bite than it could chew and I think that the Reperations are very fair indeed.
By your logic Russia now could claim all of Finland as a breakaway province that only got independce due to COMMUNISM but Russia is not doing that only it seems that only some citizens of Finland are still living in the past wanting land back that they lost in an aggresive war in '41 it doesn't make sense.
MY main point is if Finland only took back what was theirs than that would OK but they DID NOT they wanted MORE and as a result lost what was theirs in the First place.

[Tiwaz]

And about me using double standards when talking about defendable positions... Finland required them since they were at war with larger aggressive nation that had proven how hostile it was in earlier years.

Funny but I seem to recall that in 1941 German troops were in Finland and attacked Soviet Union from the very direction anticipated. Sorry but your own logic Soviet Union needed the new borders in 1940 just as much as Finns did in 1941.
You see there is no way to get around that unless you use doulbe standards and say that Finland has more right to be aggresive than Soivet Union.
Lets add up all the factors:Soviet aggression first but then follows Finnish aggression second so there is no excuses for Finland it wanted to take a bigger bite than it could chew and I think that the Reperations are very fair indeed.
By your logic Russia now could claim all of Finland as a breakaway province that only got independce due to COMMUNISM but Russia is not doing that only it seems that only some citizens of Finland are still living in the past wanting land back that they lost in an aggresive war in '41 it doesn't make sense.
MY main point is if Finland only took back what was theirs than that would OK but they DID NOT they wanted MORE and as a result lost what was theirs in the First place.

Stalin, being nice and emphatic person we all know him to be, wouldn't have cared if Finland stopped at their old border or not. Only way to get at least some kind of insurance that you would be able to keep your land was to estabilish as good defensive position as possible and after that negotiate about border again if proper opportunity would have appeared.

And like I said, those areas could also be seen as reparations for unprovoked Soviet attack which cost Finland much blood, money and resources. So there was nothing fair in reparations Soviets gained after Continuation war.

And yes there was German troops in Finland 1941 attacking SU, however there wasn't even idea of such being there 39-40. Finns had no intentions to allow them there before Soviet attack. You are talking about prophesy that made itself reality. Had Soviets settled to stay on their side of border there wouldn't have been Germans in Finland 41.

Now question is, if had SU not attacked Finland at the first place how likely it would have been that Finland would have gone to meet Germany to get some help? Minimal.


Russians would have some difficulties claiming Finland as a breakaway state after Finland became acknowledged to be independent nation by quite large number of other independent nations.

[LeoAU]

Stalin, being nice and emphatic person we all know him to be, wouldn't have cared if Finland stopped at their old border or not.

But, could you be a man for a sec and use proper names for your deeds. Not 'we only wanted our lands back' but it was an agression against USSR from Germany as well as Finland?

Only way to get at least some kind of insurance that you would be able to keep your land was to estabilish as good defensive position as possible and after that negotiate about border again if proper opportunity would have appeared.

Or using your standards you 'stole' Soviet land. You robbed USSR back then!

And like I said, those areas could also be seen as reparations for unprovoked Soviet attack which cost Finland much blood, money and resources. So there was nothing fair in reparations Soviets gained after Continuation war.

Your government thought differently back then. You people keep on saying why should've we respected an agreement which was made with a gun pointed at our head. On the other hand you keep on telling we repulsed all Soviet attacks and beat them military. So, where is that gun at your head?

Finns had no intentions to allow them there before Soviet attack. You are talking about prophesy that made itself reality. Had Soviets settled to stay on their side of border there wouldn't have been Germans in Finland 41.

Now question is, if had SU not attacked Finland at the first place how likely it would have been that Finland would have gone to meet Germany to get some help? Minimal.

Perhaps you know that all of the Eastern Europe countries joined Germany in their attack on USSR. Finland with its long borders with USSR would've joined Germany any way.

[LeoAU]

"Finnish Holocaust"...a comment from real expert. When Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany that does not mean anything?

It may mean something , but... my point was that Finland was ally of Nazi Germany. And the fact that USSR was 'an ally' of Germnay DOESN'T change that FACT !!!!!

Secondly, they did took part in Leningrad siege. You can post all you want about how morally Finns behave - they bombed only 'military' targets. See, Germans agenda was to destroy Leningrad TOGETHER with its inhabitants, starve/freeze them to death. Accepting that only military objects were targeted, you still DID help your nazi ally to fulfill their objective.

Again false accusation.

Which part is false???? That millions of civilians died thanks to your glorious warriours that were fighting 'i want my lands back' war???? That you sided with an enimal that wanted that city to be erased from the face of Earth?????

But I'm glad you said it was "German agenda". Finland took part only in sieging of Soviet troops i.e. encirclements (called "motti" in Finnish). Nothing else.

And you were part of that agenda, accept it. I love your double standarts, we sieged army only, and the fact that there were several millions of civilians doesn't bother you. Oh no, Finns back then knew exactly what was happening in Leningrad.

You cannot accept the fact that your grandfathers did something wrong, or were part of something bad. No, no it was all Germans. Or Soviet fault. We were good guys. Total absence of self-criticism. Harri, it is impossible that a nation did everything right.

It was Soviet choice to keep industry of Leningrad running and majority of people in the city.

And it was Finns choice to starve and bomb the city. You blame Soviets for leaving civilians in the city? That might've been the only choice how not to surrender the city. I blame you that you came to thier land and took part in those dirty deeds.

They'd have 1.) time to evacuate whole Leningrad before it was nearly encircled 2.) time to evacuate the city during the so called "siege" because Leningrad was never fully encircled.

Never fully encircled? Are you serious? Evacuate the whole city in 3 weeks? Are you nuts? With all the factories?

Railway stations are typical military targets during the war. ...That's called war.

And if it happened to be that by doing so you helped Germans to starve civilians, why can't you just admit it?

As I and the other Finns in this forum have already proved these actions didn't mean anything.

{flotilia business}
They didn't ahve any major impact, yes, but can't you get that the point is that Finns tried to do something. You can't even admit this!!!

The most important thing is that Finnish Navy didn't know anything about this plan before Germans announced that "your request has been accepted". Who made this request is a mystery because it was not done either by Finnish Naval Forces Staff or Chief HQ. Probably it was a German counter-move against our now rather passive activities in war?

I don't know all these details, maybe you right, but it seems to be just another excuse of yours - we were the good guys.

That is true, but you forget two things:
1.) the severe lack of food in Finland in 1941 and 1942 (one reason we turned to Germany)
2.) the weak health situation of Soviet civils in East-Karelia before Finns occupied that area

Hell, and how would putting Slavs to conc camps help the cituation??????
And guess where's that lack of food came from? Around 72% of horses, 80% of pigs were robbed by Finns from locals! Robbed, and people were starving on Finnish occupied territories, as well as in Leningrad too by the way. And you Finns had nothing to do with both of them!!!

By 1943 the situation was improved a lot and mortality had dropped even below figures of Finland. I don't think this happened either in Germany or in USSR?

And that's when you renamed concentraion camps to hide their true nature. That's when you realised that payback is coming because you might lose the war.
And do you say the mortality dropped? The war ate more and more resources, but you insist that mortality dropped?

While you make such a noise with these figures I must remind you that figures of Soviet Union are much worse. The more serious is that in Soviet Union that same happened also during peace-time.

WHAT??? Finns beat even the Germans in the number of civilians placed to conc camps!

[LeoAU]

I understand well enough what you wrote. What racist comments were there?

See, Harri, I am not the one one who can sence some rasist altitudes in your posts.
And what about this sentence: 'Russia never was a great country and never will be'. Now, that is your opinion based on your thought that Russians are not capable of building a better life, ie some kind of subhumans.

[Tiwaz]

Stalin, being nice and emphatic person we all know him to be, wouldn't have cared if Finland stopped at their old border or not.

But, could you be a man for a sec and use proper names for your deeds. Not 'we only wanted our lands back' but it was an agression against USSR from Germany as well as Finland?

Only way to get at least some kind of insurance that you would be able to keep your land was to estabilish as good defensive position as possible and after that negotiate about border again if proper opportunity would have appeared.

Or using your standards you 'stole' Soviet land. You robbed USSR back then!

And like I said, those areas could also be seen as reparations for unprovoked Soviet attack which cost Finland much blood, money and resources. So there was nothing fair in reparations Soviets gained after Continuation war.

Your government thought differently back then. You people keep on saying why should've we respected an agreement which was made with a gun pointed at our head. On the other hand you keep on telling we repulsed all Soviet attacks and beat them military. So, where is that gun at your head?

Finns had no intentions to allow them there before Soviet attack. You are talking about prophesy that made itself reality. Had Soviets settled to stay on their side of border there wouldn't have been Germans in Finland 41.

Now question is, if had SU not attacked Finland at the first place how likely it would have been that Finland would have gone to meet Germany to get some help? Minimal.

Perhaps you know that all of the Eastern Europe countries joined Germany in their attack on USSR. Finland with its long borders with USSR would've joined Germany any way.

Sure it was an aggression, one that was caused by Soviets. You see, Finland didn't declare war in Continuation war until after Soviet planes had bombed Finland. (technicality I know)

And about robbing land, well, what do you expect? If you won't play nice why in hell we would take handicap by remaining on area that isn't as suitable for defence as one bit further to the east. And I doubt if there would have been large disagreement if peace with original border could have been achieved. Finns would have retreated happily. That of course wasn't possible after forced alliance with Germany.


And basing you claim that Finland would have joined up with Germany anyway because "everyone else was doing it" is kind of hollow. Large majority of Finnish people and goverment had no interest to get into war and since we are a democracy such things have habit to have meaning when national policy is decided. Finns couldn't have cared less even if rest of the western Europe would have joined in the war against Soviets.

[Harri]

The point is not to say that Finns were like Germans involved in the Holocoust but the Finns were allied with the AXIS of Evil and as such share some blame along with ALL AXIS nations for the results of WW2.

If we count Finland as Axis nation. Officially Finland was not Axis state:
1.) we had no pacts with germany
2.) we didn't receive military or political orders from Germany
3.) our Parliament and Government were democraticly selected

There was no Nazis in Government and the only party close to Nazi ideas, IKL (Patriotic Folks Movement), had been forbidden in the late 1930's. (It was forbid by later President U. Kekkonen who was the Minister of Justice then.)

We were only with Germany and other Axis states. If we were supported by Germany thet does not make us any worse than before. The kind of accusation you suggest is very serious and indicate your lack of knowledge. I ask you to get more familiar with Finland and its past history.

So your grandparents needed a better border for protection, well than so did the Soviets in 1940 so I guess by your standard the Soviet Invasion was OK since they needed a better defensive border too. You see you caught you self in a trap you use one standard for Finns and another for Soivets .

(This was directed to Tiwaz...)

But Serb, you forget one thing. Who has said that when peace treaty would have signed between Finland and Soviet Union Finns would have stayed in any occupied areas? Our demand was always to get stolen lands back. What happened during the war is another thing. Think about that.

[edited by webmaster]

[Tapani K.]

Perhaps you know that all of the Eastern Europe countries joined Germany in their attack on USSR. Finland with its long borders with USSR would've joined Germany any way.

Finland would not have joined the attack if the Soviet Union had not attacked us in 1939. The Finnish foreign policy was based on neutrality and Nordic co-operation. In 1939 it became clear that Nordic co-operation could not help Finland in a situation of aggression. So as it has been pointed out, in effect Stalin left us with no other alternative than to seek support from Germany in asituation where it was obvious that neutrality, Nordic co-operation and the Western powers were of no help.

Sorry, could not resist adding my two cents here.

regards,
Tapani K.

[Harri]

It may mean something , but... my point was that Finland was ally of Nazi Germany. And the fact that USSR was 'an ally' of Germnay DOESN'T change that FACT !!!!!

OK. But our relationship to Germany differed from other Axis nations. Anyway the unsuccesful policy of Soviet Union started the development which led to Continuation War. That was evident after Winter War and not our fault. Borders of 1939 would have changed everything. Instead Soviet Union chose to "punish" Finland!!?

Secondly, they did took part in Leningrad siege. You can post all you want about how morally Finns behave - they bombed only 'military' targets. See, Germans agenda was to destroy Leningrad TOGETHER with its inhabitants, starve/freeze them to death. Accepting that only military objects were targeted, you still DID help your nazi ally to fulfill their objective.

That was not our agenda and we had nothing to do with it. We don't agree with this but don't blame Finns on things Soviets were as guilty as Germans.

Which part is false???? That millions of civilians died thanks to your glorious warriours that were fighting 'i want my lands back' war???? That you sided with an enimal that wanted that city to be erased from the face of Earth?????

Stop arguing, Leo. We have already proved that your claims are only one small part of the truth.

And you were part of that agenda, accept it. I love your double standarts, we sieged army only, and the fact that there were several millions of civilians doesn't bother you. Oh no, Finns back then knew exactly what was happening in Leningrad.

Yes we knew and Soviet authorities knew too. Should we have come to help starving people or supply food using aircraft? Unfortunately you forget that we were in the state of war and your soldiers would have shot everyone with that kind of ideas. Soviet Union had a change to sign peace treaty with Finns already in 1942. But we wanted our stolen lands back (= borders on 1939) and that was not accepted in USSR. Then war went on and more people died in Leningrad. That was of course all Finnish fault...

You cannot accept the fact that your grandfathers did something wrong, or were part of something bad. No, no it was all Germans. Or Soviet fault. We were good guys. Total absence of self-criticism. Harri, it is impossible that a nation did everything right.

No-one of old Finnish people I know have ever said there was something wrong (except the lands USSR stole). There has been lots of self-criticism in Finland after the war and nothing new has appeared yet. What about "self-criticism" in Soviet Union? And now in Russia - I think there has been some...

And it was Finns choice to starve and bomb the city. You blame Soviets for leaving civilians in the city? That might've been the only choice how not to surrender the city. I blame you that you came to thier land and took part in those dirty deeds.

Any proves? No, there are no proves because there was no Finnish bombing. Leningrad belonged to the operation zone of German Luftflotte 1.

Never fully encircled? Are you serious? Evacuate the whole city in 3 weeks? Are you nuts? With all the factories?

What kind of "encirclement" has a route away?
The point is like I said earlier: "with all the factories". It was Soviet policy to stay in Leningrad.

And if it happened to be that by doing so you helped Germans to starve civilians, why can't you just admit it?

Finnish bombings had nothing to do with Germans and especially with Leningrad. Proves again, please.

{flotilia business}
They didn't ahve any major impact, yes, but can't you get that the point is that Finns tried to do something. You can't even admit this!!!

"Tried" is another thing that "did". Germans tried to conquer Soviet Union and make Atomic bomb too...

I don't know all these details, maybe you right, but it seems to be just another excuse of yours - we were the good guys.

Yes, you really don't know all details. I know enough.
At least we didn't kill our own people, like USSR.

Hell, and how would putting Slavs to conc camps help the cituation??????
And guess where's that lack of food came from? Around 72% of horses, 80% of pigs were robbed by Finns from locals! Robbed, and people were starving on Finnish occupied territories, as well as in Leningrad too by the way. And you Finns had nothing to do with both of them!!!

You see these "conc camps" were nothing we have seen in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Union. You don't know anything about Finnish camps. For example the quantity of food was exactly the same what Finns had in 1941.

Soviet troops had already "stolen" the best horses and pigs. Finnish soldiers were not allowed to rob anything. They were severely punished if such things happened. The food situation was exactly the same in Finland too. We could not do anything because we were lack of food thanks to Soviet attack in 1939 and more than -10% reduction in our best cultivated lands. But situation improved a lot during the war.

And that's when you renamed concentraion camps to hide their true nature. That's when you realised that payback is coming because you might lose the war. And do you say the mortality dropped? The war ate more and more resources, but you insist that mortality dropped?

They were renamed because there were other camps in other countries which were not very similar to our camps. Mortality dropped because food situation improved a lot during the war. We also received vitamin C pills, vaccines and medicines through International Red Cross. Food portion was rosen during the war.

WHAT??? Finns beat even the Germans in the number of civilians placed to conc camps!

Really?

Then tell me why many Soviet POWs without guards worked voluntarily for example in Finnish farms? Because they got more food and were treated well. Actually more Soviet POWs escaped to Sweden than back to Soviet Union during the war! Isn't that too very strange?

[Tiwaz]

We should also remember that also Finnish farmers in main Finland lost much of their cattle, horses and other foodstuff.

It was wartime, people were expected to give their contribution to war effort. Most horses were taken to the army and much from whatever farmers managed to raise had to be given to goverment for distribution. And STILL there was lack of food in Finland. In cities parks and other areas where you can grow something were used to raise vegetables.

Nothing was plentiful at that time, farmers were in trouble since fertilizer was rationed, able bodied men were at the front and horses were taken by army. That was true for both main Finland and areas army took.