Litwin
Platinum Member
25 June. Stalin´s hordes attack on Finland , Stupidity or aggression?
"
Attention has to be paid also to the book’s publication year (1987). Professor Jokoipii could not have at that time the access to the information about plans and actions of the Soviet military-political leadership. This information was declassified and introduced in the scientific circulation in mid-1990’s. It would appear, the present-day Russian historians should have amended the picture of events in last peaceful months of 1941 with those facts, about which “the Soviet people was not informed either then or later”. Moreover, exactly with an invitation to such cooperation Professor Jokoipii concluded his book. “The discussion of that complex time certainly does not end with this... The third large-scale stage based on Russian archives in the process of opening now is still ahead... Only incorruptible memory can help peoples building their future on the foundation of the past. This, of course, in equal measure pertains to all sides of the former conflict” (Jokoipii, 1999).
“Incorruptible memory...” It remains only to wonder with simple-minded naïveté of the Western historians who cannot (do not want?) to understand a simple fact: their current Russian “colleagues”, whom they address with words “Mister Professor”, are no “Misters” at all but hundred percent “Comrades”, tested warriors of “party’s ideological front” turned “Professors” at the departments of Marxism-Leninism and History of the CPSU.
They “heard” Professor М. Jokoipii’s appeal as follows. In the year the book was published, nobody in the USSR paid particular attention to it. The Soviet historiography at that time did not need a “collection of damaging evidence” about Finland’s foreign policy. Even without it, “everybody knew” that Finland was guilty of everything. The situation changed in 10 years when in a post-perestroika Russia a public discussion became possible about the role of Stalin’s empire in unleashing the Second World War. In 1999, they remembered the monograph by М.Jokoipii, translated and published in Russian. Bias showed up right away, on the cover, in how the book title was translated. “Jatkosodan synty” literally means “birth (emergence, creation) of the continuation war”. But as in the Soviet historiography use of the term “continuation war” was equated with an act of “ideological sabotage”, the book title was translated as “Finland on the way to war”. Ultimately, they shredded the monumental work by М.Jokoipii into “quotations”, and their biased usage “embellishes” today almost every publication devoted to the subject of 25 June 1941 .
It gets worse and worse as it goes on. In 2003, Professor V.N. Baryshnikov (a son of the aforementioned N.I. Baryshnikov) published a book entitled “Entering of Finland in the Second World War. 1940 —1941 ” (Baryshnikov, 2003). The general trend of the book is unfolded in 326 pages of “incitement in the Finland case” where profusely quoted fragments from Jokoipii and Seppälä publications are harmoniously amended by recollections of the former Stalin’s intelligence resident Е.Sinitsin. For instance, included is eavesdropped in the Finnish representation building in Moscow conversation, whose participants “spoke out quite certainly that in case Germany attacks the Soviet Union Finland will not be on the Russian side”. Very interesting. Did managers of those, who installed “bugs”, count on something different? Did they hope that robbed and raped Finland would rush to save the rapist? But most surprising is that three years thereafter the same V.N. Baryshnikov wrote that “the Finnish leadership did not have other options of political evolution besides following the way of military-political cooperation with Germany” (Baryshnikov, Gorodetsky et al. 2006)."
so what do you think?
Mark Solonin. Historian's personal webpage.Mark Solonin. 25 June. Stupidity or aggression? Part 1
Mark Solonin. Historian's personal webpage.Mark Solonin
"
Attention has to be paid also to the book’s publication year (1987). Professor Jokoipii could not have at that time the access to the information about plans and actions of the Soviet military-political leadership. This information was declassified and introduced in the scientific circulation in mid-1990’s. It would appear, the present-day Russian historians should have amended the picture of events in last peaceful months of 1941 with those facts, about which “the Soviet people was not informed either then or later”. Moreover, exactly with an invitation to such cooperation Professor Jokoipii concluded his book. “The discussion of that complex time certainly does not end with this... The third large-scale stage based on Russian archives in the process of opening now is still ahead... Only incorruptible memory can help peoples building their future on the foundation of the past. This, of course, in equal measure pertains to all sides of the former conflict” (Jokoipii, 1999).
“Incorruptible memory...” It remains only to wonder with simple-minded naïveté of the Western historians who cannot (do not want?) to understand a simple fact: their current Russian “colleagues”, whom they address with words “Mister Professor”, are no “Misters” at all but hundred percent “Comrades”, tested warriors of “party’s ideological front” turned “Professors” at the departments of Marxism-Leninism and History of the CPSU.
They “heard” Professor М. Jokoipii’s appeal as follows. In the year the book was published, nobody in the USSR paid particular attention to it. The Soviet historiography at that time did not need a “collection of damaging evidence” about Finland’s foreign policy. Even without it, “everybody knew” that Finland was guilty of everything. The situation changed in 10 years when in a post-perestroika Russia a public discussion became possible about the role of Stalin’s empire in unleashing the Second World War. In 1999, they remembered the monograph by М.Jokoipii, translated and published in Russian. Bias showed up right away, on the cover, in how the book title was translated. “Jatkosodan synty” literally means “birth (emergence, creation) of the continuation war”. But as in the Soviet historiography use of the term “continuation war” was equated with an act of “ideological sabotage”, the book title was translated as “Finland on the way to war”. Ultimately, they shredded the monumental work by М.Jokoipii into “quotations”, and their biased usage “embellishes” today almost every publication devoted to the subject of 25 June 1941 .
It gets worse and worse as it goes on. In 2003, Professor V.N. Baryshnikov (a son of the aforementioned N.I. Baryshnikov) published a book entitled “Entering of Finland in the Second World War. 1940 —1941 ” (Baryshnikov, 2003). The general trend of the book is unfolded in 326 pages of “incitement in the Finland case” where profusely quoted fragments from Jokoipii and Seppälä publications are harmoniously amended by recollections of the former Stalin’s intelligence resident Е.Sinitsin. For instance, included is eavesdropped in the Finnish representation building in Moscow conversation, whose participants “spoke out quite certainly that in case Germany attacks the Soviet Union Finland will not be on the Russian side”. Very interesting. Did managers of those, who installed “bugs”, count on something different? Did they hope that robbed and raped Finland would rush to save the rapist? But most surprising is that three years thereafter the same V.N. Baryshnikov wrote that “the Finnish leadership did not have other options of political evolution besides following the way of military-political cooperation with Germany” (Baryshnikov, Gorodetsky et al. 2006)."
so what do you think?
Mark Solonin. Historian's personal webpage.Mark Solonin. 25 June. Stupidity or aggression? Part 1
Mark Solonin. Historian's personal webpage.Mark Solonin
