I have a question:
Would Finland be better off as a part of former soviet union? Because that would have happened if Finland did not join forces with germany, the only possible allie, against a common enemy.

Ask him why he’s such an ignorant and arrogant prick.

Ask him why Swedes are so judgemental about everyone else besides other Swedes?

Additionally, what about the rampant neo-Nazi movement in Sweden? Don’t they have roots in WWII? Not to be apologist (nor even to understand fully the issues at hand, you gotta admit there are a lot of issues to mull here) but would he prefer that Sweden was next door to the Soviet Union/Russia?

Ask him how the Swedish SS volunteers are doing today

- why did he choose to write about such a controversial issue?

- has he been hurt/ pleased by the finnish media attention? did he expect it?

- what is his definition of alliance? does his definition fit on the relation between Finland and Germany during the Continuation War? Could he consider the two countries as allies, without any doubt?

- what does he mean when he says that ‘Finland keeps quiet and lies about its relationship with Nazi Germany during the Continuation War between Finland and the Soviet Union from 1941-1944′? what is Finland supposed to do about the issue, in his opinion?

In Dagens Nyheter Arnstad writes:
“Finland slogs pÃ¥ Hitlers sida. Gjorde gemensam sak med Hitler mot Stalin – i fyra och ett halvt Ã¥r. Säg … Vad har ni för uppfattning om Finlands moral?”

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=573030&previousRenderType=2

(Finland fought by Hitler’s side. Joined its forces with Hitler in a common cause in order to fight Stalin – for four and a half years. Say … how does that make you think about Finland’s moral?)

Ask if he’s a Stalinist. I mean, it’s so 60s to oppose the two worst dictators of the world history (along with Mao) like that unless he’s a communist hard-liner – or Nazi if one reverses the roles, making Hitler the angel. Ask him if he knows what Stalin did to Balts after the “liberation” (deportations, political imprisonments, murders). Ask if he knows how many people Stalin had killed by 1940-41, when the allience between Finland and Germany was formed, compared to Hitler (very, very few).

Ask him what he thinks about the Finnish political leaders or Mannerheim back then. Were they Nazi symphatizers? (Mannerheim, Ryti, Linkomies, Tanner all expressed clear distaste even hatred towards Hitler and co).

Ask him how many marriages were formed between Finns and those who in his opinion were ethnicly cleansed (a few) or how big was the food ranson in the camps compared to what the local civilians got (the same, albeit much too small in a camp. It’s shameful that they were not given more food during that winter, but that’s not ethnic cleansing.)

Perhaps you should ask wheter he thinks that Finland has a free press, free univeristies and an overall freedom of expression or not. If he thinks we do, how on earth he thinks that his “sensational new findings” could have been covered up for decades.

Read mjr’s blog entry, perhaps you’ll get some inspiration:

http://stockholmslender.blogspot.com/2006/01/finlands-war-1939-45.html

This part went upside down: “Ask if he knows how many people Stalin had killed by 1940-41, when the allience between Finland and Germany was formed, compared to Hitler (very, very few).”

Naturally Stalin “had killed” (was reponsible of the deaths of) millions of people by 1940. Hitler had’n even set up his first death camp.

Oh goody.

***

You said that Finland “keeps quiet and lies about its relationship with Nazi Germany”. How closely have you followed the discussion on Continuation War in Finland? What facts have you presented that can’t be found in Finnish history books?

Now that you’ve gotten first-hand experience on how openly and eagerly Finns discuss the matter, do you agree that Finland does not keep quiet about it?

Do you consider it possible that Finns who oppose your views are not lying, but simply disagree with your interpretation?

Do you think that the lack of a formal alliance between Germany and Finland combined with Finland’s insistence that it was fighting a separate war played no part in the war’s conduct and outcome?

[Possible follow-up questions if he answers affirmatively to the previous question.] Why did the United States not declare war on Finland? Why did the Finnish military stop where they did and not budge despite German requests that they advance further? Why was there not a state of war between Finland and Soviet Union as soon as Germany invaded? Finally, why did the Soviet Union agree to make peace without a Finnish surrender?

You’ve said that Finland “carried out ethnic cleansing, for example, by allowing 3,000 Russians to starve to death”. If the deaths were a desired outcome, why did the conditions on the Finnish camps improve after 1942?

Why do you think the fact that “Finland was the only western democracy that voluntarily joined forces with Nazi Germany” is important?

You’ve said that “With their opportunistic and criminal aggressive war tactics the Finnish leaders caused security policy risks to Sweden”. What specific tactics are you talking about?

What do you suppose the Finnish military’s fighting capability was after the Winter War? Do you think it could have resisted a Soviet or a Nazi invasion without foreign aid?

How could Finland have avoided the fate of the Baltic countries had it not sought Germany’s help? If Finland couldn’t have avoided the fate of the Baltic countries, would that have put Sweden at a greater risk than Finland’s actual course did?

Do you think the war responsibility trials were legitimate? What do you think in general about convicting people based on retroactive laws?

Ask him what his credentials are, and where does he base his writings. All my information of him I have gotten on this page, so I have no idea does he have some studies in history or something on his background… Does he base any of conclusions to some new material he has found?

How do his conclusions fit with earlier research?

Ask what he knows about Katyn. Ask does he knows about Stalin’s plans to take over 20000 Finnish officers and intellectuals to Katyn.

Ask what should we have done instead of getting help from the Germans when no one else gave it to us?

One more trick question:

Was Finland the only western democracy in the WWII that first allied itself with a murderous dictator and then occupied lands of another murderous dictator? (No, Britain, the USA did so too.)

Why is Finland’s case different? Was Britain forced to form the allience, but Finland not? What about the USA which could have stayed outside altogether? Does that make the USA even more quilty than Finland and Britain?

If Arnstad know anything about history he will then retort to the standard stuff like “but it was Germany who started the war” (but what about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and Poland?” you could ask) or “Stalin was no-good but still much better than Hitler” (“perhaps – although not when bodies are counted – but what was the balance sheet like in 1940 when Finland decided to seek help from Hitler?”).

Ask him if he’s ever heard of a Finnish Knuckle Sandwich.

-Ask him if he truly believes that Sweden would have been better of if Finland wouldn’t have fought against the Bolshevists?

Ask him what he thinks of the fact that Sweden didn’t want the French and the British forces move through Sweden to assist Finland during the Winterwar.
Finland, as we all know, continued fighting because of the help that was promised to come from these two, and Sweden did, by not letting them move through the country put Finland in an even more dangerous situation. (Put this as you want, Phil, if you ask this. I’m not so good at being a diplomatic outsider on this issue.)

Ask him what he thinks of the fact that Sweden let Nazis to transport freigh through the country. (Sweden)
I’m wondering this because I’ve understood that he has claimed that Finlands war against the Bolshevists endangered Swedens independence, but I haven’t heard anything of this.

Ask him what he thinks of the fact that Sweden provided Nazi Germany with iron during the war.
Didn’t this factor also endanger Swedens safety?

“Ask him what he thinks of the fact that Sweden didn’t want the French and the British forces move through Sweden to assist Finland during the Winterwar.”

To be honest, the Allies intended to occupy the iron producing areas of Northern Sweden so you can’t really blame the Swedes for not letting them pass through their country.

I guess Arnstad’s primary argument goes something like this: If the political leaders in Finland had not been Nazi sympathizers, Finland could have stayed neutral and nothing bad would have happened.

Well, Finland’s political leaders weren’t Nazi sympathizers, that’s a fact. So why did they decide not to stay neutral the same way Sweden did – that is by letting German troops be transported through the country but still claiming not to have taken sides?

The answer is a bit complicated, unfortunately. Let’s put it this way: Finland had two vital resources: access to Leningrad from the north and the nickel mines in Petsamo. Both dictators were anxious to either keep the other dictator away from these resources or get them to themselves. And all leaders in Finland, both political and military, were convinced that those reasons alone (there were others but I won’t go into them here) would prevent Finland from staying neutral. Finland would have to fight, the only question that remained was on whose side. And it was pretty clear that the people would not fight on Stalin’s side even if the government and parliament had decided to do so.

And sure, of course the Finns, the Karelians in particular, wanted to take back the parts of the country Stalin had occupied after the Winter War. And a few even dreamed of a Greater Finland, annexing East Karelia that is, either because of nationalistic or anti-communist reasons or – more pragmatically – because there the frontier would have been easier to defend.

The Nazi party in Finland had about 30 memebers. They had absolutely zero influence on anything, though.

#16 – Yes I’ve read about that, but I have in a matter of fact never really seen that as a deeply rooted fact, rather as a speculation.
But please correct me if I’m completely wrong.

Phil, ask him if he don’t think that his use of the word “Lebensraum” in his artikle that was published in DN is an acceptable use of such a strong word?

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=573030

Finland utkämpar anfallskriget i tvÃ¥ syften. För det första vill man Ã¥terta förlorade omrÃ¥den efter vinterkriget. För det andra vill man erövra ännu mer lebensraum.

“doesn’t”

Ask him how does he see the overall political situation in Finland and other Nordic countries during 1939-1941. Ask him also what kind of pressure if any was there from Soviet and Stalin towards Finland in early 1941? What were Stalin’s plans for Finland? What options did Finnish leaders have? By the time Finland got closer with Germany, how much was there information about Hitler’s plans with Jews? Ask him whether Finland had it’s own separate war against Soviet or tight alliance with Germany? How was Finland’s situation different from e.g. Italy, Romania and Hungary?

Hi Phil,

Ask him why criticism regarding e.g. his sources has been removed from his Wikipedia entry via an ISP that advertises on the Aftonbladet web site.

Indeed, ask him whether he or his employer is a customer of Bredbandsbolaget.

Ask him why he is such an idiot, was he dropped on his head when he was a baby

And ask him is he aware of the situation of Finlands jews during the war

Don’t ask anything, make funny noises.

Ask him whether it’s better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. End each question by addressing him as “smartypants”.

The picture accompanying Arnstads piece in DN is actually a Soviet fake. Yes, it is a Finnish “transfer camp” (Siirtoleiri 6) and yes, some of the kids were occupants of said camp. Although in the event of taking the picture the Soviet propagandists moved the already “liberated” kids (some of them brought from another “transfer camp”) back behind the barbed wire to get a good impression of Finnish oppression.

Most people liberated from this particular camp chose to stay to live there for some time because no better accomodation was available in the area. The Finnish Army had left behind food supplies for two weeks (or more) for the camp occupants, so for the time being they were probably more well off than most people in the Soviet Union at the time… Look at the picture: do these kids really look like starving concentration camp inmates?

This all was told in Suomen Kuvalehti last January (4/2006). I think it would have been correct for Arnstad to bring up these facts when presenting said picture with his “opinion piece”…

Ask him if he has stopped beating his wife yet.

Ask him why he is so unaware about the studies that have been done in Finland and in other countries about this topic but is still so ready to promote so radical opinnions. And ask him about the proof on which he bases his findings.

Ask him whether there’s any point going to Finland to speak about Finland’s collaboration with the Nazi’s.

Foreigners know that Finns are in permanent denial about two things

1. Racism and extreme xenophobia within their own country
2. Finnish collaboration with the nazis in WW2

Finns will never listen to him

Just listening through the interview.

- He admits that he only read Finnish sources that have been translated. My question is, how can he claim that he knows how the issue has been dealth here?

- Around 3 minutes, he says “Fifty thousand Finns died in the fights”. In Winter War and Continuation War together there were around 90,000 Finnish casualties.

I’ve listened to this for only three minutes – wonder what Mr. Arnstad says later . . . Whatever it is, so far he really hasnät managed to convince me with his arguments.

Post #30 has the distinct smell of our old friend, Finnish dishonesty, to it. Apparently the therapy still hasn’t worked.

How the hell can Arnstad say that he has investigated the matter, if he hasn’t had access to a wide range of Finnish sources due to the language barrier?

“Soviet Union was no threat to Finland in 1941″
I can’t believe what I’m hearing. What about the continous threats and pressure from the Soviet side? What about the FACT THAT GERMANY BLUNTLY TOLD SOVIET SIDE NOT TO INTERFERE WITH FINLAND, as SU was keely interested in repeating in Finland what it did in Baltic states?

“Finland is misinforming its citizens about Finnish war crimes…”
Idiot, Finnish concentration camps are known. Massmurders commited by the Finnish military? What the fuck are those? Majority of dead were resulted by famine, as the food situation was rather grim during the war. It’s rather obvious that the camps were not on the priority list as receivers of food.

“This front wasn’t very important to the Germans. They send only couple divisions to Finland . . .”

Yes, to Lapland. Northern Finland wasn’t very important for them. But how about fucking Leningrad? Does he know that the Leningrad siege played a large part of Germany’s war effort on this front?

“Stalin would’ve been more than happy to comply with that [Finland's request to give Vyborg and lost territories back]”

Yeah, whatever. Sources please? How about the fact that Soviet Union had just waged a war on Finland to ELIMINATE what it perceived as a threat to the security of Leningrad? How the fuck does this prick know that Stalin would’ve done this?

This man sees Stalin as the Saviour of Democracy and Hitler as Devil Incarnate. I think he is in no position of discussing the history of the Continuation War with real scholars until he gets over this taistoist mentality.

I can’t listen to the broadcast. What questions were asked?

Did Arnstad really say that “Soviet Union was no threat to Finland in 1941″? That’s insane.

This guy is a joke. Most of what he said is historicly inaccurate bullshit. I do not even have the time to correct all the things he said. You should have a real historian as a guest next time.

un-tero, that is a great idea!

Phil, how about inviting that Jokisipilä fellow in for an interview? He wrote his dissertation about Finnish-German relations and seems to have fast established himself as a younger-generation authority figure in all matters WWII in Finland.

#32 yeah, he just keeps adding to the list as things come up..

How the hell can Arnstad say that he has investigated the matter, if he hasn’t had access to a wide range of Finnish sources due to the language barrier?

Because he’s an ignoramus. As far as he’s concerned the source material might as well be written in ancient babylonian arrowhead.

He seems to be startingly and almost unbelievably badly informed for someone who considers themself a historian. As a Swedish-speaking Finn, who would always opt for a book in the Swedish language first (it’s easier to read in your mother tongue), I am perfectly well aware that there isn’t that much available on this subject compared to in Finnish. And in fact, from the interview, it sounds like he has only ever read one book that has come of out Finland.

I think it is a shame more of the questions people suggested couldn’t be asked to further expose him.

He constantly suggested that Sweden is somehow superior in its dealing with its wartime past. This is completely ridiculous. I live in Sweden, and it really is not at all common to hear much about the war at all. The Swedish tactic seems to be to ignore that it ever happened least they might have to mention their assistance of the Nazis and complete failure to provide any significant assistance to any of the Nordic neighbours at the official level.

I do though repeat that many ordinary Swedes did do a lot in both raising money and volunteering to help Finland during the winter and continuation wars. This is sometimes not mentioned enough in Finland because of a distaste in our view towards Sweden’s lack of official assistance during that time.

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

Lots of Soviet threats in wikipedia :/

Yaddayadda. My great grandpa who got medals for shooting down russian planes and for whatnot during the war. He was a great fan of Hitler. So what’s the big deal here ?

Thank you very much for putting together this interview, Phil!
You did a great job despite the lack of time.

I’ll comment more on Arnsted’s “ideas” later.

What an total idiot. I’ll leave it at that as this retard doesn’t deserve anymore attention that he has already had.

Leave the looney alone and let him shine in his own dim light.

I just commented on Arnstad’s revisionism here:
http://mikkoellila.thinkertothinker.com/?p=139

I’m going to print Arnstad’s face on my Everlast bag!

This dude is really something. Has the balls to claim that nobody can tell if the Reich had any intention of invading Finland to create the northern front (vital if they were to encircle Leningrad) in case Finland refused to attack the Soviet Union. Like the Nazis weren’t invading countries left and right. A minute later, he makes the outrageous claim that he can tell for sure that Stalin just would’ve handed over the annexed territories if we had been courteous enough to ask him… geez, why didn’t anybody come to think of that? Helluva lot of trouble for nothing. It follows that Stalin waged the Winter War just for having a little fun at Finland’s expense: ‘hehee gotcha! here’s your territories back! wink wink!’

Thank you Phil for doing this interview. I’m really interested hearing his arguments straight from the lions mouth then reading all the media shooting them down the best they can.

Great interview phil it really showed how clueless this guy really is, but it makes me wonder why we are having this discussion, the guy is obviously the assigned idiot for his village so how has the ramblings of a moron got so much media coverage, maybe a little Finn Swede rivalry thing going on here, we cant help it if they are better at ping pong.

In #31, Toni observes:

“Just listening through the interview.

- He admits that he only read Finnish sources that have been translated. My question is, how can he claim that he knows how the issue has been dealth here?”

When the interviewee and the interviewer have so much in common – in terms of their limited sources and their readiness to draw absurd conclusions from them – I’m sure it must have been a very cordial conversation. Soulmates at heart.

Israel’s military, which has been accused of abuses in its war against Hezbollah this summer, has declassified photographs, video images and prisoner interrogations to buttress its accusation that Hezbollah systematically fired from civilian neighborhoods in southern Lebanon and took cover in those areas to shield itself from attack.

and just look, its Finland supporting Hezbollah as Human shields. Can you tell me why?

More the time passes, more the truth fades. Let the history be as it was, not as it is.

More the time passes, we find out more and more about food for oil.

Yea, I would say the truth, finally does come out.

“Let the history be as it was” because the EU can’t stand it when their truth, falls apart in time.

Winter the australian wheat board was by a long shot the biggest culprit in the food for oil scam followed up by another australian company bhp, why are you talking about this on a finnish blog, i know american education is not up to much but surely even you can tell between this frozen place on top of the world and the really dry bit of land on the bottom of the world

“talking about this on a finnish blog”

because the Finnish folks all opposed the USA going into Iraq. Now at least we know why. Yea I know truth.

I must say there seems to be absolutely nothing here, this person is obviously no historian. There is great research in Finnish about our close co-operation with Germany that scuttled the “ajopuu” theory decades ago. It is just so very obvious that ideology had nothing to do with our orientation towards Germany. Bloody hell, Molotov asked for free hands in Finland in November 1940. Hitler happened to say no. What should we have done – what would Sweden have done in similar circumstances? One does wonder. In any case we remained a Nordic democracy and avoided occupation by either of the terror states. Surely not bad for a nation of 3,5 million people in the midst of Barbarossa? But of course not enough for a holier than thou Swede with no Finnish or even elementary historical understanding… Lovely.

Yeah, and I bet the whole Continuation War was just a build up to the food-for-oil scam and the Hezbollah insurgency… somehow.

Winter:

“Yea I know truth.”

I do not know WHAT the truth is that you think you know. But I do know one TRUTH you OUGHT to know.

That is: you are an idiot!

Fuck off and get a life.

If Sweden would have helped us, then we probably wouldn’t have needed Germany. Instead, Sweden hid behind us.

The curious thing is that, in the years following WW2, we did everything to mimic those douchebags. Still do.

Just keep lookin’ to Sweden for the answers…..

The fellow is embarrassing in his self-righteous ignorance. One just wonders how he must feel the day when and if it’ll start to dawn on him how big a fool he has made of himself.

More interesting is that he’s just the kind of person he thinks the Finns are. Close to the end he talks about Stalin. Arnstad describes him _at the same time_ as the biggest mass murder of all times (and he can’t be _so_ ignorant of history that he wouldn’t know what Stalin did to eastern Europe) and the savior of democracy. .

This is the kind of logical somersault only victims of propaganda can make. What on earth do they teach in Swedish schools!?

I don’t think he’s quite as bad as you guys make him out to be. There’s a tendency in Finland to gloss over the sordid aspects of the Continuation War, and to say that everything about it was necessary and inevitable. He is right to point this out.

However, Arnstad’s grasp of historical facts and logic leaves something to be desired. He warns against counterfactual historical speculation, yet the next moment he asserts that Stalin would have gladly handed the ceded territories back to Finland if Finns had just asked him nicely! He puts forth several of these kinds of wild what-if scenarios in the interview.

The biggest problem in Arnstad’s argumentation is that it’s largely based on the benefit of hindsight, and that there’s a lot of idealism and very little Realpolitik in it.

I’m allergic to the popular approach where the conduct of people and nations in WW2 is measured by how it may have contributed to the Holocaust. In retrospect, the Holocaust is perhaps the most important thing about the war, but during the war most people knew nothing about it, and in any case everybody had other, more pressing concerns, like their own survival and that of their people.

Small European nations felt as existentially threatened as the Jews, and this should be taken into account when evaluating their conduct in the war.

winter babbled: and just look, its Finland supporting Hezbollah as Human shields. Can you tell me why?

We did it to make your head explode. Judging by your comments, it seems to have worked, too. How else can one explain that you keep delivering these spectacularly misguided rants about Lebanon with no regard for the topic of the discussion or, indeed, logic?

He is right to point this out.

Finally the words of reason. Pointing out that Finland committed a mass murder in concentration camps on racial grounds should indeed be talked about and not covered up as it’s been done so far! And Finland did go against the champion of freedom and democracy, Stalin, which we just can’t admit because we’re been lied to and so don’t even know about it. Luckily enough we’ve got mr Arnstad to tell us the truth, finally. Yes, we feel terrible for a while now when we know the truth, but Arnstad promised that in the long run it’s a healing process. In Sweden they admitted selling stuff to the Nazis already decades ago, so he knows what he’s talking about. Hopefully he won’t stop but will carry on healing us with his new and sensational truths.

If Sweden would have helped us, then we probably wouldn’t have needed Germany. Instead, Sweden hid behind us.

Perhaps even worse than not helping us, they refused to let those who did want to help us through their territory to get to us…

Tomi, you’re twisting my words. I never said that there’s anything new in Arnstad’s arguments or that he isn’t wrong in many points. But he is right to point out that the “not allies but co-belligerents” line, which is common in popular Finnish discourse (but not modern Finnish academic research) is disingenuous, for example.

But he is right to point out that the “not allies but co-belligerents” line

It is valid to question whether there is any difference. However, Finnish leadership at the time felt that it should be stressed, which was not the case with other countries that fought on Germany’s side. For the Germans it probably made no difference.

Of course, this does shed a strange light on Arnstad’s argument that Finland gleefully joined in on the Nazis’ world conquest that would take approximately two weeks. In this scenario, it would have been a little unwise to downplay the significance of the alliance, don’t you think?

Then again, Finns are notoriously stupid people.

Turjake, Arnstad apparently thinks that it’s some sort of a state secret that Finland fought with the Nazis, and that’s why, as a part of the cover-up, the government (or whoever is behind the conspiracy) has come up with the term co-belligerent. That’s not the case, of course, as you must know. To use that term – or to be more precise: “asevelvet”, brothers in arms – was just one way to keep distance from the Nazis. But really, what’s the difference? Is the idea that when the “government” says: “we and the Nazis were brothers in arms”, then the poor citizens think: “ah, so we weren’t really fighting along with them”?

What else do you think he got right?

Maybe it’s just me, but the idea of being “brothers in arms” with the Nazis is more distasteful than the word “allies”. I’m no brother to a bunch of murdering thugs.

“A separate war with separate objectives” was the liturgy of the day.

Even though I have spent most of my life trying to actively forget the 1980s, I have a very distinct memory of being taught about Finnish concentration camps in occupied Karelia. Of course, Mr. Arnstad the Wikipedia master editor knows better what I was taught in school.

There was a long historical period where the overall tone was very critical as regards Finnish war time politics. Kekkonen coldly encouraged it for his own nacchiavellian reasons. The last 15 years have been quite different and at times things have gone overboard with the yellow press as cheerleaders but even still we have produced lots of excellent (and critical) historiography during this time. It beggars belief that a serious researcher (even without having one bit of Finnish which probably is the main qualification for being a Swedish expert on Finnish history) would be ignorant of this. Well, this Arnstad person seems to be quite an obvious hack who might even know better but, hey, you have to sell your books – it’s a tough market place.

hmm, “macchiavellian”… Phil, preview would be such a simple function…

Arnstad’s criticisms remind me very much of those emanating from people in Finland: factually deficient, morally smug and, most of all, completely unaware of the consequences of revisionist thinking, and the historical trends such thinking can foster. For, in the end, the Finnish and Swedish call for the moralistic re-evaluation of the history of nation-states in the light of contemporary morality will bolster the argument for the elimination of distinct nation-states.

The process has already started, though it isn’t quite as apparent yet. Yet the nation-state is already digging its own grave, as the forces of globalization gain momentum. Arnstad, and Finns who think like him (which is pretty much everyone on this blogsite) are only helping to move the process along.

Interestingly enough, the Nordic countries have been “globalized” for about 50 years now. And yet there are very few signs of “the elimination of distinct nation-states” – as the dispute here once again shows. A culture people ragard as their own is a powerful force.

Arnstad’s criticisms remind me very much of those emanating from people in Finland: factually deficient, morally smug and, most of all, completely unaware of the consequences of revisionist thinking

Could you elaborate? It has been mostly you who, like Arnstad, has been making up stuff about Finland in WWII.

[i]“What else do you think he got right?”[/i]

The idea that the SU started the Cont War may be true in the sense that they started the hostilities (although even this is debatable), but to say (as many Finns say) that the Soviet attack in 1941 was as unscrupulous and illegal as their attack in November 1939 is really stretching it.

Finland was de facto allied with Germany by that time, and the Soviets were well within their rights to attack Finland, because Finland was violating the Moscow Peace Treaty.

Another matter is that I think Finns were well within their rights to attack the SU so as to regain the lost territories (but not more). I’m not at all ashamed at Finland’s alliance with the Nazis; it was a good and rational decision for Finland to seek help from Germany at that time.

From yesterdays Svenska Dagbladet, quite interesting article from a Swede with a bit more sense than Arnstad.

http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/kultur/did_14211842.asp

@71,
As ‘the elimination of distinct nation states’ would also apply to the ‘one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’, isn’t it a teeny tiny bit unpatriotic to advocate the demise of your nation?

Why did you call this man a historian? He is nothing of the like. He thinks he’s breaking barriers and defying taboo, without knowing that this debate has been on-going for a long time. Can you believe this guy? At one point he says discusses the Finnish war-experience and says that 50 000 Finns perished. What? 100 000 Finns died during the wars!

He also says that he was used as a Swede to be able to freely criticize and call into question ww2-related stuff. Has he been prohibited from doing so now? No. He is simply being shown how ignorant he is.

#77

Yeah, why Phil calls him a historian even though he is not a professional historian? He didn’t know even the simplest facts such as the number of the Finnish victims.

And how can he claim that Finnish front was unimportant? Does he really think that Germans thought that a front which is so close to Leningrad is unimportant? I think that if Finland hadn’t joined Germany during the war Germany would have attacked to Leningrad through Finland or the soviets would have occupied Finland as fast as they could to prevent the German invasion to Leningrad.

Even though Phil claims that he “loves” Finland he seems extraordinarily overeager to badmouth the country, very often jumping the gun with these Finland-bashers and totally taking their misinformed and ignorant side. In such trigger happiness Phil usually shoots himself on the leg though, as was again the case with this Arnstad-clown.

..and then of course he can’t admit that he was wrong.

What did really happen? Read these pages. http://www.winterwar.com
It is one of the greatest sources of the Finnish Winter War. Hope the pages helps you understand better the war. Author’s messages to all of you:

These pages have been created purely out of a hobby and are unofficial and unpolitical!

The site is intended to serve as an internet source for information about the Finnish – Soviet “Winter War”, fought in 1939-1940.

As it is impossible to prevent anybody to copy material from web sites, in case you copy any of my maps, sketches etc. to your web sites, please honor the time spent in making them, and print the source. Thanks!

#79: Sometimes somebody has to play the Devil’s advocate, or we’d all just have to agree that we agree, turn off our computers, go out there, and live… Have to say I’m glad that Phil brought this issue and this Mr. Arnstad into my attention. Having now followed the discussion in Sweden, it seems that in the end he actually did a favor to everybody to whom it matters if the Swedes know anything about Finland in WWII. Besides, it’s good to be reminded every now and then NOT to suspend disbelief.

Arnstad writes on his blog:

Tuomioja skriver ocksÃ¥ att jag inte tagit del av finsksprÃ¥kig forskning i de delar som berör Finland. Helt korrekt.
Men framför allt skriver han att attackerna mot boken inte har tillräckligt grund. Precis som jag själv hävdat stÃ¥r samma saker att läsa i finländsak akademiska verk…

So firstly Finland has been covering up its alliance with Nazi Germany and it is not being discussed. But actually it is the fact that these same things are being discussed in Finland which proves him right. oookayy…

I think I figured it out: the alliance *is* being discussed, but the Finns are covering it up by only discussing it in their secret language which nobody else understands!

Today, 17th of December, the Finnish television company YLE broadcast a program called Kansakunnan käännekohta( at 15.05 p.m.) According to the
program description, the program is about a Finnish Fascist Erik Renwall. I had no idea this man was our minister of education during 1935-45 and also a member of party National Front. The program ask “What If the fascist had won?”. I had totally forgotten that we had such a party and that the party was big enough to have a minister post. I tried to look for further information on Google but found no pages!!! Sear words were Erik Renwall, and or Minister Erik Renwall. According to Google it looks like this man never lived!!!

Instead searching for “Suomi Isänmaa” gives as a result a name of Janne Kujala who was a member of Finnish Kokoomus party and later on left the party and formed the new party called Suomi Isänmaa that might be fascist. This new party Suomi Isänmaa has no links to above National Front party earlier, I suppose. If some body can find more info about Finnish fascist minister Erik Renwall on the internet, please add the information with links here. Searching in Swedish for more info on Erik Kujala could give better result.

If we indeed had a fascist party and a fascist minister during 1935-45, it might be true that Finland co-operated more with Nazi-Germany than it is widely known.

Anon, taking account your excellence in the Finnish past and historical method, you should consider forming a team with Arnstad. Your first task could be finding your way to the nearest library and reading a book about history.

Thanks for all the interesting comments here. Yes, even the angry ones!

elacelnolir

Henrik I agree with you. Thanks for your post. Write more, please and do not consider those idiots.

MostLouis Vuitton women by the
 supportLouis Vuitton sunglasses of
manyprada Outlet ofour products,
increasingCoach Factory Outlet online,
Prada bagsChristian Louboutin let
 you buy Coach handbagsfelt relieved,
 with Chanel walletenjoyable.Our
 productsPrada bags will Gucci shoesbring you
fun Louis Vuitton sunglassesWelcome you visit.