Finland's aid to the nazi holocaust

I'm sure I can rely on Wikipedia for this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Century

I remember watching it when it first aired (which appaerently was 1995) I don't think the whole series has ever been repeated on tv here.

Dear Comrades

Thank you for this thread. I was unaware of Finnish involvement in the Holocaust - thank you for your knowledge in this matter. I know that certain Finnish historians claim an Asian origination for the Finnish Sami ethnicity. This has been used to explain the Finnish use of the Asian Swastika on their planes and tanks. Whatever the case, the Swastika the Finnish used, was not the same as that used by the Nazi Party, who took an Asian symbol for peace, turned it on its side, and the other around - to depict war and conquest.

I also am aware that the Finnish Army assisted the Germans in their siege of Leningrade, but that the Finnish commander refused to close the military ring around Leningrade, which gave the Soviet defenders a life line. The Fins took part, so that they could re-take Finnish land previously annexed by the Soviets, but refused to actively seize Soviet land. The Finnish involvement in the holocaust is a subject I shall look into.

Quote:

I was unaware of Finnish involvement in the Holocaust

On November 6, 1942, eight foreign refugees who happened to be Jews were handed over to the Germans, but that's it, and nothing indicates that this was part of "plan for Jews of Finland" - the Finnish did not know about Final Solution. That's where "Finnish Holocaust" remains. Finnish Jews were not persecuted; they were fighting in the war, working and living like any other people - Finnish Jews fighting in the war even had field synagogues. There's no denial that eight foreign refugees who were Jews were handed over to the Germans, but it remains that out of more than 500 Jewish refugees escaped to Finland and were granted asylum; only eight were taken by Gestapo.

Trying to push a theory about so called "Finnish master plan for Jews in the country" in shadow of the handover of these eight particular foreign Jewish refugees is something that has basis for the scientific community.

Source? There were more than 8 Jews handed over to the Germans. Articles posted in this thread demonstrate that.

Out of more than 500 Jewish refugees escaped to Finland and were granted asylum; only eight were taken by Gestapo.

Suomen juutalaisväestöstä ja -pakolaisista (About Finland's Jewish population and refugees), page 183, by Stephane Bruchfeld & Paul A. Levine: Werner Söderström, Helsinki.)

The Finnish Institue of International Affairs - http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/home/ - made a statement of the eight Jewish refugees who already in the year 2000.

The articles are misleading work of three (the Swedish gentleman in particular who has received "quite" a reputation among scientific communities) most interesting persons who are trying to push a theory about their so called "Finnish master plan for Jews in the country" in shadow of the handover of these eight particular foreign Jewish refugees, something that is no basis for the scientific communities.

The first link is back online.

Jews were in safe in Finland (at least most of them except those 8 who were transfered back to germany), but the real victims of holocaust which Finland put in process were russians. There were even hundreds of concentration camps (more like death camps) in occupied areas where were thousands of russians killed.

There's even a document of russians who survived from those death camps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZo0MNEjJPU

That is just plainly wrong black and white claim. There were no death camps in Finland, nor were intentionally starved to death as part of some systematic "death camp" scheme.

Soviet people were interned in internment camps because they were enemy aliens, and they were not allowed to starve to death. People died because there was not enough food due to failed harvest in Finland.

Due to loss of fertilizer imports and fifth of arable land the food situation in Finland was difficult. Although some of the needed grain was bought from Germany, Finland was still on the brink of faminy at 1941. The loss of material relevant to food in East Karelia made the situation even more difficult.

The rations which were issued to the camps were standard rations for light workers which has been used in Finland for example in volunteer projects. What was not counted, was that with the shortage of food, also the low quality material were taken into use, with much lower nutritional values than normal stuff. The end result was increased deaths everywhere where that material had to be used, also in Finland proper. In statistics there can be seen increase in deaths in Finland

The question is, were those people murdered by intentionally giving them too little food. The answer to that question is no. So why did they die? The answer to that question is the low quality of the available foodstuff and missing options to improve those lacking rations. Why was the quality then so low? The simple answer to that is the bad harvest, which forced everybody to use for food even those stuff which would have in normal situation used for some other thing, like feeding the cattle, making a glue etc. Even Finns suffered from that in a situations similar like those inside the camps. The failed harvest did not only effect those Soviet citizens who were interned, but also those who were not.

The Finnish did not allow people to starve to death intentionally. Before the Finnish forces retreated from the Soviet city of Petrozavodsk, the largest Soviet city in Finnish hands, in June 1944 (the food situation was solved by 1943), they distributed food for the city's people that was enough to keep themselves fed for two weeks.

As it is, the Soviet Union did not raise trials about the internment - they weren't stupid enough to do that.

To redirect from previous page:

Quote:

Bravo Carius. I am a Soviet patriot, but what I can't stand is immature posters who try to use insults and ridiculous claims to cover up their own ignorance.

Hey Carius, thanks for the detailed explanation. That the Soviet Union didn't create trials for whatever miniscule crimes were committed by the Finns during the war says a lot. Unfortunately as history played out Finland was a small nation caught between the USSR and Nazi Germany in that period. Their actions during the war, considering prior Soviet aggression, make sense, and could be justified on that basis. That the Finns switched sides to fight the Germans in 1944, became committed neutralists during the Cold War, and generally apparently have little animosity toward Russia today shows a lot about just how uncommitted they were to the ideas of the German Nazis.

Indeed. And Stalin treated Finland with a surprising degree of leniency after 1945. He clearly recognised that Finland's actions had been reasonable, given the circumstances, and that Finland had not committed major war crimes and had not tried to grab Soviet territory during the War.

It is not surprising that Finland had to do Germany's bidding during the war. If they had have wanted German protection as a number of Baltic countries did during that era, they would have been forced to cooperate as a German client state. Lithuania was also another country that played this game, as awful as it was. Mind you, during the Soviet Union at this time there was a mass transfer of Chechens to Siberia!

Finland was not Germany's client state - nor a is Finland a Baltic State.

After the peace treaty ending the Winter War in which the Soviet Union attacked Finland in order to conquer the country in 1939 (following a fabricated "Finnish attack") was signed in March 1940, Finland hoped not to be dragged into war again, and sought to enter defensive military alliance with Sweden to protect both countries neutrality - nothing came of this due to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union did not accept Finland's neutrality because the country was in Soviet Union's area of interest as agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Soviet Union had showed her interest to be at peace with Finland by shooting down unarmed Finnish passenger plane Kaleva three months after the peace treaty was signed.

The Soviet Union had already prepeared a goverment for this "new Finland".

Stalin and his gang. Leader of the so called to-be "Finnish Democratic Republic", Otto Wille Kuusinen by his right.

If the USSR had attacked in order to conquer they would have done so after finally smashing the defenses in early 1940, or in the mid-1940s after the end of the war. As you are aware, the territorial demands made in 1939 by the Soviets were revised several times, getting smaller and smaller each time, but Finland refused each time. I can certainly understand the refusal (why give up good defensive land in exchange for some Karelian wasteland), but I also understand the Soviet concern (the second most important city within range of artillery fire as a major war has just broken out in Europe and is likely to spread). As I said, it's a shame that Finland was caught up in the war between great powers.

I didn't know about the Finnish plans for a defensive alliance with Sweden. Thanks for the food for thought. Along with the Winter War, it certainly makes the Soviets look like the bad guys.

Quote:

If the USSR had attacked in order to conquer they would have done so after finally smashing the defenses in early 1940,

The reason the Winter War was not continued is because the war had made the Soviet Union a joke in world politics, had been enormously costly, and Stalin did not want to risk the possibility of war with the Allies. The Winter War was not supposed to last 105 days and cost hundreds of thousands of casualties - it was supposed to be over within a week with nonexistant casualties.

Quote:

or in the mid-1940s after the end of the war.

The reason being that Hitler had met with Molotov in 1940, and stated that Germany would not accept a further war in the Baltic area as passive spectators.

Hitler's private discussion with Mannerheim. Skip to 40:40.

"Hitler: "...that your existence is threatened by Finland?" Well [he (Molotov) said] there was a moral - threat being made against a great power, and what Finland was doing, that was a moral - a threat to their moral existence. Then I told him we would not accept a further war in the Baltic area as passive spectators."

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~tkwok/aatu.mp3

Quote:

The reason the Winter War was not continued is because the war had made the Soviet Union a joke in world politics, had been enormously costly, and Stalin did not want to risk the possibility of war with the Allies. The Winter War was not supposed to last 105 days and cost hundreds of thousands of casualties - it was supposed to be over within a week with nonexistant casualties.

The war was a costly mistake and weakened the USSR in the eyes of other world powers, especially Germany, but by March of 1940 Finland's ability to resist was diminishing, with the Soviet army having broken through the Mannerheim Line and beginning a steady advance on Viipuri that was tremendously costly for Finnish defenders. This advance could have continued if the Soviets' goal was to conquer Finland.

As for the mid-1940s, what I was talking about was the post-war world, where the USSR could easily have stationed troops in Finland and installed a communist government. After all Finland was recognized as an Axis combatant, and I doubt that the US or Britain would have much interest or capability in stopping the Soviets (they weren't able to stop them in Eastern Europe).

Quote:

by March of 1940 Finland's ability to resist was diminishing, with the Soviet army having broken through the Mannerheim Line and beginning a steady advance on Viipuri that was tremendously costly for Finnish defenders. This advance could have continued if the Soviets' goal was to conquer Finland.

The original goal was to conquer Finland; a new Finnish government was not organized to run a border village (which it historically ended up doing as things did not go as planned), the reasons I stated as combined made Stalin reconsider.

Quote:

As for the mid-1940s, what I was talking about was the post-war world, where the USSR could easily have stationed troops in Finland and installed a communist government. After all Finland was recognized as an Axis combatant, and I doubt that the US or Britain would have much interest or capability in stopping the Soviets (they weren't able to stop them in Eastern Europe).

Not quite. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed at Yalta that Finland was a seperate case - among other things Finland was never at war with the United States, and was the only nation at war with the Soviet Union and the British Commonwealth to maintain diplomatic relations with the United States. The negotiated peace, not the results - destruction of Finland's capability to seek terms other than unconditional surrender in 1944 when they launched a major offensives coordinated with D-day against Finland - the Soviets had planned for, and the Allied Commission of Finland was made up of Soviets and British were all affecting issues. After the war the Soviet Union was left with issues that overshadowed Finland, which just wanted to be left at peace like Sweden.

Quote:

The original goal was to conquer Finland; a new Finnish government was not organized to run a border village (which it historically ended up doing as things did not go as planned), the reasons I stated as combined made Stalin reconsider.

That was not the original goal. The original goal was to try and attain guarantees from Finland that they would not ally with Germany in the event of war. The Finns remained firm on their commitment to neutrality. Then the Soviets asked to lease islands in the Gulf of Finland, and were rejected. Then the Soviets proposed that Finland allow Soviet troops to occupy Suursaari Island, and were rejected. Then the Soviets made several ever-shrinking borderline revision demands, which included an exchange for Soviet territory in Karelia. All of them were rejected. The Kuusinen government was organized after the failure of negotiations with the Republic of Finland.

Quote:

After the war the Soviet Union was left with issues that overshadowed Finland, which just wanted to be left at peace

Okay, but if the Soviets had malevolent intentions towards Finland (which included conquering it and installing a socialist government) they wouldn't have just left them in peace.

Quote:

That was not the original goal.

Quote:

The Kuusinen government was organized after the failure of negotiations with the Republic of Finland.

Even if the Finnish had bowed Stalin's demands there is no way that more concessions would not have been demanded. Stalin would not accept Finland's neutrality during World War II because Finland was in the Soviet Union's area of interest according to the secret divisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Quote:

Okay, but if the Soviets had malevolent intentions towards Finland (which included conquering it and installing a socialist government) they wouldn't have just left them in peace.

You miss the issues. After the Soviets depleted their force in 1944 that was to and failed to destroy the Finnish military and penetrate into central Finland and with a negotiated peace being signed as a result, Stalin's focused his attention on Germany. During the Yalta Conference, Stalin agreed with Churchill and Roosevelt that Finland was a seperate case, and by the end of World War II Finland had become overshadowed to Stalin. After the end of World War II it was Eastern Europe that was the primary consern of Stalin. Post World War II politics rendered Finland's importance to that of neutral zone between the West and the Eastern Bloc, with Finland maintaining equal relations with both.

Quote:

Even if the Finnish had bowed Stalin's demands there is no way that more concessions would not have been demanded.

How can you be so sure of this? Post-1945 the Soviets accepted Finland's neutrality even after the Cold War began to heat up in the late 1940s.

You are telling me the history behind events as they played out. I'm telling you that IF the Soviets wanted to, and IF Stalin had the meglomaniacal goal of conquering Finland, they could have done so, albeit at a cost of reducing their focus elsewhere for a time. It was a political decision to "render Finland's importance to that of the neutral zone between the West and the Eastern Bloc", not an inevitable result.

Quote:

Post-1945 the Soviets accepted Finland's neutrality even after the Cold War began to heat up in the late 1940s.

Post-war politics were quite different from World War II, and Finland was overshadowed by things such as the Eastern Europe. Finland was offered western aid in the aftermath of World War II; the Marshal Aid and even to lean towards the West militarily via Norway - all of which were turned down to keep the nation's neutrality balanced. Not only Stalin accepted Finland's neutrality - everyone did. It was clear to both the West and Eastern Bloc that Finland wanted to be left alone as neutral country post World War II, and not harbour the West anymore than the Eastern Bloc.

Quote:

IF Stalin had the meglomaniacal goal of conquering Finland

No one said anything about meglomania, it was something that he simply planned during World War II, and which was not achieved because of several reasons. Of course Stalin did not have a meglomaniacal goal to conquer Finland, and of course he could have if he had really wanted to push it - he did not because of how the history went, and made him reconsider other options.