Finnish concentration camps in Karelia

They're obvious lying dead in the dinghy in the forefront of the photo...

Because every death camp had death dinghys.




финские военные показывает германским союзникам лагерь на.5 (Пятый поселок)

translates to:

Finnish military shows German allies Camp no. 5 (fifth community).

 

Calling the Finnish camps "death camps" is utterly ludicrous, as Belasar has already correctly pointed out.

The reason the Finnish camps were full of elderly and children, was that the Soviet Union had already rounded up almost every able-bodied person, and taken all portable supplies ahead of the Axis advance precisely to create this issue!!

 

You may use euphemism you want but annual death rate in Finnish concentration camps in 1942 (13.7%) was higher than that in the Nazi death camps (10.5%). In addition to that: kids and their mothers were the primary victims. My stomach turns over.

 

Less than the Soviet PoW camps...

 

Perhaps, but we are discussing here "Finnish concentration camps in Karelia".

I'm not saying that the Soviets were gentle with the Nazi aggressors, they were indeed rightfully harsh. But starving kids to death in Finnish concentration camps is outright disguising.

 

That's been discussed, and shown to be not a deliberate action on the part of the Finns, but a direct consequence of the Soviet retreat which took everything, including the able bodied.

You seem to remain sceptical as to the plight of the entirety of Europe with regards to the near-Famine of 1941-42.

Calorific value of normal rations:

Germany: 1941: 1990; 1942: 1750; 1943: 1980
Italy: 1941: 1010; 1942: 950; 1943: 990
Belgium: 1941: 1360; 1942: 1365; 1943: 1320
Norway: 1941: 1620; 1942: 1385; 1943: 1430
France: 1941: 1365; 1942: 1115; 1943: 1080
Poland: 1941: 845; 1942: 1070; 1943: 853

The destruction of communications, the embargo enforced by the allies, the conscription of the able-bodied, and forced labour, meant the impact of the reduced harvest was sorely felt throughout Europe.

http://books.google.se/books?id=8lPh2vwFuU4C&pg=PA23&dq=famine+greece+1941&hl=el&ei=XThpTrP_O4v44QTup8nQDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=famine%20greece%201941&f=false

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/91523833

Examiner, 5th December, 1942.

RUSSIANS STARVED TO DEATH IN FINLAND
ZURICH, Friday.
— Field-Marshal Mannerheim, the Finnish Commander-in-Chief,
has informed the International Red Cross authorities in Helsinki
that 20,000 Russian war prisoners have died of starvation in
Finland.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan


http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17790207


Sydney Morning Herald
28th January 1942

STARVATION IN EUROPE
Nazi Requisitioning Responsible
LONDON, Feb. 27 (A.A.P.).r The Allied Governments in London, in a statement on the food position in Europe, reveal that
starvation is largely due to the requisitioning of food for the occupying troops and for maintaining rations in Germany.
The survey covers the principal occupied nations.

The deficit of essential foodstuffs in Belgium is 60 per cent, for adults and adolescents, and. 50 per cent, for expectant mothers. In the black market cats cost from 100 to 125 francs each. The cheapest dog meat is 50 francs a pound.
The Germans in Czechoslovakia have confiscated, the nation's reserve, of 750,000 tons of grain, and also all butter and fats. Many death sentences have been imposed for rationing offences.
Food trains are going to Germany each day from France, but the French townspeople are starving.
The Germans and Italians are taking from 75 to 78 per cent, of all load from French Africa.
In November "starvation deaths" in Greece increased to a daily average of 450.

The meat ration in Holland is one Half of the normal consumption. Nearly all animals and poultry are going to Germany.
In Norway unlimited rations are given to thousands of German women, mostly expectant mothers, who have arrived in the Oslo legion.
Because of the large concentration of German troops, the food situation in Poland is becoming worse.
The Germans in Yugoslavia pay for food with valueless occupation marks or "requisition receipts."

POSITION IN BRITAIN
The Minister for Agriculture, Mi. R. S. Hudson, in a speech at Exeter, said that the nation was facing perhaps the gravest situation since the outbreak of the war.
"No successes in Russia or elsewhere can make the prospects of our food situation next winter anything but graver than it has been this winter," he said. "There will be heavier calls upon our shipping and manpower. This, together with our lost positions and the threatened sea routes in the Far East, will mean that less food will be sent lo Britain.
"A five per cent, increase in farm production would save more than 1,500,000 tons of shipping, and it seemed six months ago that this saving would be enough, hut to-day, with my knowledge of shipping losses and the increasing difficulties of import, 1 say we must aim higher."

 

Why so elaborate and remote? Let's just see the figures for Finland and Karelia:

In 1942, the death-rate in concentration camps was 13.8 per cent. At the same time the death-rate of the free population in Eastern Karelia was 2.6 per cent and the death-rate in Finland 1.3 per cent. (Source:Lauri Hannikainen,Raijka Hanski,Allan Rosas: Implementing Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Case of Finland, p. 91)

Discrepancies in figures for different etnicities is far too high to be played down. Improovement came too late for many. However, after Stalingrad, prospects have improved, or worsened, depending from who's perspective.

 

Let me cite a sentence from the article entittled "Hunger Plan" in the link you have just provided.

The Hunger Plan (German der Hungerplan, also der Backe-Plan) was an economic management scheme that was put in place to ensure that Germans were given priority in food supplies at the expense of the inhabitants of the German-occupied Soviet territories.

Let me paraphrase that:

..a plan was put in place to ensure that Finns and other Ugro-Finnic population were given priority in food supplies at the expense of the inhabitants of the Finnish-occupied Soviet territories.

That's exactly what happened to poor inhabitants of Karelia. So, I would agree: that was a Hunger Plan.

 

But there was no Finnish hunger plan... So you can paraphrase all you want, but that would be wrong without further evidence, which you have not provided.

Finland did not control the seas, nor did it control European food production and distribution. So your conclusions are completely invalid, and in stark contradiction to the facts.

 

Death-rates in hospitals are also higher than in the general population. What's your point? Those people, were already the most at risk, because the Soviets had taken the able-bodied.

 

These people weren't at risk because their able-bodied left but because some other able-bodied have arrived with a plan of ethnic cleansing. Those who remained had to vanish this way or another.

 

These days I have been reading about this issue from multiple sources. Finnish, predominantly. Obviously, they are prosecutors and judge regarding this matter. However, there is another side of the truth.

Quite outstanding is an opinion that the main objective of the Finnish concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, is legal and correct. This claim is founded on the precedent of Turkish-Greek relocations and on the praxis of the Allies at the end of the war who allowed ethnic cleansing as a way to resolve ethnical issues and to provide lasting peace.

I would agree with that point: ethnic cleansing is a right way to solve ethnic conflicts.

Finnish camps in Karelia were culmination of ethnic conflict among Finns and Russians. The after-war border among the nations is just fine solution to the problem. Finns wanted ethnic cleansing and they have it now.

Now I understand the theme under consideration. Finally, thanks Krajala for helping me to find the truth that is entirely opposite to what you claim.

 

So your saying that the very young and the very old and the very young stand as just as good a chance of surviving a famine, in a harsh climate nonetheless, as a healthy person does? Seems to me that the very young and the very old are the most at risk during periods of famine, as most studies do point out this fact.

One could say it was "ethnic cleansing", after all Finland had just fought, and lost an unprovoked war with the Soviet Union, so there would be little love lost when it came to the Soviet citizenry. After all, the original intent was to repatriate these Soviet citizens back to the Soviet Union once Germany had conquered the Soviets, however, it did not turn out that way.

But then again, were not the Finns following the Soviet lead. As the Soviet government had placed no value on the lives of these citizens, or else, they would not have left them behind. Since the were the very old, the very young & their mothers, they would only serve as a drain on Soviet resources for no good return...Better to let them drain Finnish resources instead.

Continuing with following the Soviet lead, the Soviets had been slowly deporting the Ingrian Finns, and this began in the late 1920's, followed with another mass deportation in early-1935, and again, in mid-1936, again in 1937, and finally in 1939. So, was it a matter of "ethnic cleansing" or a matter of retribution, or perhaps a little of both.

That being said, today, we can all wring our hands and cry about how wrong it was, but back then, it was simply Standard Operating Procedure. Not much sense in bemoaning the past, we can only act on the present to prevent it from happening in the future.

 

Takao, I have to say that more or less, I agree with everything you have said except some inaccuracies, but I will refrain from being too pedantic.

In this particular case, I am just an unaffected observer. Until recently, I even was not aware of disputes between Finns and Russians. Some other related conversations here have attracted my attention towards this subject. What I have noticed is that there is a well-orchestrated effort to present Finns as victims and Russians as perpetrators but that is not the case. Clearly, in this case too guilt is at the both sides. What I personally dislike is that the most of the Finnish papers persist denying the obvious and attempt to use euphemistic word games to hide the truth. For example, they oppose using formulations like "collaboration with the Nazis" and require euphemistic phrases like "fought at the same side with the Germans". They refuse to admit first working closely together with the Nazis and then stabbing their former allies, Germans into the back when the Russians prevailed. I simply dislike such hypocrisy. I highly respect those, predominantly Germans, who manage to say: "yes we did it on purpose then, but now we deeply regret". What I have seen from the available sources, the Finnish literature on this subject is not capable to admit and regret. However, this capability is something that you have or you don't.

EDIT: I have replaced two instances of words beginning with F with adequate euphemistic phrases to satisfy pedantic readers.

 

Please, do not lump all Finns into one category. Name names if you must, but don't accuse an entire population of hypocrisy, or you risk end up accusing the entire human race of the same...

 

Sometimes it is difficult to say the truth or at least an opinion without risking crossing the line.

I would like to use this opportunity to apology to anyone whom I have unintentionally hurt feelings or who otherwise felt offended by my clumsy wording. There were no bad intentions at all.

I admit and humbly ask for forgiveness.

 

:waving: Very!

We'll probably never see eye-to-eye, on the exact causes and motives, but I think we can agree that the deaths at the camps were regrettable, and more could or should have been done, to prevent them.

 

Indeed.

In my opinion the last several posts beginning with Takao's #114 are good conclusion to this theme. From my side, I don't think there is anything else to add to this subject.

 

That is indeed a wise thought Tamino.