This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
War-responsibility trials in Finland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in poor english and should be looked at by a native speaker. Get-back-world-respect 15:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It also doesn't say anything about the trials being unlawfull and such. It should at least considered to mention here if most of finn think these men were "sijaiskärsijöitä" (someone who takes the blame for you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.170.60 ( talk) 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Soviet Air Force began attacking Finnish warships at 6:05 A.M. on 22 June 1941, hours before the Red Army had got orders to resist the German assault along the entire demarcation line in Poland. Two hours later also the Hangö batteries opened fire without the Finnish troops having made any move. [1] The author of the passage, mr Nordling refers to Hjalmar Procopé, Fällande dom som friar (Stockholm: Fahlcrantz & Gumælius 1946), p.121 as his source. Is it really clear that Finland had already made decision to enter the war (before June 22), or was this decision rather a result of Soviet strike? -- Constanz - Talk 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The Finns considered the trials as a show trial not after the fall of Soviet Union but immediately after the convictions are given. For example the famous photo of the shop window in Helsinki, where the photos of the convicted were accompanied by the text "Sijaiskärsijämme" ("Those who suffer instead of us"). Also the preliminary decision of the court which were published was widely known, and Paasikivi's pressure against the court to change that after the Allied Control Commission contacted him. Paasikivi's opinions were referred soon afterwards both in his own texts and afterwards by biographists. The same effect made Social Democrats to choose convicted Väinö Tanner to their chairman decade later. Also the most thorough presentation of the issue (although certainly not neutral.;-)), Yrjö Soini's "Kuin Pietari hiilivalkealla", was published already 1956.
You are right that the political leadership was very quiet about the issue before the fall of the Soviet Union (See Finlandization), but it shouldn't be confused to the public opinion. -- Whiskey 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why Petri Krohn thinks this is an international trial (adds false template that indicates this is a International Court)? Again, it was a Finnish trial at House of Estates by Finnsh retroactive law and with Finnish judges. By the way, torture and murder is against international human rights treties, yet if a murderer is trialed, he's not in an international trial. I just can't understand how these trials can be classified as same as the court Milosevic was in (Den Haag). "International" requires other nations involved you see. Also, read war of aggression, it says "refers to any war waged not out of self-defens". You say that NPOV is that Finland did no defend itself? What a load of bullshit, tell that to Continuation War veterans that they did not defend Finland. Even Iraq War is not war of aggression, it is to protect USA. No doubt Finland protected itself. That is why we use the citation marks on "war of aggression" as we here on Wikipedia present all views, including the Finnish one, not just Soviet.-- Pudeo ⺮ 09:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, Petri, this is not a question about Ajopuuteoria or not, as there are legal ways to initiate a war as numerous countries had presented after the WWII. The question is did Ryti, Mannerheim et.al. believe that war was inevitable to prevent Finland's demise. Self-defence is still accepted reason to fight and even initiate a war (pre-emptive or preventive war). And that was a defence they were not allowed to take due to political reasons as it would have raised questions about Soviet actions in two pre-war years. About the reliable sources, the general impression that can be found is that "Finland started the war and acted in consort with Germany, but they still had quite a good reasons to do so..." -- Whiskey 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
According to a new book "Kansakunnan sijaiskärsijät" (Scapegoats of the Nation) by Lasse Lehtinen and Hannu Rautkallio, there was no real demand by the Soviets to prosecute Väinö Tanner or the others for "war guilt", but rather the trials were a result of a domestic political struggle between Kekkonen's Agrarian League and the communists on one side and Väinö Tanner's Social Democrats on the other. In other words, Kekkonen exploited the "Moscow Card" for his own political ends. Martintg 10:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a variety of citation-requesting templates in the hopes of getting help. It's possible that much of this is available in the general references, but I don't read Finnish.
Anyone attempting to check statements in this article may also want to see if they can find a source for a statement previously removed for lack of verification: "Shortly thereafter, the War Crimes Section of the British Foreign Office issued a statement that the British government would not wish to prosecute Finnish political leadership for crimes against peace." (End of "Background" section.)
— CrazyDreamer ( talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
NPOV-check-tagged the "See also" link to show trial because there's no clear evidence (to my eyes) in the article text that the trials were show trials. However, I can imagine that allegation being brought to bear by someone who is generally predisposed against the trials on other grounds. This could be adequately remedied by adding verified statements to the body of the article that the trials had predetermined outcomes.
— CrazyDreamer ( talk) 09:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the English language sources but Zhdanov in Finland page 34-38 describes it quite well. Or The Finnish War-Responsibility Trial in 1945–6: The Limits of Ad Hoc Criminal Justice? same author can be found from Martyrs and Scapegoats of the Nation? The Finnish War-Responsibility Trial, 1945–1946 pages around p. 526. Wanderer602 ( talk) 12:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
War-responsibility trials in Finland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in poor english and should be looked at by a native speaker. Get-back-world-respect 15:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It also doesn't say anything about the trials being unlawfull and such. It should at least considered to mention here if most of finn think these men were "sijaiskärsijöitä" (someone who takes the blame for you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.170.60 ( talk) 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Soviet Air Force began attacking Finnish warships at 6:05 A.M. on 22 June 1941, hours before the Red Army had got orders to resist the German assault along the entire demarcation line in Poland. Two hours later also the Hangö batteries opened fire without the Finnish troops having made any move. [1] The author of the passage, mr Nordling refers to Hjalmar Procopé, Fällande dom som friar (Stockholm: Fahlcrantz & Gumælius 1946), p.121 as his source. Is it really clear that Finland had already made decision to enter the war (before June 22), or was this decision rather a result of Soviet strike? -- Constanz - Talk 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The Finns considered the trials as a show trial not after the fall of Soviet Union but immediately after the convictions are given. For example the famous photo of the shop window in Helsinki, where the photos of the convicted were accompanied by the text "Sijaiskärsijämme" ("Those who suffer instead of us"). Also the preliminary decision of the court which were published was widely known, and Paasikivi's pressure against the court to change that after the Allied Control Commission contacted him. Paasikivi's opinions were referred soon afterwards both in his own texts and afterwards by biographists. The same effect made Social Democrats to choose convicted Väinö Tanner to their chairman decade later. Also the most thorough presentation of the issue (although certainly not neutral.;-)), Yrjö Soini's "Kuin Pietari hiilivalkealla", was published already 1956.
You are right that the political leadership was very quiet about the issue before the fall of the Soviet Union (See Finlandization), but it shouldn't be confused to the public opinion. -- Whiskey 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why Petri Krohn thinks this is an international trial (adds false template that indicates this is a International Court)? Again, it was a Finnish trial at House of Estates by Finnsh retroactive law and with Finnish judges. By the way, torture and murder is against international human rights treties, yet if a murderer is trialed, he's not in an international trial. I just can't understand how these trials can be classified as same as the court Milosevic was in (Den Haag). "International" requires other nations involved you see. Also, read war of aggression, it says "refers to any war waged not out of self-defens". You say that NPOV is that Finland did no defend itself? What a load of bullshit, tell that to Continuation War veterans that they did not defend Finland. Even Iraq War is not war of aggression, it is to protect USA. No doubt Finland protected itself. That is why we use the citation marks on "war of aggression" as we here on Wikipedia present all views, including the Finnish one, not just Soviet.-- Pudeo ⺮ 09:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, Petri, this is not a question about Ajopuuteoria or not, as there are legal ways to initiate a war as numerous countries had presented after the WWII. The question is did Ryti, Mannerheim et.al. believe that war was inevitable to prevent Finland's demise. Self-defence is still accepted reason to fight and even initiate a war (pre-emptive or preventive war). And that was a defence they were not allowed to take due to political reasons as it would have raised questions about Soviet actions in two pre-war years. About the reliable sources, the general impression that can be found is that "Finland started the war and acted in consort with Germany, but they still had quite a good reasons to do so..." -- Whiskey 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
According to a new book "Kansakunnan sijaiskärsijät" (Scapegoats of the Nation) by Lasse Lehtinen and Hannu Rautkallio, there was no real demand by the Soviets to prosecute Väinö Tanner or the others for "war guilt", but rather the trials were a result of a domestic political struggle between Kekkonen's Agrarian League and the communists on one side and Väinö Tanner's Social Democrats on the other. In other words, Kekkonen exploited the "Moscow Card" for his own political ends. Martintg 10:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a variety of citation-requesting templates in the hopes of getting help. It's possible that much of this is available in the general references, but I don't read Finnish.
Anyone attempting to check statements in this article may also want to see if they can find a source for a statement previously removed for lack of verification: "Shortly thereafter, the War Crimes Section of the British Foreign Office issued a statement that the British government would not wish to prosecute Finnish political leadership for crimes against peace." (End of "Background" section.)
— CrazyDreamer ( talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
NPOV-check-tagged the "See also" link to show trial because there's no clear evidence (to my eyes) in the article text that the trials were show trials. However, I can imagine that allegation being brought to bear by someone who is generally predisposed against the trials on other grounds. This could be adequately remedied by adding verified statements to the body of the article that the trials had predetermined outcomes.
— CrazyDreamer ( talk) 09:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the English language sources but Zhdanov in Finland page 34-38 describes it quite well. Or The Finnish War-Responsibility Trial in 1945–6: The Limits of Ad Hoc Criminal Justice? same author can be found from Martyrs and Scapegoats of the Nation? The Finnish War-Responsibility Trial, 1945–1946 pages around p. 526. Wanderer602 ( talk) 12:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)