Russians have some of the best armor I've seen (SCA, or otherwise). Is there a source for this kind of armor (especially the historical Russian types) on the internet?
The same thing between Karelians (in Russia) and Finns. But as can see you Finns do not respect them as nation. That is sad. "Describe me a Finn" Well, Finns are white Europeans, Karelians are white Europeans... Russians are white Europeans. And DNA studies showing what we are all very close. So what?
@norder81 Actually Finland was a country who supported own country for Karelians. That's what I hinted with Tarto peace terms to you. USSR did not respect any of those agreements. Karelians are Finnic tribe. I have Karelian blood in my veins and I respect my background. I call myself a Finn but I know which tribe I am from. Finnish people have been fighting for Finnic tribes like in Estonia.
Yes we are white Europeans but we have differences. We are from different "tribes".
@tupakki "Actually Finland was a country who supported own country for Karelians" That is not a true. Finland have no plans to give them Independence. And Tarto peace terms wasn't the reason of occupation. That's the fiction.
@norder81 ""Actually Finland was a country who supported own country for Karelians" That is not a true." It is true. I bet you don't want to believe it for some reason to make Finland to look bad. "And Tarto peace terms wasn't the reason of occupation." I agree. If USSR would have followed the terms, that would not never happened. Finland tried to invoke to international official for those violations. The problem was that USSR were not ratified international "laws". It was useless.
just awesome! i would love to be apart of that. nothing beats steel weapons and full face helms. great battle and kind of gives a taste of what those hardcore men did to themselves back in the day. Could of done with screaming and crying to add to the effect tho. loved it.
Aye, my nephew over in america has a little group of his own and they train daily with swords armor and the bow. Everyday I believe they run a mile in full gear including shield, armor, and weaponry. Me myself am good with an italian longsword, or a viking blade with buckler. Maybe oyur boys can have a tad battle with yours sometime? We number 118, and will gladly accept any invitations, if so message me.
I wish they would put convicts who have to sit more than 10 years in prison or convicts who get a death sentence into some scenery like that , equiped with armour, sword and shield and they would fight for life or death . How wonderful that would be . I would cum if this would be true . Real fights not pussy figts with unsharped blades . I wanna see real action . Fucking politcians and their stupid ethics and human rights . Putting criminals into prison ,and let them rot instead of my idea .
Stop talking about politics and enjoy this movie! It looks very realistic to me. The where very well armed. So if you' re hit stay down and the game is over. But in real it was between live or dead.
Before you are supporting any of this you can see on this video. All of you should know that this city is Finnish and Soviet Union lead by Stalin stole it from Finland. You should support Finland to have this ancient city back to Finland, under Finnish flag. Now you are forgetting the crimes of USSR.
You Finns can be totaly retarded sometimes. In this video made same comment like 10 times. This video is completely apolitical and without any national matters. WTF is wrong with you? Now this city is part of Russia, there arent any finnish people. Tt wasnt truly part of Finlad, this city was built by Sweden in 13th century and ther conquered by Peter the Great, it was part of a Finlad only for 23 years after Lenin declared your independece.
@RedMarxMan Retarded? If we want something back which has been stolen from us, according to you its retarded. I would call it justice. At the moment there is no Finnish people but so many things in Vyborg remind of Finns. It wasn't truly part of Finland? Are you kidding me? Finnish people have been living on those areas even before Vyborg was found. If somebody have right for this city, it's for Finnish people. Never Russian.
Lenin declared our independence? You don't know much of history.
@RedMarxMan If you don't know what I ment that you don't know history. Lenin did not declared Finland to be indepent. Finland declared that itself and seeked acceptance from West. West wanted that Russia will accept it first which happen at 30.12.1917 when Svinhufvud sent a letter to Lenin. If Lenin wouldn't have accept that, Finland would have declared to be independent anyway. Many of you don't seem to know that Lenin wanted to see Finland became part of Soviet-Russia through revolutions.
@RedMarxMan Your logic is really a joke. Let me ask you something. So those Finnish cities like Helsinki has really been Finnish only after 6.12.1917? Really? Who has more right for Helsinki than Finnish people? It doesn't matter if Finnish people have been living there for centuries and building the city? You really should learn some history of Vyborg if you really think that Russians are right owners there.
@tupakki Hey, Finns didn't live in big cities like Turku before Russian headship. There was only Swedes and Germans and maybe a little bit of Fins. Especially Helsinki become a capital and was rebuilt only in XIX century according to will of Russian king. That is why the center of Helsinki is totally looks like St.Petersburg. And the same thing about Vyborg. City founded by Swedes and belonged to them for 417 years. Then for 207 years city belonged to Russia and then only 26 years for Finland.
@norder81 Are you kidding me? Finnish people didn't not really live in big cities after Russian headship either. The most important source of income was farming and forest industry. Industrialization made people to move to citizies, like pretty much everywhere. I can give number from Helsinki for you, in year 1875 there was 23 000 people, 1900 79 000, 1930 206 000, 1960 448 000 etc. You are forgetting that Vyborg has been a Finnish land even it has been under Sweden and Russia.
@tupakki You're right, population of cities became grow in XIX c.e. in Russian era. But before, in Swedish era population of cities was mostly Swedes and Germans. They founded this cities, they build, they ruled there. And the same story with Vyborg. And what do you mean a Finnish land? When Swedes came to build fortress in XI c.e. that was lands of Korela peoples. And before them Saami lived there...
@norder81 Please don't try to tell lies. Till 1939-1945 Finns have always been the biggest nationality in Vyborg. There was not even once when Russians and Swedes have got more population there. I might have some numbers for this also if you want facts. Marshal Torkel Knutsson found the city on Karelian fortress. First it has been military city with active soldiers as Finnish ones. Who are these called Korela people? It was a land of Karelian, a Finnish tribe. Saami people lived on Vyborg area?
@tupakki Lie? Finns became biggest nationality in Vyborg only since XVII-XVIII c.e. after Treaty of Stolbovo when Swedes started to move Finnish population from central Finland to the empty Karelian Isthmus and nothern Ladoga. Karelians have left these lands after Swedish oppression their religion. Karelians was orthodox and they run to Tver region. You can read about Tverin karielazet. Those the few who has decided to remain, they was assimilated by newcomers Finns.
@norder81 Yes lie. Please show me even one source which is showing that some other nationality was higher than Finnish till 1939-1940 and 1945- in Vyborg. We can all agree that Germans had the most bourgeoisie in the city, even more than Swedish one till 1900. 1900 got the highest numbers. Still Finnish was the biggest nationality. Until the Russian time, there was not much Russians in city. Like at Middle Ages there was only Finnish, Swedish and Germans.
@tupakki I haven't a statistic about middle ages. And I think you haven't it too. But it's a simple logic. In middle ages and before Russian era Vyborg was small. It was just a fortress and several streets outside. It was a place for Swedish army and German traders on Karelian land. Karelians wasn't live in cities. Vyborg's population began to grow up in XVIII-XIX c.e. Russian government tried to reduce Swedish influence on new lands.
@norder81 I don't have a statistic about middle ages. History of Vyborg is clearly saying at those times city was inhabited by Finnish, Swedish and German people. Finnish people were the biggest group. If you can find some different information, please give it to me. Also if you have data which is showing that some other nationality group was bigger than Finnish in Vyborg till 1939, please give me that information. Yes Vyborg was born around the fortress, first it was Karelian and the Swedish.
@norder81 Because of the Treaty of Stolbovo, Finnish people indeed moved to Ingrian, not to Vyborg. There was already most Finnish people. Treaty of Stolbovo didn't change the Vyborg area. Vyborg wasn't Russian before the treaty and it didn't became one after it either. Karelians moved off because of Swedish conversion work and very hard taxes. Those were the reasons. You should know that Karelian tribes are one of Finnish tribe like there is in Finland nowadays.
@tupakki And in this way they welcomed Finnish national movement. And they move a capital from "Swedish" Turku to the Helsinki wich was just a village. Finnish population began to grow up in all cities in Finland. And the same with Vyborg. Modern architectural view Vyborg got only after 1861. And as I said there was no Karelians since XVII c.e. till nowadays. And you wrong. Finns came not only in Ingria but in whole Karelian Isthmus and Nothern Ladoga. Because this lands Sweden got after 1617.
@norder81 I know what Russia did to lower the influence of Sweden in Grand Duchy of Finland but it did not work in Vyborg. It worked other way around, the influence of German was decreased but Swedish got more power. Architecturally Vyborg is related to Swedish Visby as C. J. Gardberg said. At 1640 Vyborg was 7th biggest city in Sweden, which ment that the architecture was important in the city. After city got under Russia, it got lost for long time. Around 1800 it changed.
@norder81 How you describe modern architectural with the view of Vyborg. I don't really understand what you mean by this. Uno Ullberg, Axel Gyldén etc. for sure are modern architectures of Vyborg. Please explain this me a little bit better. I am not a professional of Vyborg architecture.
@tupakki About architecture of Vyborg. I mean, how the center of the city looks today. Yes, there is some buildings from middle ages but only few. Most buildings were build at the second part XIX c.e. in "Nothern modern" style. It started to built after general plan of the city was accepted in 1861. In that time many architects came to Vyborg to work. Uno Ullberg was one of them, but he began to work only in the beginning of XX c.e.
@norder81 That's also true what you are saying. First times city was build without any general plans, whatsoever. Nowadays the buildings of Vyborg are in pretty bad shape. It's shame if you ask from me. Why Russia really let the Vyborg to go on that level? I have been watching documentaries that Finnish and Russians are restoring some historical important building. Still seems it's not enough. Russians are plaiming that repairing buildings is impossible because Russian bureaucracy. Don't know.
@tupakki Yes, it's true what many historical buildings of Vyborg in a pretty bad condition. But it's another question. When I have been in Vyborg first time I was in shock and despondency. And I had no idea why it happens. It looks like previous government did nothing for Vyborg since the end of war. But I can say what nowadays many buildings in old city already reconstructed or under reconstruction works. This process is not fast, especially because of bureaucracy. But Vyborg become better.
@norder81 It happened because Russians didn't want to repair something they have not built. I have a documentary about Vyborg which came from TV few months ago. People of Vyborg said it pretty clearly, decision-makers blamed bureaucracy. I think the truth can be found somewhere between. Most of there reconstructions have been made with joint operation between Finns and Russians, for example Sorvali cemetery, the city library of Vyborg, Monrepois park, villa park etc.
@tupakki "Russians didn't want to repair something they have not built" It's just a stereotype. It's a feature of communists, but not all Russians. And I only welcome if Russians and Finns cooperate to repair Vyborg.
@norder81 "It's just a stereotype. It's a feature of communists, but not all Russians." I haven't said it's a feature for all Russians. People of Vyborg said this in a documentary not so long time ago. I should still have that documentary so I can add it here if you do not believe me. Yes I also agree that cooperation but not with those terms as they are nowadays. Finnish people cannot own any land there, only companies can. Vyborg is so close to Finland but still so far for Finnish people.
@tupakki May be I missed the point, but what did peoples of Vyborg said? They don't want to repair buildings?! Please send me a link. Yes, since this year Finns and all foreigners can't to buy a land in Vyborg area. If you ask me, yes it's unfair. But it seems a bit because of Finnish nationalists. I heard what according one poll in Finland over 5% said what they want to start the war with Russia to return old territories. It's crazy!
@norder81 On that documentary I have, there is a group of old peoples who were settled on Finnish buildings after the war. They explained how nicely and organized everything were when they came but eveything were changed during the time. Some areas were destroyed by collective farm system. People didn't find houses and buildings as they would be something worth of taking care of and which would belong to them. At some point I can add this documentary here on youtube if you are really interested.
@tupakki So it's understandable. Their words just shows the faults of soviet system, where everything belongs to state. The result of this 70-years experiment is the fact: state can't to be a good owner. And example of Vyborg shows it clear.
The highway hasn't finished yet. Only first 20km has opened. The reason is what existed road (A129) isn't enough. I drove there. It's narrow and it have a lot of turns, especially in Karelia. It takes over 5 hours to cover 250km.
@norder81 Yes Vyborg is showing it clearly. A land without a real owner is adrifting. Vyborg has suffered a lot and you can see it clearly but even more sad is for several former Finnish villages. They have practically died or dying. I want to ask one question from you and I have asked this before from many Russians. "How you would think if Soviet-Russia would have lost for example a city of St. Petersburg during the WW2? Would you want to see the day when it would return back to Russians?"
@tupakki I'm sorry for long answer. I understand what you want to say by your question. May be you know about Russian city which do not belongs to Russia, named Sevastopol. But I live in real world not in dreams. And I only want to say: It's impossible to return, and it doesn't depends from my or your desire. I understand a feelings of peoples who lived there and should leave their lands. But also how can you explain it to those peoples who suffered from Finnish occupation of Karelia 41-44?
@norder81 Yes and also a city called Köningsberg aka Kalingrad. "It's impossible to return" Why its impossible to return? I think you will say that one demand is making more demands for Russia. I don't know if you have noticed or not, because of actions of WW2 By Soviet Union, there is still gap in the trust towards Russia and Russian people. This is only my opinion but I think If Russia would return for example lost Finnish areas to Finland, Russia would gain huge pr. Do you think?
@tupakki Sevastopol is Russian city belongs to Ukraine. Kaliningrad is former German city belongs to Russia. It's a different things. It's impossible to return because it's impossible! Nobody will change borders in Europe after WW2. This problem we considering is not something special. There are a lot of similar situations in Europe. For example a lot of German lands belongs to Poland and populated by Polish peoples. And they will never return it to Germany.
@norder81 Sevastopol has been found on Tatars land by Russians. True. Kaliningrad aka Köningsberg has been found by Germans. True. Germans have long history there. Vyborg has been found by Swedish kingdom on Karelian land. Finnish people has been living there longer than anyone else. Why it's impossible. Germany and Russia has had secret meetings about Kaliningrad. I would say that it's now closed for Germans. As it has not closed for Finns either. It's your right to think it is.
@tupakki If you so care about Tatars, when you should know what Crimea is not their native land. "secret meetings about Kaliningrad" Oh, please... do not kidding me!
@norder81 I haven't said that I care so much about Tatars. I told you that Sevastopol was found on land of Tatars. Crimean Tatars were living on that land. What USSR did to them is also a crime against humanity. Please tell me more about the history of Crimean and what is the native land of Crimean Tatars? What is the native land of Russians?
Please write on google "Germany in secret talks with Russia to take back Konigsberg". Few years back it was discussed on several medias.
@tupakki You can find about history of Crimea easily without my help. Tatars came at the times of Gold Horde. Before them a lot of another nations lived there. Greeks for example. Native land of Russians is the territory of Kievan Rus.
About you link. Do you really believe in it? It's no more then fairy tale from yellow GB press. Even if you read the details, they talk about economic influence but not about "take back". Believe me it's absolutely impossible!
@norder81 I am not judging what is fairy tale and what isn't. This was the new people were talking few years back. Germans have started to talk about Köningsberg more openly as you can find from net easily.
Returning land is not impossible at any ways. As I told you earlier, Russia returned land to China. Germany is extremely important business partner for Russia in West Europe. Like you said few time back that Russia returned land to China because China is China. Same with Germany.
@tupakki I can't say what Russia 'returned' to China this small empty island. It looked like a present. But anyway reaction of society was very negative. And yes, Germany is very important partner for Russia, but it doesn't mean what Russia should to present them something. Koenigsberg was taken as compensation for war. And nowadays there is no reason to return it.
@norder81 The point is that you said that land can't be returned. It can. Why the reactions were negative? Can you explain this a little more, please? What if Germany would officially start campaign to have Köningsberg back? Would Russia ready to loose a business partner that important for the land? If it Köningsberg was compensation, what Finnish Karealia and other Finnish areas were?
@tupakki And it is fairly because Germany should pay a compensation for war crimes. The same with Finland I think. Finland made several big mistakes. Mannerheim wanted to return lost areas, but he found a bad friend to reach the goal. Finland's army wasn't stop on border'39 but began to occupy a new territories and conduct a policy of genocide against slavic population. The same as Germans did. Finland participated in blockade of Leningrad where over 600.000 died from starvation.
@norder81 Are you talking about war crimes? Seriously? Soviet Union has made so many war crimes and war against humanity, huge ones. For example terror-famine in Ukraine, war against Finland without declaration (Winter War), 30's terror against people including Finns.
Of course Mannerheim and Finnish soldiers wanted to have areas back that USSR stole. What's wrong with it? There is saying, enemy's enemy is your friend. Sharing the same enemy is what Finland and Germany has alike. So?
@tupakki Yes! I speak about well known German war crimes against another countries. Soviet Union made a crimes (not war!) against own citizens, mostly against Russians. You can't it to compare! That was nothing wrong with desire of Mannerheim. But why he didn't stop the war when got land back? When he crossed the former border he become an occupant. And in that way Finland did the same as Soviet Union did and even worst. SU didn't make a genocide and give a time to Finns to evacuate.
@norder81 "I speak about well known German war crimes against another countries." You described it well. People do not know so much about USSR's war crimes. That's the problem. I can give you few examples, Soviet partisans killed Finnish civilians on Lapland. Women, old men and children. War crimes against Baltic countries, Poland, Germany etc. We can go to details if you really want.
Russians suffered Stalin purges but many other nationalities did as well, including the Finns. Don't be naive.
@tupakki Soviet partisans in Lapland? What? It sounds like fairy tale. Do you really know who is partisans? Partisans is just a civil people who united to fight against occupants on their own land! Did Soviets live in Lapland? Anyway I'll try to check it.
@norder81 I fast got info from Wikipedia "Between 1941-1944, Soviet partisan units conducted raids into Finnish territory and attacked civilian targets such as villages.... Finnish sources state that partisan activity in East Karelia focused mainly on Finnish military supply and communication targets, but almost two thirds of the attacks on the Finnish side of the border targeted civilians,killing 200 and injuring 50, including children and the elderly." Google more information.
@tupakki Information about Soviet partisans on Finnish territory is very poor. As I understand their targets war military objects on Finnish territory (and it's better to call them as saboteurs). But if it's true what they killed civilians, so it's certainly a war crime. Earlier you talked what I defend USSR. But it's not a true. I just defend the real history. I know what there were a war crimes from both sides. But if we talk about scales, then USSR was much less evil than Germany.
@norder81 Why the information about partisans on Finnish territory is very poor? It is not. They called themselves as partisans and history books know them with the same term. They targerts officially were military but they were not even trying to attack on those targets. They attacked against civilians and wrote to their battle diaries that military targets were destroyed. One reason was that Finnish anti-partisan actions near military targets were good. USSR was much less evil?
-the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922 (See also: Red Terror)
the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
-the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
@norder81 - the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
- the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
- the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
- the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.(p. 9-10) (See also: Population transfer in the Soviet Union)
Source: The Black Book of Communism. Those are only some very surface examples of greatness of USSR. We can go more details if you wish. On every scale, USSR was extremely evil and shouldn't have been on a winner side after WW2.
@norder81 If you don't know. After the attack phase in Continuation War, Finland informed Western powers that all war goals have been full-filled. You know anything about this? If the war could have been able stop after the attack phase, it would have happened. It was simply impossible. Germany was strong at those times and it would have occupied Finland if peace negotiations with USSR would have started. Check German politics during WW2, case of Italy is very good example.
@tupakki Did Finland afraid Germany? So, that isn't cancel the fact what Finland became the aggressor. And Western powers declared the war to Finland.
@norder81 "Did Finland afraid Germany?" For sure. For knowing Germany and Hitler, nothing was sure. "Finland became the aggressor." No. Finland wanted to have back the land USSR stole during the Winter War. An aggressor was USSR. "Western powers declared the war to Finland." Not true. Since last time I checked, for example USA never declared war to Finland. England and it "partners" did because of Stalin and his personal interests. You should read more how England declared the war.
@tupakki Again you missed my point. Finland became the aggressor when Finnish army in 1941 crossed the old border (border of 1939) and invaded the territory of East Karelia, which was never belong to Finland/Sweden. That was the reason why GB declared the war to Finland. And it nothing to do with Stalin. If Finnish army stopped in 1941, who knows maybe this territories could belong to Finland till nowadays. Don't you understand?
@norder81 For military point of views. Finnish army formation on East Karelia was better than on border of 1939. So called "three isthmus line" was better to defend against the enemy and formations saved a lot of soldiers. Compare straight line to curve. Defending a straight line takes a lot of less men.
Were there any ideological and political reasons. I cannot say they there were not, there were. Finnish army stopped the advance on Karelian Isthmus on old borders.
@norder81 During the Tarto peace meeting. Finland tried to get East Karelia to Finland because Finnic people were living there.Finland gave up for that demand because Soviet Union promised much right to them like deciding their own lives and land. Even became independent if they want. For the broken promises,East Karelian uprising happened (do not mix to tribal wars on Karelia).
Finnish army leaders and politicians remembered those broken promises by USSR. Continuation war was a chance to change
@norder81 Just making something clear for you. England did not declare war against Finland because Finland took East Karelia. Read Churchill's memories to finding out the real reason. USSR pressed England to declare war against Finland because England needed USSR for fighting against nazi Germany. You can also find some hint from Mannerheim-Churchill exchange of letters before the declaration. Churchill himself hated USSR and communism. Why USA didn't declare war on Finland?
@norder81 Even worst? Don't try to exaggerate Finnish role. Finland did not try to make any kind of genocide. If it would have happened, Finland would have created destruction camps as nazi-Germany did. Even a bullet would have been cheaper for that reason as USSR and nazi-Germany used. Russians and other nationalities except Karelians were new comers on Karelian land. Finland would have secured the Karelian land and people which Russian has not done. That was the reason for East-Karelia.
@tupakki "Finland did not try to make any kind of genocide" Finland did it very well. Finns built 10 concentration camps in East Karelia. 6 of them in Petrozavodsk. "Russians were newcomers on Karelian land" What? Are you adequate man or not? Do you know what Petrozavodsk was founded more then 300 years ago? And mostly Russians lived where. And in general, Russians began to settle in Karelia thousand years ago. Have you ever hear about Pomors for example? Stop to talk fairy tales please
@norder81 "Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars." What else I would need to say. First of all, Finland never tried to systematic destroy any people as I described earlier.
Many parts of Karelia had minority of Russians for long time. Not majority as it is nowadays.
@tupakki Yes, you gave true definition of Genocide. And I knowingly said what Finland did the Genocide against Slavic population of Karelia. The reason why Slaviс peoples thrown to the camps was only one - the desire of Finnish government to make this region "ethnically clean". History said about it very clear. "Many parts of Karelia had minority of Russians for long time" What is why you can't say what all Russians are newcomers in Karelia.
@norder81 I already explained the politics of East Karelia. I am not going to repeat myself. Making it ethnically clean? Why Finland wouldn't have made whole Finland ethnically clean as well? Many Russians lived in Finland at those times. If it would have been only against Slavic people, Finland would have but those people camps in everywhere. That never happened. Compare to Nazis who tried to put all jews to camps and destroy them. Never happened by Finland.
@norder81 "Many parts of Karelia had minority of Russians for long time" You understood my saying wrong. I ment that for extrelemy long time, Karelians were the biggest people group on Karelia. Not for so long time, Russians have been the biggest group. You can easily say that Russians are newcomers there. Karelian history on Karelia is much much longer than Russian. Simple truth.
@norder81 Please do not try to tell me about blockade of Leningrad. I simply say please. I can explaing why. Take a map which is showing the border line between Finland and USSR before Winter War at 1939. Then check the Finnish army formation on Karelian Isthmus during the Continuation war. What can you see? Then please explain me how Finland participated in blockade of Leningrad. Finland took land from East Karelia for several reasons which we can also descuss if you are interested.
@tupakki I know where was the borders very well and not only in 1939 but in 1610 too. You ask me how and give an answer. Yes Finland occupied East Karelia and made a ways to help peoples in Leningrad more difficult. Also Finland gave the territory of country for German forces especially for air forces which bombed a Leningrad and Ladoga lake every day.If you kill a person, you are crime. If you just see how a crime kill the peoples and nothing to do or even help him, so you a crime too!
@norder81 It has nothing do with the map of 1610. Try to stay on topic. Please explain me how the role of East Karelia made the living in Leningrad more difficult? Or how bad it was that Finnish lines were so close at border river on Karelian Isthmus? I want to hear it. Finnish air fields were not openly for German use. Don't tell lies. Finland also openly declared at 1943 that Finnish airfields are not open for Germans to bomb Leningrad. Germans bombed Leningrad from Baltic countries.
@tupakki "It has nothing do with the map of 1610. Try to stay on topic." Why not? I was very close with modern borders exept Vyborg. "how the role of East Karelia made the living in Leningrad more difficult". In thirst, Finland occupied east coast of Ladoga and reduce Russian coast. In second, Finland occupied Petrozavodsk and cut impotant railroads. In third Finland and Germany used ports on Ladoga for united fleet which prevent for moving a cargo to Leningrad.
@norder81 Because I was talking about the siege of Leningrad. I told that check the map before 1939 and Finnish army formation during the Continuation war on Karelian Isthmus. It has nothing to do with the map of 1610. Why would it?
Let me ask that what help would have came to Leningrad from those areas Finnish army hold during the Continuation war?
What important railroads Finnish army cut? Last time I checked, Finnish army did not cut any important railroad USSR couldn't replace.
@tupakki "what help would have came to Leningrad from those areas Finnish army hold during the Continuation war?" Certainly the main thing was food! "What important railroads Finnish army cut?" Railroad to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk.
@norder81 Didn't I say for long time? Finnish long distance troops did cut for example Murmansk railroad for military reasons. Most of allied military help went through those ways against Finland for example. Didn't Russians bomb important Finnish traffic targets for preventing to get aid for soldiers for example? Also same German targets. Of course. Do not use double standards.
@tupakki And Germans used Finnish air fields in the beginning of the war for filling, but my mistake is what it was before blockade. Anyway Finland bear a part of responsibility for mass starvation in Leningrad.
@norder81 Yes and for example neutral Sweden let German soldiers to go through the country. Officially they were soldiers who went to holiday or came back. They were fighting force who fought againt USSR and Sweden let it to happen. It's not even the only example. Please tell me how Finland was responsibility for mass starvation in Leningrad? Why did not any allied country besides USSR officially blame Finland for that role? Not even peace meetings after the war. Odd?
@tupakki Sweden wasn't 100% neutral. "Please tell me how Finland was responsibility for mass starvation in Leningrad?" Finland took Petrozavodsk and west coast of Ladoga. After it Leningrad lost connections with Northern regions of country which could help with food and accept the refugees. Finland together with Finland use united fleet on Ladoga to destroy the ships which moved the food to Leningrad and civilians to "Big land" Is it enough?
@norder81 Leningrad was never fully encircled. If Finland would have filled the goals what Germany wanted Finland to fill, Finland would be a responsible of starvation of Leningrad. Simply it never happened. How the refugees would have went to Petrozavodsk? Throught the Lake Ladoga? Yes. That way was open even Finland took the East Karelia. Those action on East Karelia never closed that way.
Destroy food ships? Simply not true. Never heard a term, War of Talvela. I can explain this if you want.
@norder81 Ok if you use that logic. Did all those countries crimes which sold equipment and resource to Germany. For example Swedish ball bearings are Word famous. During the WW2 they were used on German war equipment like tanks which killed allied troops. Did all those countries have made crimes who sold equipment for Allied as well. Allied did make war crimes, USSR, England. They knew very well where those equipment were going to. Killing people. Did they stop it?
@tupakki If such a countries sold something for German weapons or for gas cameras for example, so yes, they bear their part of responsibility for war and war crimes. There can't be another opinion.
@norder81 Then you can blame several countries for supporting Germany against Soviet Union. Many people also can blame many countries for supporting USSR. USSR made war crimes as Germany. It's not that Germany was "bad" and USSR "good". Allied, especially England needed USSR to have war with Germany. Stalin used that fact and that's why history many times are so skewed when talking about USSR's role in WW2.
@tupakki Considering all these things, I think what Finland have no moral rights to require something from Russia. And I think Finnish government understand it. That's why they never raised up this question. About PR... hm... I can say what I myself hate a lot of things in Russia. So what? If someone still have something against Russia or Russians because of WW2, so he just narrow minded man. Without a victory of USSR Europe and the whole World could plunge into middle ages tyranny.
@norder81 "Considering all these things, I think what Finland have no moral rights to require something from Russia." Are you kidding me? Without Winter War, Finland would have stayed neutral against Soviet Union. Molotov kept threatening Finland like to Hitler in Berlin after Winter War. Molotov was send by Stalin. You know that Finnish goverment is full of so called old "taistolaiset" which thought Soviet Union is the greatest. What else you could expect from a people like that?
@tupakki Without Winter War, Finland would have stayed neutral against Soviet Union. Excuse me, it's bla bla bla... Finnish goverment is full of peoples who dreamed about Great Finland from Botnic gulf to Ural mountains. That is why Mannerheim occupied East Karelia. That was only beginning. And Germany was a traditional ally of Finland since Civil war. 99% what Finland didn't lost a chance to cut own piece of "cake".
@norder81 Finland declared to be neutral as other Nordic countries before the WW2. Finland wasn't same at it was after Finnish civil war. Sure that some Finns wanted to have East Karelia or to make it independent. If USSR would have done as it promised in Tarto peace, those movement from Finland would never happened. USSR did not respect what Finland and USSR agreed to for East Karelia. USSR didn't respect contracts with Finland either. Don't try to make funny reasons why Winter War started
@norder81 What was the occupation of Soviet Union after the WW2? More than half of Europe suffered about it. Even nowadays many countries are suffering of the occupation of USSR. USSR was not a was not a savior. It enslaved many nations and nationalities. I would say it was tyranny in every forms. What kind of crystal ball you have that you can say what would have happened if USSR wouldn't have won. What if Germany and USSR would have lost? It would have been tyranny by whom?
@tupakki USSR was savior! It didn't bring freedom and democracy but save a lot of nations from total destroying. I advise you to read about so-called German "Ost-plan" or "Lebensraum im Osten". Hope you something to understand. You absolutely can't to compare the tyranny of Nazi Germany and USSR.
@norder81 I can and I am always doing it. If you check the death toll of Nazi and Soviet era. Nazi Germany was just like a school boy compared to USSR. I know German plans what plans they had in East. You know that I am not talking about the future where Germany would have been the winner. I am talking about the future where both evil countries, USSR and nazi-Germany would have lost. Why don't you? You are talking the crimes that USSR did to Russians but at the same time you are defending them.
@tupakki "Nazi Germany was just like a school boy compared to USSR" What? Am I arguing with school boy? Do you ever hear about holocaust man? Do you know what Germans killed every fourth only in Belarus? Do you ever hear about Einsatzgruppen?Do you know how many were killed in Poland? USSR lost 30 million! Biggest part civilians. Are you kidding me? "USSR and nazi-Germany would have lost" And who the winner? What a hell you talking about? Delirium!
@tupakki I'm far from idea what USSR was clear in WW2. Remember about Katyn. But how modern generations could be responsible for it? We can't! We just remember and sorry about it.
@norder81 Yes modern generations should remember what their ancestry has done. They are not responsible of any crimes at first hand but they are sharing the same past with it. If Russia or Russians don't want to do anything to justify the crimes of USSR or Red Army, they are accepting them. Germany and Germans have done extremely much to justify the past of Nazi Germany. They are modern generations. Why Russia shouldn't do anything? Can't understand your logic at all.
@tupakki "If Russia or Russians don't want to do anything to justify the crimes of USSR or Red Army, they are accepting them." Who said to you what we don't want? Again, read about Katyn'
@norder81 I haven't really seen any real actions from Russia or Russians. That's why I said what I said. What I should read about Katyn? What do you mean?
@norder81 I haven't really seen any real actions from Russia or Russians. That's why I said what I said. What I should read about Katyn? What do you mean?
@tupakki I mean what Russia recognize it as war crime (15000 executed polish officers) There is a memorial in that place. All documents about it were sent to Poland. What Russia should make else?
@norder81 What I do need to explain to those people who suffered by the presence of Finnish army in East Karelia? First camps were indeed called concentration camps but the name was changed to "transfering" camps. People were suffered because of lack of warm clothes, foods etc. It was humanitarian catastrophe. High rate of prisons died. It well known fact. Finland did ask help from red cross by Mannerheim itself. From Sweden also, Sweden refused.
@norder81 "But it seems a bit because of Finnish nationalists. I heard what according one poll in Finland over 5% said what they want to start the war with Russia to return old territories. It's crazy!" Where you have heard this? I have been living Finland my whole life and never heard things as that. Nationalism and craziness are not the same. I really would want to have more information of this poll because now it's too thick to believe. Many Finns want old territories to return, by peace.
@norder81 I know who Tver Karelians are.What happened them was because of Sweden.That kind of behaving happened in Finland done by Sweden as well. Please do not try to hint it was because of Finland. I can really understand those people. My family is from White Karelia, place called Paanajärvi,Панозеро, Panozero. My great parents moved there to Finnish Karelia and had to move again when Soviet Union took their land. My family know personally what it has been when living between Sweden and Russia
@tupakki Only those Karelians who lived around Vyborg they began to assimilate by Finns and became a part of Finnish nation. And yes, it was before Treaty of Stolbovo cause Vyborg belonged to Sweden till 1710.
I do not say what Karelians moved to Tver because of Finland or Finnish people. Finland wasn't exist at that time as a state and can't to be responsible. But I can say what Finland responsible for mass killing Russian population in Vyborg in 1918.
@norder81 Once again I need to say to you that Karelians are one of Finnish tribes as people of Häme, Savo, Ostrobothnians etc. Don't know why you want to draw deep line between "other Finns" and Karelians. After all, we are same people group by language and blood. People of Vyborg got their own Finnish accent, were thet ordinary Karelians or other.
What happened during the civil war was a crime, it was made by both fighting sides: Whites and Red. Russians were not only who felt this terror.
@tupakki About Karelians. I do not draw very deep line between Karelians and Finns. I understand what they are close by blood and language. Both nations are Finno-Ugric. But I do not understand, why you try to say what Karelians are Finns? We in Russia recognize Karelians as separate nation, one of big Finno-Ugric family. Nation with own history and culture. And there is many differences between Karelians and Finns. They have own language with over 10 different dialects, own history and culture
@norder81 I am saying Karelians as a Finnic people. In Finland, quite often Karelian language has put into Finnish accent. I can also say why, both languages: modern Finnish language and Karelian language are from ancient Karelia. How this own Karelian nation really works? By Tarto peace, Finland wanted right for Karelians to decide their destiny and future which USSR promised to respect. This ment autonomic, independent country or being a part of Finland. USSR broke that promise.
@tupakki "How this own Karelian nation really works?" Please explain me what do you mean? Karelians have autonomy in USSR since 1920 till nowadays. Even Tver Karelians had it before WW2. Karelians had autonomy in Novgorod republic since XI c.e. I can say what SU not so care about Karelian culture. But Karelians should care about it themselves! Unfortunately many of them during soviet era were passive. They forgot about their roots, forgot a language, become to recognize themselves as Russians.
@norder81 I am really skeptical that Karelians itself are making any kind of decisions in autonomic area of Karelia. I have heard that crime, health care, infrastructure etc. are in very bad shape in Karelia. Money goes out from Karelia, not staying there even it would have been made of Karelian products etc. Karelians could have been cared of themseves, you are right. At -30 because of red Finns, their situation was much better, it went back to worse when Stalin mostly killed those Finns.
@tupakki I'm not a expert in Republic of Karelia. But I find what yes, only numbers in government are Karelians, and only 1 speak Karelian free. But 5 of them are ministers. What about crime, I read what level is the same as in whole North-West of Russia, nothing special, and it comes mostly from Caucasus 'emigrants'. What about healthcare, infrastructure, level of life, I can say what now situation is better when in 90's, but sure it's far from level of Finland.
@norder81 How many Karelian members in goverment? I just read a study of Republic of Karelia by Finnish conculate. President of Karelian congress, Anatoli Grigorjev said: "The free allocation of economic status would have a positive impact to socio-economic development and rising standards of living of the local population and strengthen the Russian and Finnish mutual understanding and economic relations". He also added that old Finnish areas have been mostly became desolate.
@tupakki I agree with Anatoly Grigorjev. Yes, Nothern Ladoga was a border zone for a long time and closed to investments. But nowadays situation is changing. A new highway St.Petersburg-Sortavala is under construction and a new border gate will open. Hope it will help to develop a region.
About Karelian language. It was forgotten in Soviet era,but it hasn't died. There is several newspapers and radio on Karelian dialects. Even Vepsians have it. In some schools in Karelia children study Karelian
@norder81 For what reason this new highway has been built? Why people from St. Petersburg are going to Sortavala region or vice versa? I am asking because I don't know this project at all. Investors are looking for money from St. Petersburg area to Sortavala, brought by "tourists"?
Karelian language hasn't died but it's in bad shape. What services people who speak only Karelian could get from Republic of Karelia? Learning language in school when there is not really chance to use it, is useless.
@tupakki Yes, this region is very attractive for tourists. Peoples come to spend vacations, to fishing, to enjoy the nature etc. It will became more popular then a new national park “Ladoga's skerries” will be organize. But nowadays touristic infrastructure in a low level.
About services in Karelian, I think it depends from region. In Petrozavodsk it seems close to nothing, but in Kalevala region I think they have more possibilities.
@norder81 Thanks for explaining the reasons for that new highway. I can understand that reason. Tourism is a income but a region need industry for being succeed for longer term for a bigger group. East part of Finland has got income from tourism because of Russian tourism but is not enough. Without a decent industry, the ground of economy is shaking. Tourism really offer jobs but jobs are so called "low-wage branch", pretty much all over in the World.
@tupakki But certainly I agree what it status should be on one level with Russian. Does your question shows what Finnish Karelia have better situation? As I understand Karelia in Finland is just a geographical name and have no connection with Karelians, especially if most of them lives in another region. Saami language is close to die. And then I said about globalization, I mean another thing. I mean what peoples look for better life, they want to get good education and so on.
@norder81 Finnish Karelia has much better situation. Have you ever visited there? Finnish Karelia is not only a geographical name. Finnish part of Karelia has historical connections for Karelia which is behind the Finnish border. What you mean that Finnish Karelia does not have connection with Karelians? There is a lot of languages which are close to die, several Finno-Ugric languages are included like Saami. Saami has been granted as minor language status in Finland by language law.
@tupakki Who will return lives of peoples who were killed in concentration camps? Who will return a lost childhood those who survived ? Who?
If Finnish Karelia have better situation (I have been there), then I want to ask you the same question, what services people who speak only Karelian could get from Finnish Karelia? How many Karelians in Finnish Karelia? I mean true Karelians, not those Finns who just lived in Karelian Isthmus before WW2.
@norder81 Finland was prepared to keep these prisoners in custody for short time because the war was supposed to be short. Soldiers called this it as "Summer" war because they though will fight till the Fall and return homes for harvesting. Finnish army was controlling those prisoners and they were not able to aid them without the help from abroad which was declined. If you did not know, Finnish civilians itself lived on the edge during the war time, there was not much food for them either.
@tupakki It doesn't matter how Finns called these camps. And I never believe what Finland couldn't find some food for these peoples. So when, why they were there? The reasons? They were civilians, children, old peoples. What dangerous Finland found in these peoples? They could continue to live and work in their homes as Karelians did... But no, they died in camps in democracy Finland. Great!
@norder81 The reason that Finnish army couldn't have let Russians to be free on war zone. They were citizens on enemy nations. Some partisan actions were recorded by these people in Karelia already. USSR did the same with Finns for example during the Winter War. It was too risky that they would have helped Red Army and they would have. After the time, some trusted Russians were released to work and get food by themselves and I have not heard there was no problem.
@norder81 Aren't Veps Karelians? Anyway I got your question. I already explained the sub groups of Finnish people. Karelians are one of them. They were citizens of enemy nation but they were/are the native people of those land and very close to people of Finland. Russians and other nationalities were not. Finnish plan was to send them back to their home land where they were mostly forced to move by USSR and its politics. Wouldn't they wanted to move back to home? I would have wanted.
@tupakki It was a silly question. No need to answer for it. Veps are Baltic Finnish tribe which I hope you knew. Forget that question if you don't want to add something on it.
@tupakki I only want to add for this "Wouldn't they wanted to move back to home? I would have wanted" The same question to Finns who returned to historical motherland in 39, 44.
@norder81 "The same question to Finns who returned to historical motherland in 39, 44." This is actually a huge insult. As I explained you yesterday, Karelians were divided by religion and borders. Those people who were forced to move were Karelians, including some other Finnic tribes as well. My family were always lived in Karelia till WW2 when they were forced to move. Sure first they lived in Paanajärvi which was not in Finnish Karelia.
@tupakki "Those people who were forced to move were Karelians" Only minority of them, like your family from White Karelia. But rest of them were Karelian Finns. Their ancestors were from another Finnish tribes. Otherwise, how could you explain? If Karelians (the tribe) left these territories a centuries ago, whence they have appeared there again???
@norder81 Karelians have been moved to Russia because of Sweden but not all of them as you have been trying to say. Are you seriously saying that whole so called "Finnish" Karelia was only inhabited by people from Savo? You know that for example the people who were moving to Käkisalmi between 1570 - 1710 were indeed people from Savo but much Karelians near Viipuri. There was living much Karelians on Finnish Karelia.
@norder81 What did you notice in Finnish Karelia then? First of all, the accent on Finnish Karelia is different that accents in East-Karelia. People in Finnish Karelia are still using the Karelian accent which is very close to ordinary Finnish language. For example I give an example of South Karelian accent in Finland "Männää kyllää, siel hää syöp" ordinary Finnish "Mennään kylään, siellä saa syödä". They get all services in their own accent.
@norder81 Then the example of Veps accent. ande̮in (annoin), ande̮id (annoit), ĺehmid (lehmiä), küńźil (kynsillä), minä (minä), sinä (sinä), mö (me), to (te), hö (he). First word is veps accent and inside () Finnish. If East Karelia would be a part of Finland. They would have all their services by their own accents as it's in Finnish Karelia nowadays for South Karelian accent. I am not saying East Karelia will need to be Finnish, that what I did not mean.
@norder81 "How many Karelians in Finnish Karelia? I mean true Karelians, not those Finns who just lived in Karelian Isthmus before WW2." What? Are you trying to say that there was not Karelians living in Finnish Karelia before the WW2? Are you serious? Ok define me a Finn and explain how you noticed all people in lost Finnish Karelia were Finns, please? What is true Karelian or true Finn? How many different accent is in Finland nowadays and are all genetically the same?
@tupakki Yes, sure. May bee only a few. As I remember we already talked about events XVII c.e. Karelians leaved this land because of Swedish oppression. After that Swedes populated Karelia by Finns from central Finland. I guess maybe after some time they started to call themselves as Karelians. But it doesn't make them a true Karelians. And for example my Finnish ancestors from Karelian isthmus never called themselves as Karelians. I know it, because my grandma is still alive.
@norder81 People who were moved to Karelia after Swedish oppression is called ingrians. Ingrians are from Savo and other Karelian people. In the other hand, there is not such thing as pure Finn. Finnland is consist of several tribes and Karelians are one of them. Finnish Karelia had Karelian people, not only Finns. Do not try to say other. Please describe me an ordinary Finn? Ask from your grandma where her family is from. If from Savo, she should call herself Savolainen. Got it?
@tupakki "People who were moved to Karelia after Swedish oppression is called ingrians" They called Ingrians because they moved to Swedish province Ingria. But not on the contrary. And they came not only in Ingria but on whole West Karelia. Because villages were already empty. Still nowadays you can find ancient orthodox churches in that area as a remembrance about Karelian era. Those Finns who came was Lutherans and they bring another culture. They became Karelian Finns.
@norder81 In Finland there is different names for native people of Ingria, they are called "Inkeröinen" and for moved people "Inkeriläinen". We know very well the difference of these people. Are you seriously saying that whole west Karelia was empty and was inhabited by "Finns"? That's ridiculous statement. Karelian people has been divided by religions which is true but it's bogus that all Karelians on Wester Karelia are/were "Finns". They were same people.
I just hope that u dont use real weapons? Oo
Meerschaulk 2 weeks ago
OMG THEY COMIN, GRABBA SHOTGUN!!!
Meerschaulk 2 weeks ago
Russians have some of the best armor I've seen (SCA, or otherwise). Is there a source for this kind of armor (especially the historical Russian types) on the internet?
JohannVF 1 month ago
where is this epic battle castle?
charmander0412 1 month ago
im guessing theres a wieght limit to your weapon? coz i would just have a mace and launch people
AidanXD10 1 month ago
The same thing between Karelians (in Russia) and Finns. But as can see you Finns do not respect them as nation. That is sad. "Describe me a Finn" Well, Finns are white Europeans, Karelians are white Europeans... Russians are white Europeans. And DNA studies showing what we are all very close. So what?
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Actually Finland was a country who supported own country for Karelians. That's what I hinted with Tarto peace terms to you. USSR did not respect any of those agreements. Karelians are Finnic tribe. I have Karelian blood in my veins and I respect my background. I call myself a Finn but I know which tribe I am from. Finnish people have been fighting for Finnic tribes like in Estonia.
Yes we are white Europeans but we have differences. We are from different "tribes".
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki "Actually Finland was a country who supported own country for Karelians" That is not a true. Finland have no plans to give them Independence. And Tarto peace terms wasn't the reason of occupation. That's the fiction.
norder81 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@norder81 ""Actually Finland was a country who supported own country for Karelians" That is not a true." It is true. I bet you don't want to believe it for some reason to make Finland to look bad. "And Tarto peace terms wasn't the reason of occupation." I agree. If USSR would have followed the terms, that would not never happened. Finland tried to invoke to international official for those violations. The problem was that USSR were not ratified international "laws". It was useless.
tupakki 2 months ago
I really, REALLy want to take part in this and so do a lot of the guys in my re-enactment group, who do we apply to?
Scotspikeman 3 months ago
Comment removed
norder81 4 months ago
i do this all year round and i tell u it hurts like hell. but so fun too do :)
dragonwalls 4 months ago
just awesome! i would love to be apart of that. nothing beats steel weapons and full face helms. great battle and kind of gives a taste of what those hardcore men did to themselves back in the day. Could of done with screaming and crying to add to the effect tho. loved it.
robbieatvic 5 months ago
One of my favorite videos on Youtube :D SO awesome
NewmanTheFrenchie 5 months ago
Can my Australian troop of 5 sign up?
When is the next event staged?
TheKaptaincu 5 months ago
WFT! that hospitallier betrayed his own team...
IronCoredKnight 5 months ago
Comment removed
norder81 6 months ago
Aye, my nephew over in america has a little group of his own and they train daily with swords armor and the bow. Everyday I believe they run a mile in full gear including shield, armor, and weaponry. Me myself am good with an italian longsword, or a viking blade with buckler. Maybe oyur boys can have a tad battle with yours sometime? We number 118, and will gladly accept any invitations, if so message me.
followerofoldways 6 months ago
Yeeeeaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
zagalboy 6 months ago
I wish they would put convicts who have to sit more than 10 years in prison or convicts who get a death sentence into some scenery like that , equiped with armour, sword and shield and they would fight for life or death . How wonderful that would be . I would cum if this would be true . Real fights not pussy figts with unsharped blades . I wanna see real action . Fucking politcians and their stupid ethics and human rights . Putting criminals into prison ,and let them rot instead of my idea .
chabi3000 6 months ago
@chabi3000 letting them die is your idea. in my eyes bad idea. but if its like the gladiator arena rules it may work out...
MisantrophSK 6 months ago
Stop talking about politics and enjoy this movie! It looks very realistic to me. The where very well armed. So if you' re hit stay down and the game is over. But in real it was between live or dead.
bugxter 7 months ago
@bugxter I second the motion.
lukegrraaa 7 months ago
anyone know where i can sign up for these things ???
uzo70 8 months ago
My training in shield and axe combat = I would own there...
XanosKnyghtshade 8 months ago
@XanosKnyghtshade
I hope you will join us and prove that.
RedMarxMan 8 months ago
Before you are supporting any of this you can see on this video. All of you should know that this city is Finnish and Soviet Union lead by Stalin stole it from Finland. You should support Finland to have this ancient city back to Finland, under Finnish flag. Now you are forgetting the crimes of USSR.
tupakki 8 months ago
@tupakki
You Finns can be totaly retarded sometimes. In this video made same comment like 10 times. This video is completely apolitical and without any national matters. WTF is wrong with you? Now this city is part of Russia, there arent any finnish people. Tt wasnt truly part of Finlad, this city was built by Sweden in 13th century and ther conquered by Peter the Great, it was part of a Finlad only for 23 years after Lenin declared your independece.
Just deal with it already, goddamnit.
RedMarxMan 8 months ago
@RedMarxMan Retarded? If we want something back which has been stolen from us, according to you its retarded. I would call it justice. At the moment there is no Finnish people but so many things in Vyborg remind of Finns. It wasn't truly part of Finland? Are you kidding me? Finnish people have been living on those areas even before Vyborg was found. If somebody have right for this city, it's for Finnish people. Never Russian.
Lenin declared our independence? You don't know much of history.
tupakki 8 months ago
@RedMarxMan If you don't know what I ment that you don't know history. Lenin did not declared Finland to be indepent. Finland declared that itself and seeked acceptance from West. West wanted that Russia will accept it first which happen at 30.12.1917 when Svinhufvud sent a letter to Lenin. If Lenin wouldn't have accept that, Finland would have declared to be independent anyway. Many of you don't seem to know that Lenin wanted to see Finland became part of Soviet-Russia through revolutions.
tupakki 8 months ago
@RedMarxMan Your logic is really a joke. Let me ask you something. So those Finnish cities like Helsinki has really been Finnish only after 6.12.1917? Really? Who has more right for Helsinki than Finnish people? It doesn't matter if Finnish people have been living there for centuries and building the city? You really should learn some history of Vyborg if you really think that Russians are right owners there.
tupakki 8 months ago
@tupakki Hey, Finns didn't live in big cities like Turku before Russian headship. There was only Swedes and Germans and maybe a little bit of Fins. Especially Helsinki become a capital and was rebuilt only in XIX century according to will of Russian king. That is why the center of Helsinki is totally looks like St.Petersburg. And the same thing about Vyborg. City founded by Swedes and belonged to them for 417 years. Then for 207 years city belonged to Russia and then only 26 years for Finland.
norder81 6 months ago
@norder81 Are you kidding me? Finnish people didn't not really live in big cities after Russian headship either. The most important source of income was farming and forest industry. Industrialization made people to move to citizies, like pretty much everywhere. I can give number from Helsinki for you, in year 1875 there was 23 000 people, 1900 79 000, 1930 206 000, 1960 448 000 etc. You are forgetting that Vyborg has been a Finnish land even it has been under Sweden and Russia.
tupakki 6 months ago
@tupakki You're right, population of cities became grow in XIX c.e. in Russian era. But before, in Swedish era population of cities was mostly Swedes and Germans. They founded this cities, they build, they ruled there. And the same story with Vyborg. And what do you mean a Finnish land? When Swedes came to build fortress in XI c.e. that was lands of Korela peoples. And before them Saami lived there...
norder81 6 months ago
@norder81 Please don't try to tell lies. Till 1939-1945 Finns have always been the biggest nationality in Vyborg. There was not even once when Russians and Swedes have got more population there. I might have some numbers for this also if you want facts. Marshal Torkel Knutsson found the city on Karelian fortress. First it has been military city with active soldiers as Finnish ones. Who are these called Korela people? It was a land of Karelian, a Finnish tribe. Saami people lived on Vyborg area?
tupakki 6 months ago
@tupakki Lie? Finns became biggest nationality in Vyborg only since XVII-XVIII c.e. after Treaty of Stolbovo when Swedes started to move Finnish population from central Finland to the empty Karelian Isthmus and nothern Ladoga. Karelians have left these lands after Swedish oppression their religion. Karelians was orthodox and they run to Tver region. You can read about Tverin karielazet. Those the few who has decided to remain, they was assimilated by newcomers Finns.
norder81 6 months ago
@norder81 Yes lie. Please show me even one source which is showing that some other nationality was higher than Finnish till 1939-1940 and 1945- in Vyborg. We can all agree that Germans had the most bourgeoisie in the city, even more than Swedish one till 1900. 1900 got the highest numbers. Still Finnish was the biggest nationality. Until the Russian time, there was not much Russians in city. Like at Middle Ages there was only Finnish, Swedish and Germans.
tupakki 6 months ago
@tupakki I haven't a statistic about middle ages. And I think you haven't it too. But it's a simple logic. In middle ages and before Russian era Vyborg was small. It was just a fortress and several streets outside. It was a place for Swedish army and German traders on Karelian land. Karelians wasn't live in cities. Vyborg's population began to grow up in XVIII-XIX c.e. Russian government tried to reduce Swedish influence on new lands.
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 I don't have a statistic about middle ages. History of Vyborg is clearly saying at those times city was inhabited by Finnish, Swedish and German people. Finnish people were the biggest group. If you can find some different information, please give it to me. Also if you have data which is showing that some other nationality group was bigger than Finnish in Vyborg till 1939, please give me that information. Yes Vyborg was born around the fortress, first it was Karelian and the Swedish.
tupakki 5 months ago
@norder81 Because of the Treaty of Stolbovo, Finnish people indeed moved to Ingrian, not to Vyborg. There was already most Finnish people. Treaty of Stolbovo didn't change the Vyborg area. Vyborg wasn't Russian before the treaty and it didn't became one after it either. Karelians moved off because of Swedish conversion work and very hard taxes. Those were the reasons. You should know that Karelian tribes are one of Finnish tribe like there is in Finland nowadays.
tupakki 6 months ago
Comment removed
norder81 5 months ago
@tupakki And in this way they welcomed Finnish national movement. And they move a capital from "Swedish" Turku to the Helsinki wich was just a village. Finnish population began to grow up in all cities in Finland. And the same with Vyborg. Modern architectural view Vyborg got only after 1861. And as I said there was no Karelians since XVII c.e. till nowadays. And you wrong. Finns came not only in Ingria but in whole Karelian Isthmus and Nothern Ladoga. Because this lands Sweden got after 1617.
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 I know what Russia did to lower the influence of Sweden in Grand Duchy of Finland but it did not work in Vyborg. It worked other way around, the influence of German was decreased but Swedish got more power. Architecturally Vyborg is related to Swedish Visby as C. J. Gardberg said. At 1640 Vyborg was 7th biggest city in Sweden, which ment that the architecture was important in the city. After city got under Russia, it got lost for long time. Around 1800 it changed.
tupakki 5 months ago
@norder81 How you describe modern architectural with the view of Vyborg. I don't really understand what you mean by this. Uno Ullberg, Axel Gyldén etc. for sure are modern architectures of Vyborg. Please explain this me a little bit better. I am not a professional of Vyborg architecture.
tupakki 5 months ago
@tupakki About architecture of Vyborg. I mean, how the center of the city looks today. Yes, there is some buildings from middle ages but only few. Most buildings were build at the second part XIX c.e. in "Nothern modern" style. It started to built after general plan of the city was accepted in 1861. In that time many architects came to Vyborg to work. Uno Ullberg was one of them, but he began to work only in the beginning of XX c.e.
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 That's also true what you are saying. First times city was build without any general plans, whatsoever. Nowadays the buildings of Vyborg are in pretty bad shape. It's shame if you ask from me. Why Russia really let the Vyborg to go on that level? I have been watching documentaries that Finnish and Russians are restoring some historical important building. Still seems it's not enough. Russians are plaiming that repairing buildings is impossible because Russian bureaucracy. Don't know.
tupakki 5 months ago
@tupakki Yes, it's true what many historical buildings of Vyborg in a pretty bad condition. But it's another question. When I have been in Vyborg first time I was in shock and despondency. And I had no idea why it happens. It looks like previous government did nothing for Vyborg since the end of war. But I can say what nowadays many buildings in old city already reconstructed or under reconstruction works. This process is not fast, especially because of bureaucracy. But Vyborg become better.
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 It happened because Russians didn't want to repair something they have not built. I have a documentary about Vyborg which came from TV few months ago. People of Vyborg said it pretty clearly, decision-makers blamed bureaucracy. I think the truth can be found somewhere between. Most of there reconstructions have been made with joint operation between Finns and Russians, for example Sorvali cemetery, the city library of Vyborg, Monrepois park, villa park etc.
tupakki 5 months ago
Comment removed
norder81 5 months ago
Comment removed
norder81 5 months ago
@tupakki "Russians didn't want to repair something they have not built" It's just a stereotype. It's a feature of communists, but not all Russians. And I only welcome if Russians and Finns cooperate to repair Vyborg.
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 "It's just a stereotype. It's a feature of communists, but not all Russians." I haven't said it's a feature for all Russians. People of Vyborg said this in a documentary not so long time ago. I should still have that documentary so I can add it here if you do not believe me. Yes I also agree that cooperation but not with those terms as they are nowadays. Finnish people cannot own any land there, only companies can. Vyborg is so close to Finland but still so far for Finnish people.
tupakki 5 months ago
@tupakki May be I missed the point, but what did peoples of Vyborg said? They don't want to repair buildings?! Please send me a link. Yes, since this year Finns and all foreigners can't to buy a land in Vyborg area. If you ask me, yes it's unfair. But it seems a bit because of Finnish nationalists. I heard what according one poll in Finland over 5% said what they want to start the war with Russia to return old territories. It's crazy!
norder81 4 months ago
@norder81 On that documentary I have, there is a group of old peoples who were settled on Finnish buildings after the war. They explained how nicely and organized everything were when they came but eveything were changed during the time. Some areas were destroyed by collective farm system. People didn't find houses and buildings as they would be something worth of taking care of and which would belong to them. At some point I can add this documentary here on youtube if you are really interested.
tupakki 4 months ago
@tupakki So it's understandable. Their words just shows the faults of soviet system, where everything belongs to state. The result of this 70-years experiment is the fact: state can't to be a good owner. And example of Vyborg shows it clear.
The highway hasn't finished yet. Only first 20km has opened. The reason is what existed road (A129) isn't enough. I drove there. It's narrow and it have a lot of turns, especially in Karelia. It takes over 5 hours to cover 250km.
norder81 4 months ago
@norder81 Yes Vyborg is showing it clearly. A land without a real owner is adrifting. Vyborg has suffered a lot and you can see it clearly but even more sad is for several former Finnish villages. They have practically died or dying. I want to ask one question from you and I have asked this before from many Russians. "How you would think if Soviet-Russia would have lost for example a city of St. Petersburg during the WW2? Would you want to see the day when it would return back to Russians?"
tupakki 4 months ago
@tupakki I'm sorry for long answer. I understand what you want to say by your question. May be you know about Russian city which do not belongs to Russia, named Sevastopol. But I live in real world not in dreams. And I only want to say: It's impossible to return, and it doesn't depends from my or your desire. I understand a feelings of peoples who lived there and should leave their lands. But also how can you explain it to those peoples who suffered from Finnish occupation of Karelia 41-44?
norder81 4 months ago
@norder81 Yes and also a city called Köningsberg aka Kalingrad. "It's impossible to return" Why its impossible to return? I think you will say that one demand is making more demands for Russia. I don't know if you have noticed or not, because of actions of WW2 By Soviet Union, there is still gap in the trust towards Russia and Russian people. This is only my opinion but I think If Russia would return for example lost Finnish areas to Finland, Russia would gain huge pr. Do you think?
tupakki 4 months ago
@tupakki Sevastopol is Russian city belongs to Ukraine. Kaliningrad is former German city belongs to Russia. It's a different things. It's impossible to return because it's impossible! Nobody will change borders in Europe after WW2. This problem we considering is not something special. There are a lot of similar situations in Europe. For example a lot of German lands belongs to Poland and populated by Polish peoples. And they will never return it to Germany.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Sevastopol has been found on Tatars land by Russians. True. Kaliningrad aka Köningsberg has been found by Germans. True. Germans have long history there. Vyborg has been found by Swedish kingdom on Karelian land. Finnish people has been living there longer than anyone else. Why it's impossible. Germany and Russia has had secret meetings about Kaliningrad. I would say that it's now closed for Germans. As it has not closed for Finns either. It's your right to think it is.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki If you so care about Tatars, when you should know what Crimea is not their native land. "secret meetings about Kaliningrad" Oh, please... do not kidding me!
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 I haven't said that I care so much about Tatars. I told you that Sevastopol was found on land of Tatars. Crimean Tatars were living on that land. What USSR did to them is also a crime against humanity. Please tell me more about the history of Crimean and what is the native land of Crimean Tatars? What is the native land of Russians?
Please write on google "Germany in secret talks with Russia to take back Konigsberg". Few years back it was discussed on several medias.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki You can find about history of Crimea easily without my help. Tatars came at the times of Gold Horde. Before them a lot of another nations lived there. Greeks for example. Native land of Russians is the territory of Kievan Rus.
About you link. Do you really believe in it? It's no more then fairy tale from yellow GB press. Even if you read the details, they talk about economic influence but not about "take back". Believe me it's absolutely impossible!
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 I am not judging what is fairy tale and what isn't. This was the new people were talking few years back. Germans have started to talk about Köningsberg more openly as you can find from net easily.
Returning land is not impossible at any ways. As I told you earlier, Russia returned land to China. Germany is extremely important business partner for Russia in West Europe. Like you said few time back that Russia returned land to China because China is China. Same with Germany.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki I can't say what Russia 'returned' to China this small empty island. It looked like a present. But anyway reaction of society was very negative. And yes, Germany is very important partner for Russia, but it doesn't mean what Russia should to present them something. Koenigsberg was taken as compensation for war. And nowadays there is no reason to return it.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 The point is that you said that land can't be returned. It can. Why the reactions were negative? Can you explain this a little more, please? What if Germany would officially start campaign to have Köningsberg back? Would Russia ready to loose a business partner that important for the land? If it Köningsberg was compensation, what Finnish Karealia and other Finnish areas were?
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki And it is fairly because Germany should pay a compensation for war crimes. The same with Finland I think. Finland made several big mistakes. Mannerheim wanted to return lost areas, but he found a bad friend to reach the goal. Finland's army wasn't stop on border'39 but began to occupy a new territories and conduct a policy of genocide against slavic population. The same as Germans did. Finland participated in blockade of Leningrad where over 600.000 died from starvation.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Are you talking about war crimes? Seriously? Soviet Union has made so many war crimes and war against humanity, huge ones. For example terror-famine in Ukraine, war against Finland without declaration (Winter War), 30's terror against people including Finns.
Of course Mannerheim and Finnish soldiers wanted to have areas back that USSR stole. What's wrong with it? There is saying, enemy's enemy is your friend. Sharing the same enemy is what Finland and Germany has alike. So?
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Yes! I speak about well known German war crimes against another countries. Soviet Union made a crimes (not war!) against own citizens, mostly against Russians. You can't it to compare! That was nothing wrong with desire of Mannerheim. But why he didn't stop the war when got land back? When he crossed the former border he become an occupant. And in that way Finland did the same as Soviet Union did and even worst. SU didn't make a genocide and give a time to Finns to evacuate.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 "I speak about well known German war crimes against another countries." You described it well. People do not know so much about USSR's war crimes. That's the problem. I can give you few examples, Soviet partisans killed Finnish civilians on Lapland. Women, old men and children. War crimes against Baltic countries, Poland, Germany etc. We can go to details if you really want.
Russians suffered Stalin purges but many other nationalities did as well, including the Finns. Don't be naive.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Soviet partisans in Lapland? What? It sounds like fairy tale. Do you really know who is partisans? Partisans is just a civil people who united to fight against occupants on their own land! Did Soviets live in Lapland? Anyway I'll try to check it.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 I fast got info from Wikipedia "Between 1941-1944, Soviet partisan units conducted raids into Finnish territory and attacked civilian targets such as villages.... Finnish sources state that partisan activity in East Karelia focused mainly on Finnish military supply and communication targets, but almost two thirds of the attacks on the Finnish side of the border targeted civilians,killing 200 and injuring 50, including children and the elderly." Google more information.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Information about Soviet partisans on Finnish territory is very poor. As I understand their targets war military objects on Finnish territory (and it's better to call them as saboteurs). But if it's true what they killed civilians, so it's certainly a war crime. Earlier you talked what I defend USSR. But it's not a true. I just defend the real history. I know what there were a war crimes from both sides. But if we talk about scales, then USSR was much less evil than Germany.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Why the information about partisans on Finnish territory is very poor? It is not. They called themselves as partisans and history books know them with the same term. They targerts officially were military but they were not even trying to attack on those targets. They attacked against civilians and wrote to their battle diaries that military targets were destroyed. One reason was that Finnish anti-partisan actions near military targets were good. USSR was much less evil?
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 Much less? Let's see some examples.
-the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922 (See also: Red Terror)
the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
-the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 - the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
- the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
- the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
- the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 - the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
- the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
- the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
- the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.(p. 9-10) (See also: Population transfer in the Soviet Union)
Source: The Black Book of Communism. Those are only some very surface examples of greatness of USSR. We can go more details if you wish. On every scale, USSR was extremely evil and shouldn't have been on a winner side after WW2.
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 If you don't know. After the attack phase in Continuation War, Finland informed Western powers that all war goals have been full-filled. You know anything about this? If the war could have been able stop after the attack phase, it would have happened. It was simply impossible. Germany was strong at those times and it would have occupied Finland if peace negotiations with USSR would have started. Check German politics during WW2, case of Italy is very good example.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Did Finland afraid Germany? So, that isn't cancel the fact what Finland became the aggressor. And Western powers declared the war to Finland.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 "Did Finland afraid Germany?" For sure. For knowing Germany and Hitler, nothing was sure. "Finland became the aggressor." No. Finland wanted to have back the land USSR stole during the Winter War. An aggressor was USSR. "Western powers declared the war to Finland." Not true. Since last time I checked, for example USA never declared war to Finland. England and it "partners" did because of Stalin and his personal interests. You should read more how England declared the war.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Again you missed my point. Finland became the aggressor when Finnish army in 1941 crossed the old border (border of 1939) and invaded the territory of East Karelia, which was never belong to Finland/Sweden. That was the reason why GB declared the war to Finland. And it nothing to do with Stalin. If Finnish army stopped in 1941, who knows maybe this territories could belong to Finland till nowadays. Don't you understand?
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 For military point of views. Finnish army formation on East Karelia was better than on border of 1939. So called "three isthmus line" was better to defend against the enemy and formations saved a lot of soldiers. Compare straight line to curve. Defending a straight line takes a lot of less men.
Were there any ideological and political reasons. I cannot say they there were not, there were. Finnish army stopped the advance on Karelian Isthmus on old borders.
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 During the Tarto peace meeting. Finland tried to get East Karelia to Finland because Finnic people were living there.Finland gave up for that demand because Soviet Union promised much right to them like deciding their own lives and land. Even became independent if they want. For the broken promises,East Karelian uprising happened (do not mix to tribal wars on Karelia).
Finnish army leaders and politicians remembered those broken promises by USSR. Continuation war was a chance to change
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 Just making something clear for you. England did not declare war against Finland because Finland took East Karelia. Read Churchill's memories to finding out the real reason. USSR pressed England to declare war against Finland because England needed USSR for fighting against nazi Germany. You can also find some hint from Mannerheim-Churchill exchange of letters before the declaration. Churchill himself hated USSR and communism. Why USA didn't declare war on Finland?
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 Even worst? Don't try to exaggerate Finnish role. Finland did not try to make any kind of genocide. If it would have happened, Finland would have created destruction camps as nazi-Germany did. Even a bullet would have been cheaper for that reason as USSR and nazi-Germany used. Russians and other nationalities except Karelians were new comers on Karelian land. Finland would have secured the Karelian land and people which Russian has not done. That was the reason for East-Karelia.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki "Finland did not try to make any kind of genocide" Finland did it very well. Finns built 10 concentration camps in East Karelia. 6 of them in Petrozavodsk. "Russians were newcomers on Karelian land" What? Are you adequate man or not? Do you know what Petrozavodsk was founded more then 300 years ago? And mostly Russians lived where. And in general, Russians began to settle in Karelia thousand years ago. Have you ever hear about Pomors for example? Stop to talk fairy tales please
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 "Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars." What else I would need to say. First of all, Finland never tried to systematic destroy any people as I described earlier.
Many parts of Karelia had minority of Russians for long time. Not majority as it is nowadays.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Yes, you gave true definition of Genocide. And I knowingly said what Finland did the Genocide against Slavic population of Karelia. The reason why Slaviс peoples thrown to the camps was only one - the desire of Finnish government to make this region "ethnically clean". History said about it very clear. "Many parts of Karelia had minority of Russians for long time" What is why you can't say what all Russians are newcomers in Karelia.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 I already explained the politics of East Karelia. I am not going to repeat myself. Making it ethnically clean? Why Finland wouldn't have made whole Finland ethnically clean as well? Many Russians lived in Finland at those times. If it would have been only against Slavic people, Finland would have but those people camps in everywhere. That never happened. Compare to Nazis who tried to put all jews to camps and destroy them. Never happened by Finland.
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 "Many parts of Karelia had minority of Russians for long time" You understood my saying wrong. I ment that for extrelemy long time, Karelians were the biggest people group on Karelia. Not for so long time, Russians have been the biggest group. You can easily say that Russians are newcomers there. Karelian history on Karelia is much much longer than Russian. Simple truth.
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 Please do not try to tell me about blockade of Leningrad. I simply say please. I can explaing why. Take a map which is showing the border line between Finland and USSR before Winter War at 1939. Then check the Finnish army formation on Karelian Isthmus during the Continuation war. What can you see? Then please explain me how Finland participated in blockade of Leningrad. Finland took land from East Karelia for several reasons which we can also descuss if you are interested.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki I know where was the borders very well and not only in 1939 but in 1610 too. You ask me how and give an answer. Yes Finland occupied East Karelia and made a ways to help peoples in Leningrad more difficult. Also Finland gave the territory of country for German forces especially for air forces which bombed a Leningrad and Ladoga lake every day.If you kill a person, you are crime. If you just see how a crime kill the peoples and nothing to do or even help him, so you a crime too!
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 It has nothing do with the map of 1610. Try to stay on topic. Please explain me how the role of East Karelia made the living in Leningrad more difficult? Or how bad it was that Finnish lines were so close at border river on Karelian Isthmus? I want to hear it. Finnish air fields were not openly for German use. Don't tell lies. Finland also openly declared at 1943 that Finnish airfields are not open for Germans to bomb Leningrad. Germans bombed Leningrad from Baltic countries.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki "It has nothing do with the map of 1610. Try to stay on topic." Why not? I was very close with modern borders exept Vyborg. "how the role of East Karelia made the living in Leningrad more difficult". In thirst, Finland occupied east coast of Ladoga and reduce Russian coast. In second, Finland occupied Petrozavodsk and cut impotant railroads. In third Finland and Germany used ports on Ladoga for united fleet which prevent for moving a cargo to Leningrad.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Because I was talking about the siege of Leningrad. I told that check the map before 1939 and Finnish army formation during the Continuation war on Karelian Isthmus. It has nothing to do with the map of 1610. Why would it?
Let me ask that what help would have came to Leningrad from those areas Finnish army hold during the Continuation war?
What important railroads Finnish army cut? Last time I checked, Finnish army did not cut any important railroad USSR couldn't replace.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki "what help would have came to Leningrad from those areas Finnish army hold during the Continuation war?" Certainly the main thing was food! "What important railroads Finnish army cut?" Railroad to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Didn't I say for long time? Finnish long distance troops did cut for example Murmansk railroad for military reasons. Most of allied military help went through those ways against Finland for example. Didn't Russians bomb important Finnish traffic targets for preventing to get aid for soldiers for example? Also same German targets. Of course. Do not use double standards.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki And Germans used Finnish air fields in the beginning of the war for filling, but my mistake is what it was before blockade. Anyway Finland bear a part of responsibility for mass starvation in Leningrad.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Yes and for example neutral Sweden let German soldiers to go through the country. Officially they were soldiers who went to holiday or came back. They were fighting force who fought againt USSR and Sweden let it to happen. It's not even the only example. Please tell me how Finland was responsibility for mass starvation in Leningrad? Why did not any allied country besides USSR officially blame Finland for that role? Not even peace meetings after the war. Odd?
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Sweden wasn't 100% neutral. "Please tell me how Finland was responsibility for mass starvation in Leningrad?" Finland took Petrozavodsk and west coast of Ladoga. After it Leningrad lost connections with Northern regions of country which could help with food and accept the refugees. Finland together with Finland use united fleet on Ladoga to destroy the ships which moved the food to Leningrad and civilians to "Big land" Is it enough?
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Leningrad was never fully encircled. If Finland would have filled the goals what Germany wanted Finland to fill, Finland would be a responsible of starvation of Leningrad. Simply it never happened. How the refugees would have went to Petrozavodsk? Throught the Lake Ladoga? Yes. That way was open even Finland took the East Karelia. Those action on East Karelia never closed that way.
Destroy food ships? Simply not true. Never heard a term, War of Talvela. I can explain this if you want.
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 Ok if you use that logic. Did all those countries crimes which sold equipment and resource to Germany. For example Swedish ball bearings are Word famous. During the WW2 they were used on German war equipment like tanks which killed allied troops. Did all those countries have made crimes who sold equipment for Allied as well. Allied did make war crimes, USSR, England. They knew very well where those equipment were going to. Killing people. Did they stop it?
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki If such a countries sold something for German weapons or for gas cameras for example, so yes, they bear their part of responsibility for war and war crimes. There can't be another opinion.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Then you can blame several countries for supporting Germany against Soviet Union. Many people also can blame many countries for supporting USSR. USSR made war crimes as Germany. It's not that Germany was "bad" and USSR "good". Allied, especially England needed USSR to have war with Germany. Stalin used that fact and that's why history many times are so skewed when talking about USSR's role in WW2.
tupakki 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tupakki "USSR made war crimes as Germany". Yes, but the scales aren't comparable.
"history many times areso skewed when talking about USSR's role in WW2" Please, examples?
norder81 2 months ago
@tupakki Considering all these things, I think what Finland have no moral rights to require something from Russia. And I think Finnish government understand it. That's why they never raised up this question. About PR... hm... I can say what I myself hate a lot of things in Russia. So what? If someone still have something against Russia or Russians because of WW2, so he just narrow minded man. Without a victory of USSR Europe and the whole World could plunge into middle ages tyranny.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 "Considering all these things, I think what Finland have no moral rights to require something from Russia." Are you kidding me? Without Winter War, Finland would have stayed neutral against Soviet Union. Molotov kept threatening Finland like to Hitler in Berlin after Winter War. Molotov was send by Stalin. You know that Finnish goverment is full of so called old "taistolaiset" which thought Soviet Union is the greatest. What else you could expect from a people like that?
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Without Winter War, Finland would have stayed neutral against Soviet Union. Excuse me, it's bla bla bla... Finnish goverment is full of peoples who dreamed about Great Finland from Botnic gulf to Ural mountains. That is why Mannerheim occupied East Karelia. That was only beginning. And Germany was a traditional ally of Finland since Civil war. 99% what Finland didn't lost a chance to cut own piece of "cake".
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Finland declared to be neutral as other Nordic countries before the WW2. Finland wasn't same at it was after Finnish civil war. Sure that some Finns wanted to have East Karelia or to make it independent. If USSR would have done as it promised in Tarto peace, those movement from Finland would never happened. USSR did not respect what Finland and USSR agreed to for East Karelia. USSR didn't respect contracts with Finland either. Don't try to make funny reasons why Winter War started
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki "Don't try to make funny reasons why Winter War started" We do not arguing about Winter War. We talk about occupation of East Karelia.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 We have been talking about Winter War before East Karelia. East Karelia is a continuum of Winter War as I already explained.
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 What was the occupation of Soviet Union after the WW2? More than half of Europe suffered about it. Even nowadays many countries are suffering of the occupation of USSR. USSR was not a was not a savior. It enslaved many nations and nationalities. I would say it was tyranny in every forms. What kind of crystal ball you have that you can say what would have happened if USSR wouldn't have won. What if Germany and USSR would have lost? It would have been tyranny by whom?
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki USSR was savior! It didn't bring freedom and democracy but save a lot of nations from total destroying. I advise you to read about so-called German "Ost-plan" or "Lebensraum im Osten". Hope you something to understand. You absolutely can't to compare the tyranny of Nazi Germany and USSR.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 I can and I am always doing it. If you check the death toll of Nazi and Soviet era. Nazi Germany was just like a school boy compared to USSR. I know German plans what plans they had in East. You know that I am not talking about the future where Germany would have been the winner. I am talking about the future where both evil countries, USSR and nazi-Germany would have lost. Why don't you? You are talking the crimes that USSR did to Russians but at the same time you are defending them.
tupakki 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tupakki "Nazi Germany was just like a school boy compared to USSR" What? Am I arguing with school boy? Do you ever hear about holocaust man? Do you know what Germans killed every fourth only in Belarus? Do you ever hear about Einsatzgruppen?Do you know how many were killed in Poland? USSR lost 30 million! Biggest part civilians. Are you kidding me? "USSR and nazi-Germany would have lost" And who the winner? What a hell you talking about? Delirium!
norder81 2 months ago
@tupakki I'm far from idea what USSR was clear in WW2. Remember about Katyn. But how modern generations could be responsible for it? We can't! We just remember and sorry about it.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Yes modern generations should remember what their ancestry has done. They are not responsible of any crimes at first hand but they are sharing the same past with it. If Russia or Russians don't want to do anything to justify the crimes of USSR or Red Army, they are accepting them. Germany and Germans have done extremely much to justify the past of Nazi Germany. They are modern generations. Why Russia shouldn't do anything? Can't understand your logic at all.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki "If Russia or Russians don't want to do anything to justify the crimes of USSR or Red Army, they are accepting them." Who said to you what we don't want? Again, read about Katyn'
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 I haven't really seen any real actions from Russia or Russians. That's why I said what I said. What I should read about Katyn? What do you mean?
tupakki 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@norder81 I haven't really seen any real actions from Russia or Russians. That's why I said what I said. What I should read about Katyn? What do you mean?
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki I mean what Russia recognize it as war crime (15000 executed polish officers) There is a memorial in that place. All documents about it were sent to Poland. What Russia should make else?
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 What I do need to explain to those people who suffered by the presence of Finnish army in East Karelia? First camps were indeed called concentration camps but the name was changed to "transfering" camps. People were suffered because of lack of warm clothes, foods etc. It was humanitarian catastrophe. High rate of prisons died. It well known fact. Finland did ask help from red cross by Mannerheim itself. From Sweden also, Sweden refused.
tupakki 4 months ago
@norder81 "But it seems a bit because of Finnish nationalists. I heard what according one poll in Finland over 5% said what they want to start the war with Russia to return old territories. It's crazy!" Where you have heard this? I have been living Finland my whole life and never heard things as that. Nationalism and craziness are not the same. I really would want to have more information of this poll because now it's too thick to believe. Many Finns want old territories to return, by peace.
tupakki 4 months ago
@norder81 I know who Tver Karelians are.What happened them was because of Sweden.That kind of behaving happened in Finland done by Sweden as well. Please do not try to hint it was because of Finland. I can really understand those people. My family is from White Karelia, place called Paanajärvi,Панозеро, Panozero. My great parents moved there to Finnish Karelia and had to move again when Soviet Union took their land. My family know personally what it has been when living between Sweden and Russia
tupakki 6 months ago
Comment removed
norder81 5 months ago
@tupakki Only those Karelians who lived around Vyborg they began to assimilate by Finns and became a part of Finnish nation. And yes, it was before Treaty of Stolbovo cause Vyborg belonged to Sweden till 1710.
I do not say what Karelians moved to Tver because of Finland or Finnish people. Finland wasn't exist at that time as a state and can't to be responsible. But I can say what Finland responsible for mass killing Russian population in Vyborg in 1918.
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 Once again I need to say to you that Karelians are one of Finnish tribes as people of Häme, Savo, Ostrobothnians etc. Don't know why you want to draw deep line between "other Finns" and Karelians. After all, we are same people group by language and blood. People of Vyborg got their own Finnish accent, were thet ordinary Karelians or other.
What happened during the civil war was a crime, it was made by both fighting sides: Whites and Red. Russians were not only who felt this terror.
tupakki 5 months ago
@tupakki About Karelians. I do not draw very deep line between Karelians and Finns. I understand what they are close by blood and language. Both nations are Finno-Ugric. But I do not understand, why you try to say what Karelians are Finns? We in Russia recognize Karelians as separate nation, one of big Finno-Ugric family. Nation with own history and culture. And there is many differences between Karelians and Finns. They have own language with over 10 different dialects, own history and culture
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 I am saying Karelians as a Finnic people. In Finland, quite often Karelian language has put into Finnish accent. I can also say why, both languages: modern Finnish language and Karelian language are from ancient Karelia. How this own Karelian nation really works? By Tarto peace, Finland wanted right for Karelians to decide their destiny and future which USSR promised to respect. This ment autonomic, independent country or being a part of Finland. USSR broke that promise.
tupakki 5 months ago
@tupakki "How this own Karelian nation really works?" Please explain me what do you mean? Karelians have autonomy in USSR since 1920 till nowadays. Even Tver Karelians had it before WW2. Karelians had autonomy in Novgorod republic since XI c.e. I can say what SU not so care about Karelian culture. But Karelians should care about it themselves! Unfortunately many of them during soviet era were passive. They forgot about their roots, forgot a language, become to recognize themselves as Russians.
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 I am really skeptical that Karelians itself are making any kind of decisions in autonomic area of Karelia. I have heard that crime, health care, infrastructure etc. are in very bad shape in Karelia. Money goes out from Karelia, not staying there even it would have been made of Karelian products etc. Karelians could have been cared of themseves, you are right. At -30 because of red Finns, their situation was much better, it went back to worse when Stalin mostly killed those Finns.
tupakki 5 months ago
Comment removed
norder81 5 months ago
@tupakki I'm not a expert in Republic of Karelia. But I find what yes, only numbers in government are Karelians, and only 1 speak Karelian free. But 5 of them are ministers. What about crime, I read what level is the same as in whole North-West of Russia, nothing special, and it comes mostly from Caucasus 'emigrants'. What about healthcare, infrastructure, level of life, I can say what now situation is better when in 90's, but sure it's far from level of Finland.
norder81 5 months ago
@norder81 How many Karelian members in goverment? I just read a study of Republic of Karelia by Finnish conculate. President of Karelian congress, Anatoli Grigorjev said: "The free allocation of economic status would have a positive impact to socio-economic development and rising standards of living of the local population and strengthen the Russian and Finnish mutual understanding and economic relations". He also added that old Finnish areas have been mostly became desolate.
tupakki 5 months ago
@tupakki I agree with Anatoly Grigorjev. Yes, Nothern Ladoga was a border zone for a long time and closed to investments. But nowadays situation is changing. A new highway St.Petersburg-Sortavala is under construction and a new border gate will open. Hope it will help to develop a region.
About Karelian language. It was forgotten in Soviet era,but it hasn't died. There is several newspapers and radio on Karelian dialects. Even Vepsians have it. In some schools in Karelia children study Karelian
norder81 4 months ago
@norder81 For what reason this new highway has been built? Why people from St. Petersburg are going to Sortavala region or vice versa? I am asking because I don't know this project at all. Investors are looking for money from St. Petersburg area to Sortavala, brought by "tourists"?
Karelian language hasn't died but it's in bad shape. What services people who speak only Karelian could get from Republic of Karelia? Learning language in school when there is not really chance to use it, is useless.
tupakki 4 months ago
@tupakki Yes, this region is very attractive for tourists. Peoples come to spend vacations, to fishing, to enjoy the nature etc. It will became more popular then a new national park “Ladoga's skerries” will be organize. But nowadays touristic infrastructure in a low level.
About services in Karelian, I think it depends from region. In Petrozavodsk it seems close to nothing, but in Kalevala region I think they have more possibilities.
norder81 4 months ago
@norder81 Thanks for explaining the reasons for that new highway. I can understand that reason. Tourism is a income but a region need industry for being succeed for longer term for a bigger group. East part of Finland has got income from tourism because of Russian tourism but is not enough. Without a decent industry, the ground of economy is shaking. Tourism really offer jobs but jobs are so called "low-wage branch", pretty much all over in the World.
tupakki 4 months ago
@tupakki But certainly I agree what it status should be on one level with Russian. Does your question shows what Finnish Karelia have better situation? As I understand Karelia in Finland is just a geographical name and have no connection with Karelians, especially if most of them lives in another region. Saami language is close to die. And then I said about globalization, I mean another thing. I mean what peoples look for better life, they want to get good education and so on.
norder81 4 months ago
@norder81 Finnish Karelia has much better situation. Have you ever visited there? Finnish Karelia is not only a geographical name. Finnish part of Karelia has historical connections for Karelia which is behind the Finnish border. What you mean that Finnish Karelia does not have connection with Karelians? There is a lot of languages which are close to die, several Finno-Ugric languages are included like Saami. Saami has been granted as minor language status in Finland by language law.
tupakki 4 months ago
@tupakki Who will return lives of peoples who were killed in concentration camps? Who will return a lost childhood those who survived ? Who?
If Finnish Karelia have better situation (I have been there), then I want to ask you the same question, what services people who speak only Karelian could get from Finnish Karelia? How many Karelians in Finnish Karelia? I mean true Karelians, not those Finns who just lived in Karelian Isthmus before WW2.
norder81 4 months ago
@norder81 Finland was prepared to keep these prisoners in custody for short time because the war was supposed to be short. Soldiers called this it as "Summer" war because they though will fight till the Fall and return homes for harvesting. Finnish army was controlling those prisoners and they were not able to aid them without the help from abroad which was declined. If you did not know, Finnish civilians itself lived on the edge during the war time, there was not much food for them either.
tupakki 4 months ago
@tupakki It doesn't matter how Finns called these camps. And I never believe what Finland couldn't find some food for these peoples. So when, why they were there? The reasons? They were civilians, children, old peoples. What dangerous Finland found in these peoples? They could continue to live and work in their homes as Karelians did... But no, they died in camps in democracy Finland. Great!
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 The reason that Finnish army couldn't have let Russians to be free on war zone. They were citizens on enemy nations. Some partisan actions were recorded by these people in Karelia already. USSR did the same with Finns for example during the Winter War. It was too risky that they would have helped Red Army and they would have. After the time, some trusted Russians were released to work and get food by themselves and I have not heard there was no problem.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki Karelians and Veps also was a citizens on enemy nation. But they had relative freedom. So what? Your argument is weak
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Aren't Veps Karelians? Anyway I got your question. I already explained the sub groups of Finnish people. Karelians are one of them. They were citizens of enemy nation but they were/are the native people of those land and very close to people of Finland. Russians and other nationalities were not. Finnish plan was to send them back to their home land where they were mostly forced to move by USSR and its politics. Wouldn't they wanted to move back to home? I would have wanted.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki It was a silly question. No need to answer for it. Veps are Baltic Finnish tribe which I hope you knew. Forget that question if you don't want to add something on it.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki I only want to add for this "Wouldn't they wanted to move back to home? I would have wanted" The same question to Finns who returned to historical motherland in 39, 44.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 "The same question to Finns who returned to historical motherland in 39, 44." This is actually a huge insult. As I explained you yesterday, Karelians were divided by religion and borders. Those people who were forced to move were Karelians, including some other Finnic tribes as well. My family were always lived in Karelia till WW2 when they were forced to move. Sure first they lived in Paanajärvi which was not in Finnish Karelia.
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki "Those people who were forced to move were Karelians" Only minority of them, like your family from White Karelia. But rest of them were Karelian Finns. Their ancestors were from another Finnish tribes. Otherwise, how could you explain? If Karelians (the tribe) left these territories a centuries ago, whence they have appeared there again???
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 Karelians have been moved to Russia because of Sweden but not all of them as you have been trying to say. Are you seriously saying that whole so called "Finnish" Karelia was only inhabited by people from Savo? You know that for example the people who were moving to Käkisalmi between 1570 - 1710 were indeed people from Savo but much Karelians near Viipuri. There was living much Karelians on Finnish Karelia.
tupakki 2 months ago
@norder81 What did you notice in Finnish Karelia then? First of all, the accent on Finnish Karelia is different that accents in East-Karelia. People in Finnish Karelia are still using the Karelian accent which is very close to ordinary Finnish language. For example I give an example of South Karelian accent in Finland "Männää kyllää, siel hää syöp" ordinary Finnish "Mennään kylään, siellä saa syödä". They get all services in their own accent.
tupakki 4 months ago
@norder81 Then the example of Veps accent. ande̮in (annoin), ande̮id (annoit), ĺehmid (lehmiä), küńźil (kynsillä), minä (minä), sinä (sinä), mö (me), to (te), hö (he). First word is veps accent and inside () Finnish. If East Karelia would be a part of Finland. They would have all their services by their own accents as it's in Finnish Karelia nowadays for South Karelian accent. I am not saying East Karelia will need to be Finnish, that what I did not mean.
tupakki 4 months ago
@norder81 "How many Karelians in Finnish Karelia? I mean true Karelians, not those Finns who just lived in Karelian Isthmus before WW2." What? Are you trying to say that there was not Karelians living in Finnish Karelia before the WW2? Are you serious? Ok define me a Finn and explain how you noticed all people in lost Finnish Karelia were Finns, please? What is true Karelian or true Finn? How many different accent is in Finland nowadays and are all genetically the same?
tupakki 4 months ago
@tupakki Yes, sure. May bee only a few. As I remember we already talked about events XVII c.e. Karelians leaved this land because of Swedish oppression. After that Swedes populated Karelia by Finns from central Finland. I guess maybe after some time they started to call themselves as Karelians. But it doesn't make them a true Karelians. And for example my Finnish ancestors from Karelian isthmus never called themselves as Karelians. I know it, because my grandma is still alive.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 People who were moved to Karelia after Swedish oppression is called ingrians. Ingrians are from Savo and other Karelian people. In the other hand, there is not such thing as pure Finn. Finnland is consist of several tribes and Karelians are one of them. Finnish Karelia had Karelian people, not only Finns. Do not try to say other. Please describe me an ordinary Finn? Ask from your grandma where her family is from. If from Savo, she should call herself Savolainen. Got it?
tupakki 2 months ago
@tupakki "People who were moved to Karelia after Swedish oppression is called ingrians" They called Ingrians because they moved to Swedish province Ingria. But not on the contrary. And they came not only in Ingria but on whole West Karelia. Because villages were already empty. Still nowadays you can find ancient orthodox churches in that area as a remembrance about Karelian era. Those Finns who came was Lutherans and they bring another culture. They became Karelian Finns.
norder81 2 months ago
@norder81 In Finland there is different names for native people of Ingria, they are called "Inkeröinen" and for moved people "Inkeriläinen". We know very well the difference of these people. Are you seriously saying that whole west Karelia was empty and was inhabited by "Finns"? That's ridiculous statement. Karelian people has been divided by religions which is true but it's bogus that all Karelians on Wester Karelia are/were "Finns". They were same people.
tupakki 2 months ago