Mannerheim - Pinochett of Finland?

Someone made in this NG very interesting comparison about Chile's Pinochett to the Finnish war marshall Mannerheim.

I couldn't find the post from the mass anymore, so I'm hoping here to get him out and offer background for his claim.

If I remember the post correctly it gave impression that Mannerheim was some kind of dictator in Finland before/during WW2 and mass murdered Finns to keep his rule on.

Most fascinating. I would like to hear WHERE this kind of information might come from?

I can hardly believe anyone has been able to offer such opinion since: - Mannerheim commanded white Finnish army in Finnish civil war 1917. He created the army and commanded it to victory over the Red/communist faction. - He was commander of the Finnish army, but was still only subordinate to Finnish president and had no political power. - He was given the rank of war marshall, and was the supreme commander of Finnish army in Winter War and COntinuation War, but was still commanded by the President and Finnish government. He did war when he was told to, and made peace when told to. - He was elected for Finnish president 1944-1945 (if I remember years correctly) after president Ryti stepped down when he took the blame for Finland-Germany Ribbentropp-deal. Mannerheim then stepped down from his position when the country was able to have democratic elections again after the war.

Mannerheim then retired, lived in Switzerland and after his dead he was widely mourned in Finland and in his burial in Helsinki/Finland tens of thounsands peole showed respect to him. He is still widely respected person, and something of that was shown just during last years when a new art museum was built near the Mannerheim's statue in central Helsinki.

It was suggested that the statue should be moved, and that was absolutely rejected and the whole suggestion was totally flamed down by the people. Since that it's been a continuing flamewar that the museum is not 'honorable' enough to be based near the statue, that the museum shadows the statue and so on.

Hardly reactions for statue of a 'mass murderer'?

<Currently Chile has little claim to be a called a democracy. The reason <is that their parliament operates under the permanent threat of a <military coup. Finland between the was in an even worse state. <This situation did not go unnoticed in the UK <What makes all Finnish happenings so problematic is the widespread <discrepancy still existing between popular feeling and executive powers. < The influence which the I.K.L. (the Lappo Movement) and the Unionist <Party (Svinhufund^s organisation) wield in all branches of <the administration - civil service, army, navy, police and, in particular <the so-called Protective Guard - is quite incommensurate with the actual <strength of these parties in Parliament < <The Yorkshire Post 11th July 1939

...I can produce you 1939 sources which 'prove' that Great Britain was under control of Jewish Conspiracy... As I have replied before, yes, National Coalition -party (translation 'unionist' I have never heard before) had significant proportion of supporters in officers of Defense Forces, Police and elder civil servants but what the hell it does have to do with whether Finland was a democracy or not? Does the fact that most of the officers of the RN, RAF and British Army are propbably supporters of Conservatives rather than Labour, even now in 1998, make Britain a tin-pot dictatorship? Be realistic, most of the officers and police in all countries throughout times have been more leaning towards right than left. However, this does not mean they would not follow orders of centralist, or left leaning government. Support of IKL was miniscule in both armed forces and the police, whoever wrote that article was wrong. Could you provide some instances in which Finnish armed forces or the police refused to carry out orders from the government after Mantsala incident? When was there an attempt of _military_ coup? (remember that in Mantsala incidents Army was suppressing fascists, not helping them.) Where are all those plans of military coup, which Finnish historians, from both left and right, have been unable to find? Is this part of some secret master plan? Have all Finnish historians and officers joined in conspiracy, which includes:

a) University historians b) Officers, both active duty and retired c) Politicians, from both left and right d) Various state archives and their staffs e) The entire press and media ..and maybe even f) Entire population of Finland...

As I'm personally a student of Finnish and Scandinavian history in a Finnish university, I'm looking forward to be included in this great conspiracy

<In this context Mannerheim can be seen as the Finnish equivalent of <General Pinochet. Of course analogies are never perfect Mannerheim <killed more people in a country a fraction of the size of Chile.

Try sometimes to read a history book about Finland, instead of 30's leftist or fascist propaganda. There are some fairly good general books available in English. 'A political history of Finland' comes to my mind.

Actually he was a supreme commander (a position normally held by the president). It was in 1918 and there was no president as we still had the Swedish constitution of 1772. On November 15th the parliament assumed the highest powers in Finland (i.e. the powers held previously by the kind, emperor or the provisional government). The executive powers were on the senate that was headed by Svinhufvud. He appointed Mannerheim as the supreme commander. On May 1918 Svinhufvud was elected as regent by the parliament. In later that year Mannerheim followed him after the German orientation favored by Svinhufvud had failed. The current constitution was approved in July 1919 and Mannerheim lost the first elections (in the parliament). After that he refused the job as commander of the armed forces and did not held any official position here until 1931. ...

Yes, he was elected as president by the parliament on August 4th 1944.

First there was no 20000 political prisoners killed. A political prisoner is someone who is held because of his political views, not because of his acts. For example Nelson Mandela was not a political prisoner but a convicted terrorist. The number of reds actively killed by the terror during and right after the war was not 20000 but about 8000. 12000 died on camps. The number of completely legal executions was 260. The idea that there was some fear of repetition is totally ludicrous. Nobody wanted another civil war. Sure there was mistrust and hate after the war but there was no fear of repetition. For one, nobody has been executed in Finland in peace time since 1820's.

Also note that the social democrats were not in opposition all the time. They even had a prime minister in late twenties. It happened that just 10 years after the civil war the president was for some reason disposed and the social democratic prime minister had to receive the anniversary parade,

The civil war was not any kind of norm. It was an example what happens when the society breaks down. There were many social reforms left undone during the last decades of the Russian rule. The oppressive policies of the Russians had hidden them and partially even united people. When that broke, hell broke loose.

First there was no 20000 political prisoners killed. A political prisoner is someone who is held because of his political views, not because of his acts. For example Nelson Mandela was not a political prisoner but a convicted terrorist. The number of reds actively killed by the terror during and right after the war was not 20000 but about 8000. 12000 died on camps. The number of completely legal executions was 260. The idea that there was some fear of repetition is totally ludicrous. Nobody wanted another civil war. Sure there was mistrust and hate after the war but there was no fear of repetition. For one, nobody has been executed in Finland in peace time since 1820's.

Also note that the social democrats were not in opposition all the time. They even had a prime minister in late twenties. It happened that just 10 years after the civil war the president was for some reason disposed and the social democratic prime minister had to receive the anniversary parade,

The civil war was not any kind of norm. It was an example what happens when the society breaks down. There were many social reforms left undone during the last decades of the Russian rule. The oppressive policies of the Russians had hidden them and partially even united people. When that broke, hell broke loose.

snip ....Nelson Mandela was not a political

I will not rise to this one.

The number of reds actively killed

a nice distinction.

The number of completely legal executions

enough said.

killed >by the terror during and right after the war was not 20000 but about

Even at the time announced number of victims of starvation and illnesses in the camps was approx. 15000 of 80000 prisoners, and afterwards it has been always estimated to be greater. In some camps there were also a lot of arbitrary actions by guards while others where pretty decent.

I'm not sure can I agree with your definition of the word 'terrorist' since it sounds similar to Adolf's definition.

How about the Lapua movement, Mdntsdld rebellion and IKL? Radical right wing threated, terrorized and even murdered people. Illegally, but still.

I've also heard stories that some Reds named their postwar children with names like Varma Kosto (Unavoidable Revenge). Perhaps there were some amount of spirit hoping for rematch.

1820's? You mean 1920's? Even our former president Kekkonen was a member of a firing squad in 1918.

agreed.

Enough said indeed.

Somebody presents the facts and George goes hiding - again.

Why on earth do you make those sweeping statements of yours if you are not going to defend them?

Some kind of appeasement policy?

Dear Mr Hallam,

Your earlier postings have shown that you have a good knowledge of the events in Finnish history. However, I think that comparing Marshall Mannerheim to General Pinochet misses the point completely. Mannerheim was nominated as commander of the Finnish (White) Army by the legal government of the country. This fact has hardly been contested in any history book in Finland –regardless of the political sympathies of the author. His task was initially to drive off the remaining Russian troops from Finnish territory but as we know the war turned into a Civil War as well. Pinochet on the other hand turned against a legall government of Chile.

Civil War in Finland was extremly bloody. Some 10.000 people died during the actual fighting -many of them were propably killed after the battle by the victors (Red or White). The Reds killed summarily about 2.000 and whites about 7.000 people during or right after the war (Red and White terror). Some 12.000 prisoners died during the Summer and Autumn of 1918 for hunger and deseases.

Claiming that Mannerheim was responsible for the White terror does not comply with the facts known. On the contarary: every existing document shows that Mannerheim tried to calm down his troops and forbade on several occasions any actions of revenge. It is an other matter could he have done more to stop the events. Maybe, maybe not. In 1918 Mannerheim did not have the same personal authority in Finland which he had in 1939. Many officers for example overlooked his commands if they did not like them. Still, strictly legally speaking as commander in chief he was responsible for his troops actions but he cannot be held as an originator of these deeds. Besides a great many attrocities were committed by people who did not belong to the army at all.

What comes to deaths in the prison camps after the Civil War it is hard to see how they could be put on Mannerheims account. He had been releaved from his post soon after the war before the events in the camps took place. This responsibility falls totally on the account of the Finnish Senate (government) which could not agree on what to do with the prisoners. Part of the senate wanted to put every prisoner in trial, the other half wanted just to punish the leaders and send everyone else home. While the Senate was arguing people were dying in the camps.

The lesson to be learned form Finnish Civil War (and from any Civil War) is: don't get into one! The hatred that surfaces in a civil war always seem to lead to attrocities beyond belieff.

Mannerheim was nominated as the head of state in late 1918 when the policy of siding with Germany of the Finnish Senate lead by P. Svinhuvud had proven a total failure. While in office he signed the new Finnish Constitution which has not been altered significantly since then. Mannerheim held the position of head of state until spring of 1919 when he lost the presidential election clearly to J.K. Stahlberg. After this he did not have any official position in Finnish political life. Little by little he became influential in matters of defence and was nominated as the chairman of the defence committee in 1930. But even this organ could only give advice. The years when he had most influence in Finnish politics were 1940- 1944 but even then he shared the power with parliamentarily elected politicians (especially president Ryti and minister Tanner). He never was even close of being a dictator! (This does not say that there would not have been chances of becoming one had he wanted to).

Then to an other interesting argument in Mr Hallams post. In his opinion the events during the Civil War puts Finland into the same category with the other Eastern European countries that became independent after WWI. If this is so what should we think about the American Civil War? What about the Spanish Civil War? British actions in Ireland? Buur War in South Africa in the beginning of the century? Do all these countries also fall into the same group because of the attrocities that took place? If so I welcome Britain to the Eastern European Group!

The thing that separates Finland from the other Eastern European countries that became independent after WWI with the possible execption of Tzechoslovakia, was the increasing strength of democarcy in Finland during 1920's and 1930's. Had this not been the case Finland would never have survived as an independent state through the hardships of WWII and the Cold War after that. This fact was best proven by the reaction of the public opinion in America when Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1939 –the support received would not have been what it was had the americans seen Finland as a dictatorship.

Regards,

Jari Lievonen

PS. I would like to hear from which references you dwell your information on Finland?

I do not unfortunately have the opportunity to read the Satakunnan Kansa or Turun Päivälehti from the year 1939 to counter the authoritative voice of the Yorkshire Pud^H^Host. But were they really so well informed ?

It is interesting that the YP saw Svinhufvud as the bogeyman still in 1939. In reality his authoritarian style had drawn criticism and in the election campaign of 1937 the Social democratic party launched an 'Ukko-Pekka uudelleen - Luumäelle' ( a pun: the beginning would mean 're-elect Ukko-Pekka', but Luumäki was the small village where he had a farm, so it really meant 'Send Ukko-Pekka back to his farm' The Agrarian party candidate Kyösti Kallio was elected.

Kallio had been PM before his election: he nominated the Cajander government which stayed in office until the Winter War and had _no_ National Coalition (Conservative) or IKL ministers. The cabinet was formed by the Progressive party (a liberal party), the Swedish people's party, the agrarian party and the social democrats.

(http://www.eduskunta.fi/fakta/opas/tiedotus/ esiteen2.htm)

According to the biography (unfortunately only in Finnish) at
http://www.minedu.fi/s80/eurooppa/kb/501a.html

Svinhufvud stayed out of public life after the election defeat.

But let us hear the true story of the Finnish fascists and the forces behind them straight from the horse's mouth. Comrade V.M.Molotov, please proceed !
http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/molotov.html

'It is not hard to see that the war in Finland was not only a confrontation with the Finnish military forces. No, the matter here was more complicated. The showdown here was not only between our troops and the Finnish troops, it was between the united imperialistic forces of a number of countries including Britain, France and others who aided the Finnish bourgeoisie with all kinds of weaponry, particularly with artillery and airplanes and with their men disguised as 'volunteers', with their gold and every kind of supplies, and furthermore, with their frenzied agitation all over the world instigating, with all sorts of means, a war against the Soviet Union. And you have to add, that in this rage howling you all the time could discern the squeaky voices of miscellaneous prostituted 'socialists' of the 2nd International (hilarious excitement at the hall), such as Attlee and Blum, Citrine and Jouhaux, Tranmael and Höglund - all those lackeys of capital who have sold themselves body and soul to the warmongers. ... (Tumultuous prolonged applause all around the session hall. Deputies stand in ovation).'

Dear Mr Hallam,

Your earlier postings have shown that you have a good knowledge of the events in Finnish history. However, I think that comparing Marshall Mannerheim to General Pinochet misses the point completely. Mannerheim was nominated as commander of the Finnish (White) Army by the legal government of the country. This fact has hardly been contested in any history book in Finland -regardless of the political sympathies of the author. His task was initially to drive off the remaining Russian troops from Finnish territory but as we know the war turned into a Civil War as well. Pinochet on the other hand turned against a legall government of Chile.

Civil War in Finland was extremly bloody. Some 10.000 people died during the actual fighting -many of them were propably killed after the battle by the victors (Red or White). The Reds killed summarily about 2.000 and whites about 7.000 people during or right after the war (Red and White terror). Some 12.000 prisoners died during the Summer and Autumn of 1918 for hunger and deseases.

Claiming that Mannerheim was responsible for the White terror does not comply with the facts known. On the contarary: existing documents show that Mannerheim tried to calm down his troops and forbade on several occasions any actions of revenge. It is an other matter could he have done more to stop the events. Maybe, maybe not. In 1918 Mannerheim did not have the same personal authority in Finland which he had in 1939. Many officers for example overlooked his commands if they did not like them. Still, strictly legally speaking as commander in chief he was responsible for his troops actions but he cannot be held as an originator of these deeds. Besides a great many attrocities were committed by people who did not belong to the army at all.

What comes to deaths in the prison camps after the Civil War it is hard to see how they could be put on Mannerheims account. He had been releaved from his post soon after the war before the events in the camps took place. This responsibility falls mainly on the account of the Finnish Senate (government) which could not agree on what to do with the prisoners. Part of the senate wanted to put every prisoner in trial, the other half wanted just to punish the leaders and send everyone else home. While the Senate was arguing people were dying in the camps.

The lesson to be learned form Finnish Civil War (and from any Civil War) is: don't get into one! The hatred that surfaces in a civil war always seem to lead to attrocities beyond belieff.

Mannerheim was nominated as the head of state in late 1918 when the policy of siding with Germany of the Finnish Senate lead by P. Svinhuvud had proven a total failure. While in office he signed the new Finnish Constitution which has not been altered significantly since then. Mannerheim held the position of head of state until spring of 1919 when he lost the presidential election clearly to J.K. Stahlberg. After this he did not have any official position in Finnish political life. Little by little he became influential in matters of defence and was nominated as the chairman of the defence committee in 1930. But even this organ could only give advice. The years when he had most influence in Finnish politics were 1940- 1944 but even then he shared the power with parliamentarily elected politicians (especially president Ryti and minister Tanner). He never was even close of being a dictator! (This does not say that there would not have been chances of becoming one had he wanted to).

Then to an other interesting argument in Mr Hallams post. In his opinion the events during the Civil War puts Finland into the same category with the other Eastern European countries that became independent after WWI. If this is so what should we think about the American Civil War? What about the Spanish Civil War? British actions in Ireland as late as 1916? Buur War in South Africa in the beginning of the century? Do all these countries also fall into the Eastern Eeuropean group because of the attrocities that took place? If so I welcome Britain to the Eastern European Group!

The thing that separates Finland from the other Eastern European countries that became independent after WWI with the possible execption of Tzechoslovakia, was the increasing strength of democarcy in Finland during 1920's and 1930's. Had this not been the case Finland would never have survived as an independent state through the hardships of WWII and the Cold War after that. This fact was best proven by the reaction of the public opinion in America when Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1939 –the support received would not have been what it was had the Americans seen Finland as a dictatorship.

Regards,

Jari Lievonen

PS. I hope that at least some of Mr Hallams postings are meant to get discussion going. If not I would be very interested to hear from what sources he has dwelled the information.