Järjestö jäänmurtajana : Suomen merimiesunioni työmarkkinaosapuolena ja suomalaisten laivatyöntekijöiden turvallisuuden vankentajana 1944-1980

Like an Icebreaker: The Finnish Seamen s Union as collective bargaining maverick and champion of sailors social safety 1944-1980. The Finnish Seamen's Union (FSU), which was established on a national basis in 1920, was one of the first Finnish trade unions to succeed in collective bargaining. In the early 1930s, the gains made in the late 1920s were lost, due to politically based internal rivalries, the Great Depression, and a disastrous strike. Unexpectedly the FSU survived and went on promoting the well-being of its members even during World War II. After the war the FSU was in an exceptionally favorable position to exploit the introduction of coordinated capitalism, which was based on social partnership between unions, employers and government. Torpedoes, mines and confiscations had caused severe losses to the Finnish merchant marine. Both ship-owners and government alike understood the crucial importance of using the remaining national shipping capacity effectively. The FSU could no longer be crushed, and so, in 1945, the union was allowed to turn all ocean-going Finnish ships into closed shops. The FSU also had another source of power. After the sailors of the Finnish icebreaker fleet also joined its ranks, the FSU could, in effect, block Finnish foreign trade in wintertime. From the late 1940s to the 1960s the union started and won numerous icebreaker strikes. Finnish seamen were thus granted special pension rights, reductions on income taxes and import duties, and other social privileges. The FSU could neither be controlled by union federations nor intimidated by employers or governments. The successful union and its tactically clever chairperson, Niilo Välläri, were continuously but erroneously accused of syndicalism. Välläri did not aim for socialism but wanted the Finnish seamen to get all the social benefits that capitalism could possibly offer. Välläri s policy was successfully followed by the FSU until the late 1980s when Finnish ship-owners were allowed to flag their vessels outside the national registry. Since then the FSU has been on the defensive and has yielded to pay cuts. The FSU members have not lost their social benefits, but they are under constant fear of losing their jobs to cheap foreign labor.

Salaiset aseveljet : Suomen ja Saksan turvallisuuspoliisiyhteistyö 1933-1944

Salaiset aseveljet deals with the relations and co-operation between Finnish and German security police authorities, the Finnish valtiollinen poliisi and the German Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) and its predecessors. The timeframe for the research stretches from the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 to the end of German-Finnish co-belligerency in 1944. The Finnish Security Police was founded in 1919 to protect the young Finnish Republic from the Communists both in Finland and in Soviet Russia. Professional ties to German colleagues were maintained during the 1920 s, and quickly re-established after the Nazis rose to power in Germany. Typical forms of co-operation concentrated on the fight against both domestic and international Communism, a concern particularly acute in Finland because of her exposed position as a neighbour to the Soviet Union. The common enemy proved to be a powerful unifying concept. During the 1930 s the forms of co-operation developed from regular and routine exchanges of information into personal acquaintancies between the Finnish Security Police top personnel and the highest SS-leadership. The critical period of German-Finnish security police co-operation began in 1941, as Finland joined the German assault on the Soviet Union. Together with the Finnish Security Police, the RSHA set up a previously unknown special unit, the Einsatzkommando Finnland, entrusted with the destruction of the perceived ideological and racial enemies on the northernmost part of the German Eastern Front. Joint actions in northern Finland led also members of the Finnish Security Police to become participants in mass murders of Communists and Jews. Post-war criminal investigations into war crimes cases involving former security police personnel were invariably stymied because of the absence of usually both the suspects and the evidence. In my research I have sought to combine the evidence gathered through an exhaustive study of Finnish Security Police archival material with a wide selection of foreign sources. Important new evidence has been gathered from archives in Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden and the United States. Piece by piece, it has become possible to draw a comprehensive picture of the ultimately fateful relationship of the Finnish Security Police to its mighty German colleague.

Käsityötä, kotiteollisuutta ja sosiaalihuoltoa : Työtupa Aunuksessa 1941-1944

When Finland occupied East Karelian territories in Soviet Union during The Continuation War (1941 1944) Finnish people had also to take care of the inhabitants of the occupied East Karelia. For example there was a lack of clothes and shoes during the wartime. In order to facilitate clothing situation and to provide more opportunities to work for women, Finnish people founded some workshops in East Karelia. Workshops also helped to collect East Karelian craft products. One of the workshops was founded in the city of Olonets in October 1941 and it was in operation until June 1944. This workshop is the subject of this thesis. The aim of this thesis is to find out with the microhistorical approach what kind of functions the workshop of Olonets had during The Continuation War and who worked in the workshop. In this thesis I also examine women s crafts in the Olonets workshop and their meaning during the wartime. I collected the material of this thesis from different places. In February 2010 I interviewed Talvikki Lausala, the leader of the Olonets workshop, who worked in the Olonets from May 1942 to June 1944. From the Virkki Käsityömuseo I looked for objects which have been made in the workshop of Olonets. Tyyne-Kerttu Virkki collected crafts from the East Karelia when she was working in the area and in the workshop from 1941 to 1944. Archive material I found from the Finnish National archive and from the archive of the Tyyne-Kerttu Virkki -Foundation. East Karelian women and girls who were not able to do anything else came to work in the Olonets workshop. If women could not go to work outside of home, they had an option to do the same crafts at home. There were three Finnish women, Tyyne-Kerttu Virkki, Talvikki Lausala and Sofi Nyrkkö, who worked and led in the workshop of Olonets. In addition to the workshop, there was a dress maker s atelier in which clothes were made to order and soldiers uniforms were repaired, a small museum and a shop to sell products of the workshop. Craft products were also exported to Finland. Courses were organized in which Finnish women taught East Karelian crafts.

Juutalaisvastaisuus suomalaisissa aikakauslehdissä ja kirjallisuudessa 1918-1944

Anti-Semitism existed in Finland during the whole period covered by this study. The immoral acts associated with Jews in the articles were mostly regarded as universal habits, qualities and/or modes of action, that is, unconnected with any particular Finnish Jew. Researchers have tried to explain anti-Semitism in several ways. The theory of Jews as outsiders has been a popular explanation as well as xenophobia, chimerical anti-Semitism and the socio-economic models. The main sources of this study have been over 400 Finnish periodicals and magazines, literature and text books published between 1918 and 1944. This vast number of magazines includes those of the army and the civil guard, religion, humour and the papers of the Finnish extreme right. One can see a distinct foreign and especially German influence in the subjects and phraseology of Finnish anti-Semitic writings between 1918 and 1944. Several known Finnish anti-Semitic writers had some kind of link with Germany. Some Finnish organisations and societies were openly anti-Semitic during this period. There had been cycles in the activity of anti-Semitic writing in Finland, obvious peaks appearing in 1918 1919, 1929 1931, 1933 1938 and 1942 1944. The reason for the 1918 1919 activity was the civil rights which were granted to the Jews in Finland, and the Russian Bolshevik revolution. The worldwide depression from 1929 to 1932 seem to be the reason for new anti-Semitic writing activity. The rise of National Socialism in Germany and the influence this phenomenon had in Finland was the reason for the peak during 1933 1938. During the continuation war 1942 1944 National Socialist Germany was fighting side-by-side with Finland and their anti-Semitic propaganda found easier access to Finland. Of the 433 magazines, journals and newspapers which were used in this study, 71 or 16.4 per cent had at least one article that can be identified as anti-Semitic; especially the magazines of national socialists and other extreme right parties were making anti-Semitic annotations. There were about 50 people known to have written anti-Semitic articles. At least half of these known writers had studied at the university, including as many as 10 priests. Over and above these, there was an even larger number of people who wrote under a pseudonym. The material used suggested that anti-Semitism was not very popular in Finland between 1918 and 1944. Anti-Semitic articles appeared mostly in the magazines of the extreme right, but their circulation was not very large. A proof of the slight influence of these extreme right anti-Semitic ideas is that, beside the tightening of policy towards Jewish immigrants in 1938 and the handing over of eight of these refugees to Germany in 1942, the official policy of Finland never became anti-Semitic. As was stated before, despite the cycles in the number of writings, there does not appear to have been any noticeable change in public opinion. One must also remember that most Finns had not at that period actually met a Jew. The material used suggests that between 1918 and 1944 the so-called Jewish question was seemingly unimportant for most Finns and their attitude to Jews and Jewishness can be described as neutral.

Kiista, eheys, unohdus : Vapaussodan muistaminen suojeluskunnan ja veteraaniliikkeen toiminnassa 1918-1944

Conflict, Unity, Oblivion: Commemoration of the Liberation War by the Civic Guard and the Veterans´ Union in 1918-1944 The Finnish Civil War ended in May 1918 as a victory for the white side. The war was named by the winners as the Liberation War and its legacy became a central theme for public commemorations during the interwar period. At the same time the experiences of the defeated were hindered from becoming a part of the official history of Finland. The commemoration of the war was related not only to the war experience but also to a national mission, which was seen fulfilled with the independence of Finland. Although the idea of the commemoration was to form a unifying non-political scene for the nation, the remembrance of the Liberation War rather continued than sought to reconcile to the conflict of 1918. The outbreak of the war between the Soviet Union and Finland in 1939 immediately affected the memory culture. The new myth of the Miracle of the Winter War, which referred to the unity shown by the people, required a marginalization of controversial memory of the Liberation War. This study examines from the concepts of public memory and narrative templates how the problematic experience of a civil war developed to a popular public commemoration. Instead of dealing with the manipulative and elite-centered grandiose commemoration projects, the study focuses on the more modest local level and emphasizes the significance of local memory agents and narrative templates of collective memory. The main subjects in the study are the Civil Guard and the Veterans´ Union. Essential for the widespread movement was the development of the Civic Guard from a wartime organization to a peacetime popular movement. The guards, who identified themselves trough the memories and the threats of civil war, formed a huge network of memory agents in every corner of the country. They effectively linked both local memory with official memory and the civic society with the state level. Only with the emergence of the right wing veteran movement in the 30ies did the tensions grow between the two levels of public memory. The study shows the diversity of the commemoration movement of the Liberation War. It was not only a result of a nation-state project and political propaganda, but also a way for local communities to identify and strengthen themselves in a time of political upheaval and uncertainty.

Paimen vailla hiippakuntaa : Kenttäpiispan viran synty ja vaikutus sotilaspapiston asemaan Suomen puolustusvoimissa ja kirkossa vuosina 1939 - 1944

The main purpose of this research is to shed light on the factors that gave rise to the office of Field Bishop in the years 1939-1944. How did military bishophood affect the status of the head of military pastoral care and military clergy during these years? The main sources of my research are the collections in the Finnish National Archives, and I use a historical-qualitative method. The position of the military clergy was debated within both the Church and the Defence Forces before 1939. At that stage, Church law did not yet recognize the office of the leading military priest, the Field Dean. There had been a motion in 1932 to introduce the office of a military bishop, but the bishops' synod blocked it. The concept of Field Bishop appeared for the first time in 1927 in a Finnish military document, which dealt with pastoral care in the Polish military. The Field Dean in Finland had regularly proposed improvements to the salary of the military clergy before the Winter War. After the Winter War, arguments were made for strengthening the position of the military clergy: these arguments were based on the increased respect shown towards this clergy, especially due to their role in the care of the fallen, which had become their task during the war. Younger members of the military clergy in particular supported the demands to improve their position within the Church and the army. The creation of a Field Bishop was perceived as strengthening the whole military clergy, as the Field Bishop was envisioned as a bishop within the Church and a general within the Defence Forces. During that time the Field Dean was still without any military rank. The idea of a Field Bishop was recommended to Mannerheim in June 1940, after which the Defence Forces lent their support to the cause. The status of the military clergy, in Church law, made it to the agenda of the Church council in January 1941, thanks largely to the younger priests' group influence and Mannerheim's leverage. The bishops opposed the notion of a Field Bishop mostly on theological grounds but were ready to concede that the position the Field Dean in Church law required further defining. The creation of the office of Field Bishop was blocked in the Church law committee report issued close to the beginning of the Continuation War. The onset of that war, however, changed the course of events, as the President of the Republic appointed Field Dean Johannes Björklund as Field Bishop. Speculation has abounded about Mannerheim's role in the appointment, but the truth of the matter is not clear. The title of Field Bishop was used to put pressure on the Church, and, at the same time, Mannerheim could remain detached from the matter. Later, in September 1941, the Church council approved the use of the Field Bishop title to denote the head of military pastoral care in Church law, and Field Bishops were assigned some of the duties formerly pertaining to bishops. Despite all expectations and hopes, the new office of Field Bishop did not affect the status of the military clergy within the Defence Forces, as no ranks were established for them, and their salary did not improve. However the office of the Field Bishop within Army HQ was transformed from a bureau into a department in the summer of 1942. At the beginning of the Continuation War, the Field Bishop was criticized by certain military and Church clergy for favouring Russian Orthodox Christians in Eastern Karelia. Björklund agreed in principle with most of the Lutheran clergy on the necessity of Lutheranizing East Karelia but had to take into account the realities at Army HQ. As well, at the same time the majority of the younger clergy were serving in the army, and there was a lack of parish priests on the home front. Bishop Lehtonen had actually expressed the wish that more priests could have been released from the front to serve in local parishes. In his notes Lehtonen accused Björklund of trying to achieve the position of Field Bishop by all possible means. However, research has revealed a varied group of people behind the creation of the office of Field Bishop, including in particular younger clergy and the Defence Forces.