Finnish War- Responsibility Trial in 1. The Limits of Ad Hoc Criminal Justice?(I) Global and Local Histories(1) Tell me a story. The story of the Finnish war- responsibility trial in 1.
Finland it is difficult to hide from that part of history. The trial has remained a sore point, at any time susceptible to controversy and vivid emotions. For some of the contemporaries, the trial was part of the preparation for revolution, behind which the whole of international communism was mobilized.
For others, criminal responsibility was simply evident and the absence of pre- existing national legislation on the crimes a detail. In the midst of the claims on violation of the legality principle, victors’ justice or national political vengeance, the story of the trial became a battlefield of political, ideological and generational conflicts and identification. Commentaries, legal actions and political motions have proliferated throughout the decennia. Recently, an annulment claim in the Supreme Court of Finland, followed by a complaint in the European Court of Human Rights, brought the trial into the limelight again. In this sense, the story of the Finnish trial situates its narrator directly in the middle of the questions of (collective) memory and its politics: what does the memory of the trial represent and to whom? Why does the story of this trial matter so much?
Likewise, the teller is confronted with the discussion on the judicial treatment of (legal) history: can the past be redone, improved the second time? How should today’s democracies look back to legally deficient past trials, if at all? Should controversial judgments be annulled or public apologies presented, as is frequently proposed in Finland? What messages would the annulment or excuse send to the society concerned? What would it tell about that society? This is clearly one important way to look at the Finnish story, and this chapter will address it.
The war in Lapland 1944 - 1945. The Soviets agreed to the armistice of September 4/5. The troops moved from the seaport towards the town and got in battle.
1945: Hungarian Armistice. Allied occupation forces set up a provisional occupation government in Austria as the first step towards. World War II (1939 - 1945. US troops halt the Japanese island-hopping advance towards Australia at. Finland concludes an armistice with the. Almost all T-28 and T-34 tanks that saw Finnish use were. During the advance towards city of . Soviet armistice treaty in.
Another way to make sense of telling this story today, in 2. Finland is one of the most unconditional supporters. This approach situates the story in our current interrogations on the legality and rationality of ad hoc or hybrid trials, as well as on the complementarity of national jurisdictions and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Generally in that project, a criminal trial is seen both as an accomplishment as such, and as having the potential of delivering positive results. This chapter examines this assumption in the context of the Finnish trial that we could—stretching our imagination and tolerance to anachronism—see as a predecessor of a national trial replacing an international one in the spirit of complementarity. But let us start at the beginning.(2) Of a tiny, young state in world wars from 1.
The winter had been frightful; the terrible cold, hunger, hardships and toil had shrunk the faces of the Finnish people. The hard, bony features of the Kalevala heroes, as painted by Gallen Kallela, were showing again in the pale fleshless faces. In 1. 93. 8, the Soviet Union, threatened by Germany, started to pressure Finland with territorial claims to gain space for its defence, in particular to protect the city of Leningrad. After failed negotiations conducted under tense circumstances and repeated threats on Finland’s territorial integrity, the Soviet Union attacked Finland in November 1. Finland was requesting help from its Nordic neighbours and beyond. It received mainly moral or political support, including the exclusion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations.
Year 1945: 240: The most active ships. After the Armistice Finland had to lay some mine. Anglo-American forces break out of the Normandy beachhead and race eastward towards Paris. Finland concludes an armistice with the. The story of the Finnish war-responsibility trial in 1945–6.
Promises of military help by the UK and France did not materialize. Finland’s army was small, unprepared and poorly equipped compared to the Red Army, but managed to defend its territory longer than expected. However, by the end of February 1. Finland was at the point of military collapse.
On the Finnish side, some 2. On the Soviet side, 1. Finland and the Soviet Union concluded the Moscow Peace Treaty in March 1. The conditions of peace were considered extremely hard by the Finns, forcing Finland to cede some eleven percent of its territory and some thirty percent of its economic assets, to accept a Soviet military base on its coast, and to evacuate and resettle over 4. Despite the peace treaty, the Finnish government continued to keep the army on war alert, referring to the tense situation in the widening Second World War. It undertook important fortification and rearmament projects.
As a result, Finland’s military preparedness was remarkably higher soon after the Winter War than before it. Establishment of good relations with Germany became a priority for the government, while the relations with the Soviet Union were tense, with several minor conflicts arising from the implementation of the peace treaty. In September 1. 94. Germany was concluded, granting troop transfers in Finland to supply the German troops in Northern Norway. At the latest in spring 1. Finland was negotiating its participation in Germany’s war effort on the Finnish front and thus preparing for the war that was generally considered as a continuation of the Winter War, and by many as an opportunity for seeking compensation for the losses of it.
The Continuation War started in June 1. By September, Finland had reached its previous borders. In Eastern Karelia, it crossed the pre- war borders and occupied areas that had never been part of the Finnish territory, but were populated by peoples linguistically related to Finns. Occupation of these territories meant interning a significant number of Soviet civilians of mainly Russian or Ukrainian origins in concentration camps.
The total death toll amongst camp inmates is estimated at 4,0. The treatment of civil population considered as representatives of the kindred peoples of Finland was preferential in the occupied territories.
Occupation of the Soviet territories was condemned by several states previously on friendly terms with Finland. The widespread international empathy Finland had benefited from as the tiny victim of the Soviet aggression in the Winter War started to fade away. This development isolated Finland internationally, thus making it even more dependent on Germany for food and military supplies. A further point of international criticism was the treatment of Soviet prisoners- of- war (POWs). Some thirty per cent of the estimated 6. Soviet POWs died in Finnish prison camps.
After a two- and- a- half- year standstill in the hostilities, during which Germany’s future defeat started to become evident, the Soviet Union intensified its counter- offensive in summer 1. It drove the Finns back to behind the 1. Finland to accept an armistice. Finland had lost 6. On the Soviet side, some 2. The Moscow Armistice between the Soviet Union and the UK with Finland in September 1.
Finnish territories even further than in the 1. Soviet Union, the dismantlement of Finnish . Most importantly, the Armistice obliged Finland to actively disarm and remove German troops from Finland. In the Lapland War between Finland and Germany that followed from this obligation in 1.
Northern Finland was devastated. The Paris Peace Treaty in 1. Moscow Armistice.(3) Of how stories matter. Soldiers! The ground you are stepping on is holy ground, impregnated by the blood and suffering of our people. Your victories will free Karelia, your accomplishments will bring Finland a great, happy future.
One of the most controversial questions in recent Finnish history deals with the character of the Continuation War: was Finland an ally of Nazi Germany or merely fighting a ? Proponents of the latter maintain that while participating in the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1. Operation Barbarossa), Finland was solely engaged in its own fight to restore the injustice and the lost territories of the Winter War. The situation was simply too difficult for a young, tiny, pacific state caught in the middle of two dangerous giants: its communist neighbour, the Soviet Union, and its historical, cultural ally Germany, now ruled by an aggressive dictator. There were no alternatives to the Continuation War: it was a political necessity, a battle for survival.
In this light the war begins to look like self- defence since, the argument goes, the Soviet Union (or Germany) would have attacked Finland in any case. To support this narrative of a separate war, it is often stated that Finland did not sign the Tripartite Pact, unlike the Axis Countries (of course, the Tripartite Pact did not as such contain any obligation to fight a common war).
World War Two: Summary Outline of Key Events. In France an armistice was signed with Germany. US troops halt the Japanese island-hopping advance towards Australia at Guadalcanal in. Finland concludes an armistice with the.
Finland adhered to written and oral agreements on practical cooperation with Germany and de facto acted as its ally, allowing, for example, for the presence of some 2. Wehrmacht soldiers in Finland. Based on this, it has been maintained that as a military ally Finland’s position can be qualified as an independent co- belligrent of Germany, not decisively different from Hungary, Italy or Romania. The idea of a . It is commonly maintained that the Finnish government or administration refrained from the extermination campaign against Jews. While notorious examples of deplorable treatment of foreign Jews, either as refugees or Soviet POWs in Finnish custody, exist. Jewish citizens of Finland were in general well integrated in the society and not discriminated against, including in the army.
As a result, Finnish Jews fought in the Finnish army together with the Germans in the Continuation War. A few Finnish Jews were granted German decorations for their acts in the front, but declined to accept them. A few post- war studies and some recent ones have criticized the . These controversies are evoked simply because they have a decisive effect on the way the object of our story—the war responsibility trial—is seen in Finland: if the war was separate and ? While keeping these sensibilities concerning the Continuation War in mind, we will now turn to the trial itself.(4) Of the law establishing the Tribunal and criminal responsibility.
Consular History- 1. The following day Soviet forces crossed the Finnish frontier allegedly to forestall German forces using Finland as a base of operations. Finland thereupon declared war on the Soviet Union (June 2. Germany. Following the outbreak of war between the United States and Germany, United States policy was directed towards bringing about a break between Finland and Germany and peace between Russia and Finland. With a view towards making the Finns realize the seriousness with which the United States viewed continued Finnish collaboration with Germany, the United States severed consular relations with Finland on July 1. June 3. 0, 1. 94.
The Swiss Minister, Mr. Karl Egger, took over the protection of American interests in Finland and American members of the Legation’s staff departed for Sweden on July 4th.
In February 1. 94. Legation building suffered considerable damage from shell fragments and concussion as a result of a Soviet air raid on Helsinki. On September 4, 1. Finland ceased military operations against the Soviet Union, withdrew from the war against the Soviet Union and Great Britain, and broke off relations with Germany.
On September 1. 9, 1. Finland concluded an armistice with the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom acting on behalf of the other nations at war with Finland. Following the renewal of Finland’s position in the war, our office in Helsinki was reopened as the United States Mission in Finland with the arrival in Helsinki on January 1. Foreign Service Officer L. On February 2. 4,1. Minister Maxwell M.
Hamilton, who had been designated United States Representative in Finland, arrived and assumed charge of the mission. Formal diplomatic relations between the United States and Finland were resumed on September 1, 1. Legation and Mr. Hamilton became American Minister to Finland. In accordance with the program for acquisition by the United States of real property located abroad against credits advanced to foreign governments, the United States acquired from the Finnish government on August 1. No. 1. 1, situated in block No. Helsinki (formerly Soderyhelm property), price $6. Lot No. February 1.
Warren took the oath of office as Ambassador to Finland which was administered by Harold J. About 1. 00 persons were present. Champagne was served. Leading newspapers carried photographs and captions of the ceremony. Cabot arrived by A. O. A. They were met at the airport by all Legation Diplomatic and Service Officers with their wives and by Mr.
The entire Legation staff with their wives assembled in the drawing room to greet Minister and Mrs. Chase, Counselor of the Legation, proposed a toast. Champagne was served. Shortly after her arrival, Mrs. Cabot started laying plans to open a lunch room in order that Legation personnel might obtain a warm lunch.
The following committee was elected: Robert M. Broudin, Chairman. Capt. Shirl Swenson. Constance Pope. Elvi Kaukokallio. Mr. Repin. In order to raise the initial capital required to purchase silver, dishes, napkins etc., common shares and preferred shares at 1.
Fmk were sold. Everyone using the lunch room was required to purchase one common share. The preferred shares are to be paid off in full at a time when the lunch room shows a profit. The common shares will be paid off when the individual ceases to make use of the lunch room or in case of liquidation. Prices for the meals were set up as follows: Set plate or sandwich 8.
Fmk. Bread and butter 2. Fmk. Beverages (a milk, a coffee or one of each) 2. Fmk. Dessert 2. 5 Fmk. The lunch room was opened on May 2, 1. Minister’s residence.