Talk:Väinö I of Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Imperial Germany as mastermind behind Finland's independence?

I have some problems with this article. First, Friedrich Karl von Hessen and Väinö I of Finland are the same people.. why two articles. I do get the impression that this article is more about Finlands flirt with monarchy than the actualy "king".

Another thing is Germanys involvement.

On Germany's urge Finland had declared itself independent from Russia...

Germany recognised Finlands independence after Russia, Sweden and France. Germany didn't actually want to do it before they knew Lenin approved.

Independent Finland had initially, like the Baltic province, close ties with Imperial Germany.

This also sounds a bit strange. The ties grew stronger during the Civil War as there were no other countries that were willing to help Finland.

Germany had also made a military intervention in the Civil War in Finland, despite her own precarious situation.

Germany only intervened when it suited its own purposes, not when Finland wanted it to. Mannerheim threatened to resign when he heard that the Germans were coming.

-- Jniemenmaa 09:07, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

Right.

It's to a large degree about Germany's attempts to win the World War with unconventional means, specifically the aspects related to Finland, when the Kaiser's brother-in-law was to be put on Finland's throne. The page was created as there existed links to it. Some (but I doubt all) of which I was responsible for myself. I think much of the politics around the king-to-be is less relevant on a page on the "real person" as he himself wasn't particularly active, and as he never "really" became king of Finland, nor ever entered the territory - but that's my view, which maybe isn't the most suitable.

As the history of the monarchy and the king ends with Germany's defeat in World War I, there is not much more to write about the king than the "prehistory" of the monarchy.

Well, I heard he did wisit Finland afterwards and did like it.-- Jniemenmaa

The German policies were nothing which started suddenly. They are coherent through most of the war, and in particular after 1916.

If I have any personal aspirations, be it then the integration of different "natioinal histories". Personally I find it both sadening and slightly disturbing when strict national perspectives are limiting history writing, and in particular when parallell versions of the same events exist in different countries.

I could interpret this as that you think I am trying to "limit history writing with a strict national perspective". But I am not going to.-- Jniemenmaa

No, you shouldn't. It's a declaration on my ambitions, not on my perception of yours.

(In this case the differences are less between Finnish and German history view, but between Finnish and Estonian/Latvian. von der Goltz continued on the southern shore of the Gulf of Finland for a year and a half, or thereabout. On the other hand, it would be valuable to stress the differences between Finland and Balticum aswell as stressing the similarities.)

--Ruhrjung 13:14, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In this particular case, I've had the ambition to connect the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the post-WWI German fights in Balticum, and the attempts to dominate the territories taken from Russia in Brest-Litovsk through protectorates and similar constructs, which however - as we all know - went down the drain in November 1918.

This is of course an interesting period in history that I would like to know more about. Do you know of any good books on the subject? -- Jniemenmaa

Matti Klinge. ;-)) The period in Germany after Ludendorff & Hindenburg practically had seized power is covered in plenty of works, but only doctoral dissertations and similar works would be specializing on Finland or Balticum. But your Matti Klinge does!--Ruhrjung 13:14, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To suppress the connection to the events in Balticum would make the "flirt" in Finland less understandable.

I wasn't suggesting that. The events in the Baltic are interesting and connected to the Finnish situation.-- Jniemenmaa

In detail:

On Germany's urge Finland had declared itself independent from Russia...

Germany recognised Finlands independence after Russia, Sweden and France. Germany didn't actually want to do it before they knew Lenin approved.

Right. It was important to aquire Russian recognition. Maybe advice would be a more suitable word than urge - I don't know.

How did Germany advice Finland in this matter? My Finnish sources give the impression that Germany was quite pessimistic until Lenin gave his approval.

I'll have to return on that for an exact quote (hmmm... I shouldn't promise such a thing!). The October revolution had to be exploited. The negotiations for the Brest-Litovsk treaty was the vehicle. Finland's "pressure" was thought to increase the Bolsheviks' willingness for concessions in the negotiations.

Independent Finland had initially, like the Baltic province, close ties with Imperial Germany.

This also sounds a bit strange. The ties grew stronger during the Civil War as there were no other countries that were willing to help Finland.

Independent Finland's close ties to Imperial Germany couldn't be more than initial as that Germany ceased to exist in the end of 1918, but Finland remains still today.

As I understand the text, Finland had close ties with Germany from the beginning. But as I understand it happened was that the ties grew stronger, specifically after the Civil War, when there were allready German troops in Finland etc.

Svinhufvud's government had (according to my best knowledge) close ties from its begining, and Mannerheim was reluctant to these ties already before the Civil War. Then the bonds were further strengthened due the intervention by Jaegers and von der Goltz, and (and now I am on really thin ice!) I would assume that before the Civil War Finland's élite had close ties to Germany, after the Civil War Germany had earned a lot good will in broad layers of the society (like farmers), at the same time as the Civil War had demonstrated for many Finns that Democracy and Parliamentarism were dangerous things which maybe better were checked by a strong (but of course constitutional) monarchy.

The bonds had of course a history before the independence: As I've understood it, the activist independence movement (of which the Jaegers were an offspring) was primarily a movement among university youghts; and as Germany's standing in academia was in zenith, the activists admiration for German statecraft, German culture and Germany in general is not surprising.

Germany had also made a military intervention in the Civil War in Finland, despite her own precarious situation.

Germany only intervened when it suited its own purposes, not when Finland wanted it to. Mannerheim threatened to resign when he heard that the Germans were coming.

I agree. This is obviously a less-than-perfect wording. And you are of course totally right that Germany only intervened to suit her own purposes, but seen from the perspective of the Finns wasn't it the case that Germany had earned a lot good-will and prestige due to the military intervention in the Civil War (particularly in military circles, of course)?

I do not know really. Maybe I am giving too much attention to Mannerheim, who really didn't like the Germans. The current Finnish view is of course that the war had already been won, with the Battle of Tampere, before the German intervention came.

Regarding despite her own precarious situation in the article, when the German division landed in Hanko in April, the German army was still going strong in France. And didn't the Germans move a lot of divisions from the eastern front to the western after Brest-Litovsk?

Yes. It's my wording, and you make me eat it up. I'm not happy with it, but I tried to concentrate what I've understood (and maybe misunderstood) on Finnish feelings towards Germany. Make it better, or take it away if you find that better... ;-)

I'm also glad you corrected my mistake on when the Diet transformed into the Eduskunta. My problem is that written sources don't always make the distinction Landtag/Reichstag.

best regards! --Ruhrjung 10:28, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To sum it up: I was mostly reacting against the impression I got from reading the article that Germany masterminded the Finnish independence and was going to make Finland into a German province. -- Jniemenmaa

This is of course a problem, as this is how I read it too, and that's what I believe to be factual - although not "province"!

First of all, being under German influence was a much better alternative than under Russian, as the "oppression years" had showed.

Secondly, Finland was saved from this better alternative by Germany's defeat. I think Finland came out of the process much better off than the Baltic countries.

In Germany the thoughts had that direction. I do however have no ideas about to what degree the Finnish "stubbornness" was considered. Given Finland's records from the 19th century, it can in retrospect be assumed that any close ties between a Finnish monarhcy and a surviving German Empire would be moulded in Finnish forms, which probably would mean a pretty independent relation, except when it was in the Finnish government's interest to hide behind "demands from our benefactor".

In my perception, it's in a way a parallell to Åland. The Ålanders attempted to be re-annexed to Sweden, but in retrospect it turns out that it was beneficial for Åland to become a autonomous province under Finnish souvereignty instead. Similarly, Finland attempted to be re-annexed to the Western World through the (then-considered neccessary) protection of the Great Power Germany. In retrospect it turns out that it most probably was beneficial for Finland to be totally independent and sovereign.

Further, I would like to note that - in my personal view, at least - Germany's transition from empire to republic is somewhat overlooked as explanation to popular ideas (including the Dolchstoßlegende) making grounds for NSDAP.

I agree that the article would gain from being extended on how popular opinion in Finland became more pro-monarchist (and less democratic and parliamentarian) due to the Civil War.

--Ruhrjung 13:14, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I do not know what the popular opinions regarding monarchy were. All I've read about has been about how some wery influential people thought about monarchy. It must be remembered that the monarchists only had a chance because the social democrats were not allowed to join the Eduskunta, so there were only 111 MPs of 200. And even this reduced Parliament couldn't pass a law that would make Finland into a kingdom (they would have needed 2/3 of the votes). They had to weasel their way around it by using that old law. (I really wonder if the vote where they elected the king was legal.. why didn't it also need 2/3?) But anyway, in the election in 1919 the monarchists failed completely.

One thing you wrote earlier was interesting: "after the Civil War Germany had earned a lot good will in broad layers of the society (like farmers)" (sorry fo just cut-n-pasting your stuff out of context.) Now this I don't agree with, the agrarians in the Eduskunta were the primary opponents of the monarchy. I agree that the elite of the whites and military (ex. Mannerheim and others probably) were very German-minded. But what did the broad masses think? Did they want a king or democracy? Of course it is hard for us to find out. All I can see is that in the election in 1919, the agrarians gained a lot of votes and the social democrats made a strong comeback, only loosing 12 seats compared with the pre-civil war situation.

About, Matti Klinge. Well duh! :) Is there any part of history he hasn't written a book about? Even the lousy library here in Stockholm has a sh*tload of his books. Haven't read any of his books about late-WWI baltic history though. I'll check out the library next time I go there. :) -- Jniemenmaa 09:44, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

[edit] was the name of Finland's elected king ever suggested?

Check this out: http://kaltio.posiona.net/index.php?178

"Tuo väitetty hallitsijanimi Väinö on ihmeellinen epähistoriallinen harhatieto ja hokema, joka on muutaman kokkapuheen vuoksi jäänyt elämään moderniin kansanperinteeseen, sellaista ei koskaan vakavasti esitetty."

"The alleged ruler name Väinö is a miraculous unhistorical disinformation and nag that lives on in modern folklore because of some witticism. The name Väinö was never seriously suggested."

Friedrich Karl of Hesse´s name as King of Finland would probably been Kaarle or Kaarlo. There is no single official document were name Väinö is printed or written as ruler name.

---

What makes that source more credible than printed books and governmental www-sites? It was noted somewhere recently that the Eduskunta web site lists the name of the king-elect as Väinö I and so does http://gsteinbe.intrasun.tcnj.edu/royalty/houses/hesse-cassel.htm which is a amateurish site, but with input from devoted netizens. If there had been reasonable basis for doubts, don't you think usenet or either of these places had carried an indication thereof?
--Ruhrjung 03:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, I think our anonymous friend is in fact correct. After reading some more on the matter, I've also noticed that the name "Väinö I" was never used officialy. For instance the book "Kuninkaan tekijät" by Vesa Vares only mentions it briefly (the book is quite comprehensive but is written more from a monarchist POV).

But, as you say, the eduskunta website uses the name "Väinö I", at least on this page: [1] (maybe others too). -- Jniemenmaa 09:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've no problem to believe that (if you say so). My understanding of Finnish barely allows me to drive in Finland (although and sometimes I can catch the meaning of headlines and picture captions correctly). :-) So in other words, recent debate and new dissertations in Finnish-only are beyond my horizon. But don't you think that the changes to the affected articles could be done a little bit more wikipedic?
--Ruhrjung 09:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heck, you've written more on this subject than any of us finnish speakers have done... I'am afraid I'am too buzy to do more right now, but cut-n-pasting contents is not cool. So I'll revert to your last edit. -- Jniemenmaa 11:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would believe that Markus H. Korhonen (Kaltio´s article above) is right. He is after all an expert in history of monarchism in Europe. And I believe also that false information on Eduskunta web-site will be corrected soon.

And when that happends, or when credible English language sources give the same information, then it's time for Wikipedia to follow suite. Remember: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not!
--Ruhrjung 12:07, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I great you welcome to wikipedia. If you create a user account, which is really simple and without any privacy hazards at all, you can sign your talk page comments by four tildes ("~~~~"), which automagically expands to pseudonym and time-stamp. The only critical thing you have to do is the choise of username. To change that later is connected with a few disadvantages. Click on "Page history", "what links here" and other similar links to find userpages which might help you in your decission!
--Ruhrjung 12:15, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for first paragraph

I suggest changing the first paragraph to:

Fredrik Kaarle (Friedrich Karl), popularly known as Väinö I, was elected King of Finland, but renounced the throne after Imperial Germany's defeat in World War I.

Comments? I think it also needs to be made clearer that there is not a shred of historical evidence for the name Väinö, although it certainly is popular. Jpatokal 14:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unless you can point at authoritarian sources (like the Eduskunta-web site) that gives previdence for Fredrik Kaarle, I would rather propose something along the line:

Väinö I of Finland would, according to conventional wisdom... or ...is by many believed...

Wikipedia usually anglifiez royal names. A Finnish language spelling would be non-standard in a Wikipedia context. --Johan Magnus 06:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)