Finnish concentration camps in Karelia

The rates may not have gone as high but I believe the Finn's did loose a significant number of civlians during that period to starvation and disease. The concnetration of people in a camp especially with poor nutrition will also increase the impact of comunicable diseases.

 

I do not think so. It wasn't analogy but just a statement intended to stimulate your cognitive processes.

Human beings are human beings regardless of their ethnicity, color of skin or language they speak. I have never thought that a death of one child is more tragic than a death of another just because their parents are different. Try to forget your previous "knowledge" and think. Our ideas are frozen too soon if we let others to instruct us how and what to think. Propaganda is powerful, especially at the West. Subtle and carefully premeditated.

After all, what makes you sure that there was not some Finnish Wannsee Conference and what does it change after all? The Wannsee Conference has not changed destiny of the Jews in the Nazi custody; it has changed the way they were executed.

Finally, history as a science should not be sloppier than physics or chemistry and other "exact" sciences. Why should we sometimes allow in history 2+2 to be five just because that result might look more acceptable in certain case?

 

I don't see that that has been done here at least by those with arguments in oppositoin to yours. To use your analogy what they have said is if you have two numbers whos value is uncertain reaching the conclusion that they add up to 4 is a stretch.

 

Logic is the best tool we have when we are at some remove from acts of history, and while emotion can give us momentum when we lack motivation, without logic to guide our direction, the path we choose to pursue can just as easily lead us further from the truth than to it.

First there is no hard evidence of a Finnish "Wannsee Conference" in the matter of the treatment of Soviet refugee's, second their vastly improved conditions during the last two thirds of the "Continuation War" give's lie to premise that such an event took place. If you are intending to commit an atrocity you do not then release thousands of witnesses and dramatically improve the conditions for those you retain whilst inducting half again as many new detainees to hear the horror stories of those retained originally.

Further I feel it is accurate to conclude that the actual Wannsee Conference did dramatically alter the fate of the Jewish population under Nazi Control. It may have been a foregone conclusion in Hitler's mind that all Jews in Europe had to be eliminated, but he alone or even his inner circle could not themselves make this a reality. It would take the combined efforts of the political and judicial arms of the government, who each for their own reasons, were not fully committed to the deliberate and rapid extermination of millions of people to make it a reality.

Hitler and his ilk was intelligent enough to know that rail car's to oblivion in 1933 would not be tolerated within Germany, even by her own "Aryan" population. The Jews were first blamed, then ostracized, then had their rights curtailed, then removed entirely, followed by separation from German society to be sent to "resettlement camps", which then made a "Wannsee" possible. Each step had to be taken in order to lay the ground work for those that followed.

Finland could not possibly foresee that within a year's time after being the victim of an invasion by Hitler's "ally" they would then have the means to redress this injustice, provided by Hitler himself. While I find the Finnish decision to embark upon the "Continuation War" as deeply misguided, it is clear their only interest was the reclamation of lost land and not some form genocide aimed at the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately human behavior, which creates history, is not an exact science in the way mathematics, chemistry or physic's must be. I could punch you in the nose, you then might punch me back or walk away concluding retribution served no purpose, or you might walk away, collect a weapon and choose to inflict more harm on me than a bloody nose. I might guess any of these possibilities, but until I throw the first punch I can never know exactly how you might respond, nor what my response to your counter action might be.

You stated that we are all human, which is absolutely correct. That said, being human means we can soar to acts of greatness, or delve to depths of depravity, but usually we muddle along somewhere between these extremes and 'muddling about' will inevitably lead to injustices that are not quite entirely meant nor resolutely prohibited.

 

Neither Japanese had their "Wannsee Conference" and yet...

There are serious issues regarding your pseudo-scientific explanation: you had to depart from the subject of this conversation to provide circumstantial "evidence" that nothing uncommon happened in these Finnish camps. Why so remote if we have relevant facts?

In this particular case mortality increased dramatically only for Russian children. A random process cannot produce such selective results. This clearly indicates that there must have been something that caused this abnormality.

All these kids were in hands of Finnish government, Finnish army and Finnish soldiers and only they could increase their mortality so dramatically. It is up to you and your conscience to draw right conclusions.

 

There have been explanations brought forth that are both consistent and reasonable. Your counters are less so. As for a Japanese "Wannsee" I disagree. There were apparently several such they just took place at lower levels and dealt with particular areas. This is hardly unexpected as the Japanese government was organized radically different from the German or the Finnish ones.

 

I more or less agree with most of your post.

However Finnish civilians and even to some extent also the troops suffered severe shortages of food at winter-summer 1942. Although the outright famine was narrowly avoided it was still very, very close. The mortality rose especially in the institutes, where the inhabitants could not get additional food supplies in addition to the general rations, which alone were not enough to be able to survive.

It would have been impossible to reason, why the citizens of the aggressor dictatorship, which so far had attacked Finland and her civilians twice in 1,5 years (three times in 23,5 years), should have got the food which the Finns themselves did not have!

"Everybody", also in Finland, thought that the new war would be short. Therefor all the arrangements were temporary, not designed to work more that few months.

 

Of course with hindsight we can suppose it was a mistake.

On the other hand
1. It was not Finland's "decision" to start a new war, it was Germany's - and if it hadn't been Germany the USSR would have attacked (at least) Finland sooner or later.
2. Finland made plans in case there was a situation, where Germany and the USSR started a war AND the USSR attacked Finland. Finland could not be sure what was really going to happen until few days earlier - after all Germany had sold Finland to the soviets only two years earlier. The Continuation War started with the multiple soviet attacks against Finland - not the other way round.
3. At that situation and with the knowledge then available the Finnish decisions were totally sound, reasonable and actually the only ones possible.

 

1. Unless you have some hard evidence of a "Finnish Wannsee" I strongly suggest you stop blathering about such nonsense. Naturally there was no such thing.

2. You have been explained why it was (some of) the Russians, Belorussians etc, who were in the camps. They were either non-locals, who did not have farms nor the knowledge to survive in a strange, cold land; they were from the front area, where the East Karelians did not live or they were people, who helped the partisans/spies/saboteurs, again something which the East Karelians did not normally do. Would you have preferred the children to be separated from their mothers...?

The mortality rose also in other age groups, which you surely know. Of course it sounds more scandalous when you keep parroting only about the children.

3. See n 2.

4. Because the soviet regime did not give a rat's arse for them, but instead of taking care of the soviet civilians CHOSE not to evacuate them but most of their food instead, destroying the rest.

5. I personally have drawn the right conclusions already years ago. You don't seem to be able to do it - ever. My conscience is perfectly fine. Not so sure about yours...

 

I must admit that I have learned lot from Krajala. After reading his posts I became aware of dangers of ethnic hatred and that it still exists in the 21st century. There are still people who would remove whole populations just because of ethnic hatred. Krajala was very direct and explicit regarding his view on the fate of non Ugro-Finnic peoples of Karelia.

Murder is difficult for a normal human being. It takes lots of hatred to comit a murder, especially a murder of a kid. This indicates that in the mid 20th century attitude of the Finnish state towards non Finn-Uric population was so poisoned that they wanted to remove all »alien« population. This isn't my claim – every Finnish source admits such attitude.

I respect human life above all and I must say I am very happy that the present borders of Finland are indeed set strictly according to ethnic borders of the Finnish population. This guarantees satisfactory solution and complete absence of reasons for ethnic hatred. I am very glad that the solution of this problem has been solved satisfactory and that all Finns live in the same country, without the »alien« elements.

Again, this indicates that the end of the World War 2 was really a Happy End: Kareliasn kids are at the safe side now.

On the photo below you may see a scene from peacefull Wyborg.

 

Stalin did not have ethcnic problems. He had cleaned the Polish officers from Katyn to replace them with the Finnish officers after Winter War, and the rest of 3,5 million Finns would have a nice walk to Siberia. And do you believe the Red Army would have stopped at the Swedish Border 1939/1940 or 1944? I don´t think anybody does. Really. The Swedes don´t anyway. More people to Siberia again.

 

Why off-topic? Katyn is something else. A regretful crime, but it belongs elsewhere.

Nobody denies Stalin was harsh, but that isn't an excuse. Those who have adopted the same methods are the same, regardless of the scale of their crimes.

I often recall a testimony of an elderly woman, former officer of SMERSH. Without hesitations she described how she treated a captured enemy during the interrogation. She also said she executed him after she has got information she wanted. A reporter has asked her whether that was the right thing to do. “Today I wouldn’t consider that at all but then it was different. I did what I had to do” she replied. “What should I have done?” she asked. “Kiss him goodbye?” she added.

I prefer frank and opened people who are ready to admit and say: “Yes I did it. I wouldn't have done that now, but that was a war. It was different then.

What I dislike are lies and pretending and denial.

Often I read: we weren't the Nazi aliess. We have just fought together against the common enemy. It is the same by the definition, but some people still prefer to deny and pretend. However, this doesn't change the reality. Finns were the Nazi allies and Finns had their own Concentration camps. Why euphemistic language? Embellishment of uggly reality? Telling the truth heals.

 

1. Once again, it's KARJALA - not anything else. Do you have difficulties in reading or spelling...?

2. I find it very strange that you have made such observations only after my posts - but not before. For everybody else it seems to have been perfectly clear already for decades. For us Finns it has been a reality at least from 1899 and the Russian Pan-Slavism - which meant Russification for all the other nationalities. Nothing has chanced in Russia since then...

3. If/when you are referring to me, then you continue mixing different things. The Finns have been ethnicly cleansed - as well as the Karelians to certain extent. It is against the International law to populate the occupied land - as the soviets did. Returning land to it's legal owners is not "ethnic cleansing" - as you very well know.

4. As you should know by know - the vast majority of the population of East Karelia (proper - without the soviet era annexations) were Finnic (no Ugric people there...). The recent (often forced) soviet immigrants were to be returned to their home areas. I cannot understand why you continue supporting Stalin's purges and forced movements of populations!?

5. If so, then the Stalin's henchmen were not normal, since murder was just another day at the office for them. The soviet criminal empire was built on and stayed in power with mass-murders of all kinds of people of all ages.

6. Total bull****. See my answer nr.4.

7. Your posts do not back your claim.

8. In other words you support ethnic cleansing...

9. You must be very naive or outright stupid to believe that. Not all Finnic people nor even the Finns live in Finland - but more and more Russians seem to be invading our country...

10. Karelia used to be referred in Finland as "the beautiful Karelia". Not so anymore...

View attachment 20244 View attachment 20245

And if you think these are just isolated exceptions there are many, many more...

 

1. "Harsh"?! He was an outright criminal and a mass-murderer.

2. The only ones with the same methods were Hitler, Mao, North-Korean leaders and such. Nothing even close to that was in Finland.

3. A member of SMERSH? And your point(?) is..?! Are you trying to equal SMERSH and the Finnish authorities? You really are lost!

4. Why then do you continue doing so - even after proven being wrong over and over again?

5. That's exactly what the soviets/Russians do even today. I personally would not have any problems admitting alliance with Germany, since that would have been totally acceptable then, but that would be a lie, since it did not actually happen. Of course Germany and Finland did co-operation in their wars against the same enemy. That did not make them allied per se.

6. Is not. You have to show some proof to back up your claim.

7. Once again, were not - unlike the USSR and Germany. Your parroting does not change the FACTS.

8. Yes, Finland did have - like AFAIK all the other countries in the war did. However they were not the soviet/German style concentration camps - like you try to argue.

9. Different words have different meanings - that's why there are so many of them. All propagandists like yourself know perfectly well, how the usage of well-chosen and slightly wrong words have powerful, desired effect.

10. You should try it then...

 

I'll try to bite my tongue even harder then...

I admit finding it difficult to keep my calm when being provoked with absurd false propaganda.

 

Now y'all done it. The Flying Monkeys done swooped down and got y'all. Some people never learn.