Russia | “This is where we are really at the heart of the problem” – Russia’s history policy is not based on mere lies

Russian the Security Council published on its website on Friday of the article, which compares Finland to Nazi Germany and criticizes the Finnish occupation administration in Eastern Karelia during the Continuation War. The article was written by the Second Deputy Secretary General of the Security Council, Rashid Nurgaliyev.

In the article, Finland is accused of genocide in Eastern Karelia and the wars during Finland’s independence are seen as manifestations of Finnish nationalism and anti-Russian sentiment. At the end of the article, parallels are drawn from this to how Finland now supports Ukraine and has joined the military alliance NATO.

“Finnish authorities created a regime in the Karelia region as cruel as Nazi Germany in the occupied part of the Soviet Union,” writes Nurgaliyev.

On Thursday, Russian prosecutors they asked court to recognize the genocide committed by Finns in Eastern Karelia during the Continuation War.

From the text there are at least a few clear factual errors: the Finnish state is hardly developing “monstrous plans to destroy the Slavs”, and there was no intention to transfer Finnish troops from the Karelia front to support the Germans in Stalingrad.

In other cases, it is more difficult to identify direct factual errors.

“If someone were to do a fact-check on this, I would like to ask for the sources for all the checked claims,” ​​says a doctoral researcher at the University of Turku Liisa Vuonokari-Bomström.

According to Vuonokari-Bomström, who researches the occupation administration of Eastern Karelia, some of the claims about Eastern Karelia in the text could also be examined more closely in Finland. According to him, it would be good to have a broader discussion about how Finland, as an occupying state, operated at the grassroots level.

“Ethnic cleansing was intended to be carried out there. It wasn’t done, but it was planned,” says Vuonokari-Bomström.

By this, he refers to the fact that the ethnically Russian population of East Karelia was to be transferred to the territory occupied by Nazi Germany after the war.

Helsinki professor of political history at the university Juhana Aunesluoma says that Russia often advances in its political use of history in an area that has some factual basis.

“It’s interesting, to what extent you play with known facts and to what extent there is complete imagination.”

Vuonokari-Bomström is on the same lines.

“This is where we are really at the heart of the problem.”

In cases like the text published by the Russian Security Council, it is not necessarily about complete lies, but about how historical events are interpreted and in what contexts the researched information is placed.

One one of the biggest differences in Finnish and Russian historical interpretation is the idea of ​​using sources.

“Especially from a Finnish point of view, the materials of the Soviet research commissions are considered unreliable because of the logic of the Soviet dictatorship. In Finland, on the other hand, perhaps we rely too much on what the Finnish occupation administration produced,” says Vuonokari-Bomström.

The logic of the Soviet dictatorship means that the lower echelon of the system may have produced information that the upper echelon was believed to want instead of truthful information. There are also differences in the interpretation of the materials.

“In Russia, everything that is told in interviews is often presented as fact.”

Historians are well aware that individual people’s memories of events are often unreliable.

The concentration camps of East Karelia are also viewed from different perspectives. In Finland, the most important thing is what the camps were built for. In Russia, we are looking at what happened in the camps.

“From the victim’s point of view, the nuances of whether there was an intention to kill or whether the victims died by accident do not seem so interesting,” states Vuonokari-Bomström.

Despite this, it is important to remember that the Russian interpretation of history is strongly mixed with a political agenda. Purposeful investigation of sources can strengthen the state’s desired message.

“Things are not investigated because you are really interested in what happened and why.”

Finland and the Soviet Union, the Second World War, especially the period of occupation of Eastern Karelia, has always been more of a political than a historical issue for Russia.

“In the initial text of the note crisis, we were reminded of the new rise of German militarism, but we did not want to bring up the issues that could rub the relationship between Finland and Russia,” says Aunesluoma.

According to Vuonokari-Bomström, the period of occupation did not fit into the history of the Soviet Union. Now, however, the occupation period and the Second World War, as well as the broader discussions related to them, are constantly used in politics.

“Here we have returned to the fact that this is a political issue. It is not investigated in Russia as a matter in itself.”

According to Aunesluoma, Russia is now aiming for a complete historical narrative in which World War II has become the culmination point.

Russia still seems to have a different attitude towards Finland than some of its other neighboring countries.

For example, Ukraine appears in the Russian interpretation of history as a part of Russia that has forgotten its identity and has been misled by Russia’s enemies.

According to Juhana Aunesluoma, in an article published on the website of the Security Council, Finland appears as a clear political community and an active player.

“There will be a picture of some kind of distracted neighbor. Finland has made its own bad decisions.”

In going through the history of Finland, we initially focus on the time of the Grand Duchy and how Lenin accepted Finland’s independence. According to Aunesluoma, this also has a motive.

“This emphasizes the fact that a strong Russia is not necessarily a threat to its neighbors.”

Russian in any case, the state interpretation of history puts the Finnish researcher in a difficult position.

“It’s difficult to think about how to formulate things in such a way that we don’t give weapons to the Russian history policy to build a genocide narrative,” states Vuonokari-Bomström.

Although it would be good to understand the reality of the occupation of Eastern Karelia better on a general level, there is no shortage of researched information in Finland. Occupation has been studied a lot since the 1980s. According to Vuonokari-Bomström, Finland’s best weapon against the Russian interpretation of history is to rely on researched information and try to understand what happened and why.

“The worst mistake would be a complete hedgehog defense.”