RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set eval="<date part=second>" variable="start_s">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set eval="<date part=minute>" variable="start_m">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set eval="<date part=hour>" variable="start_t">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set eval="<countdown seconds since iso=1997-12-01>" variable="surfer_time">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="accept_index is 0">
 | <if variable="accept_index is 0">

The home pages for the Usenet newsgroup soc.culture.nordic

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="print is 1">
 | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">

<< -

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="print is 1">
 | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">
 | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">

- >>

A short time ago Jens Paananen quoted the member of Finland's
parliament Jörn Donner, who (surely not being so very serious) had
proposed Finland to trade the Åland-islands to Sweden, but Jens
Paananen concludes Sweden wouldn't be interrested any longer:

> They tried in the twenties to get it by force, Swedish troops
> occupied some of the islands until the League of Nations concluded
> that Aland is a part of Finland.


Lars Arnestam <lars.arnestam@al.etx.ericsson.se> writes:

> > When did this happen?
> > 
> > Why did Swedish troops occupy the territory?

> A Swedish expeditionary force, supported by heavy naval units, was
> stationed at Aland during the winter 1917/1918.  The aim of this
> expedition was ostensibly to preserve peace on the islands by disarming
> both sides (the Red and the White) in a potential civil war.  This was
> done; however, I would imagine (although that was not said) that this
> was also intended to emphasize Swedish interest in, or claims to, the
> Aland islands.

This is a topic which is covered in the soc.culture.nordic newsgroup
now and then, last time about a year ago, when Jan Böhme resumed:

> I still think that there seems to be a historical myth about the
> Åland issue in Finland. Sweden did not want Åland in 1920, at least
> not to the expense of any trouble with the government of Finland.
> However, at that time a VERY large majority of the Ålanders (96%)
> wanted to belong to Sweden. They were denied this, and Sweden
> essentially didn't make any fuss. How can this be construed as a
> Swedish expansionist aggression?

In order to get a better grip of the issue, I've searched among the old s.c.nordic articles, and read (in) a few books and encyclopædias. Below I'll concentrate on the for many Finns obviously most astonishing aspect: How could Sweden betray (the White) Finland and support the separatists on Åland with military presense? This is as far as I can find a topic which hasn't interrested writers outside of Finland very much.

I'll also make clear that my aim (at this point) isn't to try to produce The Truth, but the make the different versions that visible that all participants might start to question the version we until now have been taught.

One can remark that this book by Nils Meinander is particularly interesting in as much it being a mirror of the views of the Finland-Swedes who seem to have been as decided as any Finn, that the Åland islands must not be ceeded as was the wish of the Ålanders. (One of many points in this affair hard for people in Sweden to understand.)

Nils Meander's text states that the humanitarian goal with the Swedish mediation between the combatants should have been a cover for "something else" - what is however not specified, and as far as I can understand from Jens Paananen's mail, Meander's assertation is not substantiated by historical sources.

I translate:

[In connection with a battle between Russian troops, domestic Reds and the domestic White forces at Godby: ]

Negotiations regarding the Russians leaving the battle field was again started. Before the negotiatiors had had time to come to any definite proposals emerged some Swedish naval officers at the White staff. They had their government's commision to mediate. A Swedish troop landed at the same time at Eckerö. Behind this surprising intervention of a third part was a deliberate political will. The action was announced as a humanitarian operation with the goal to protect the population from unneccessary suffering, but it was also something else.

According to the plans should the White troops be persuaded to leave their weapon and be transported to Finland, whereafter also the Russians should leave.

The Swedish intervention was slowly winded up as the Germans started their action to help the White Finland by landing troops on Eckerö.

The Swedish intervention arose both astonishment and rancour. As the citizens had arisen to strengthen the newly won liberty by driving the Russians away, the official Sweden turned down all forms of participation. Not even transit of weapon was allowed. But military activity aiming at occupying the neighbors territory was however deemed appropriate by the Swedes.

[ original text at the bottom of this article ] Let me first conclude that also the text above makes it evident that the Swedish troops never gave any other impression than having a purely humanitarian mission. The Swedish troops did not engage in battle and did not behave as if they were an occupant claiming right to the territory.

Secondly, I can see a clear expression of disappointment over the Swedish government's lacking enthusiasm for one of the two sides in the civil war of Finland. It has to be remembered that the civil war was still undecided and evenly fought when White troops landed at Åland February 10. 1918. And the relations was not later improved between the White Finland and the different Swedish governments quickly succeeding each other around 1920. The start was bad with White's harsh treatment of the losing part of Finland's population (after the civil war) and the Åland affair lasted until 1922. And then neighter side had any reason to exertions to improve the relations. I suggest that the later development has colored the authors memory of the Swedes in even darker shades.

For the third I think the relation above has factual errors. Not only regarding the unsupported statement that the Swedish government should have planned to gain Åland by military forces, but also on a point which Nils Melander ought to have knowledge about: According to other sources it was the White troop which requested help from Sweden to get re-united with the White main forces in north western Finland.

For Sweden the governmental situation of the years 1914-1932 is complicated, but it ought to be stressed that the last Swedish Cabinet without parliamentary support resigned in 1917 and was succeeded by a "leftist" Cabinet (dominated by Liberals I suppose). Before the government's resignment the German Emperor had declined the Conservative request for support to re-gain (or re-conquer) Åland from Germany's enemy Russia, and thereby the issue was dead also for the military and the most Conservative circles. The opinion in Sweden was not at all prepared for any military actions outside of Sweden. The opposition from Agrarians, Liberals and Social Democrats would have been letal. At the time for Åland's declarations and petitisions Sweden's anti-militaristic and war-tired Cabinet can hardly be suspected for any plans to enlarge Sweden's territory.

Quoting from another engaged source, the booklet "Den historiska bakgrunden till Ålands självstyrelse" by Matts Dreijer from Åland, I would recall the following scenario:

March/April 1917: The Russian Emperor abdicates, whereafter leading men on Åland start making plans for a liberation from Russia.

May: The Swedish member of parliament (prof.) Nils Edén is approached by a private person from Åland who has selected Nils Edén as the best possible advocate for the Ålanders. Nils Edén rejected scarily any thoughts of Swedish military involvement.

August 20: Members of the municipal council on Åland's main island meet with representatives for other major islands and direct an unanimous appeal to the King and Government of Sweden to promote Åland's reunion with its mother-country (as being "Sweden's only province ["landskap"] outside of the realm's borders".

November: Lenin proclaims that all peoples in the former empire were themselves qualified to decide their state belonging.

December: Finland declares it's independence December the 6th. A petition directed to the King and Government of Sweden is signed by 96% of Åland's native adults (...ehem, 96% of these native adults who wasn't abroad at the time). December 29. the group of men to present the petition in Stockholm is appointed at a public meeting on Åland.

January 16th: The Swedish King speaks (is throne speech an appropriate term in English?) at the formal parliament opening and adress the issue, expressing his expectation that the people on Åland and in Finland would come to an agreement.

January/February: On Åland are paramilitary units organized (as in Finland) for the protection against the remaining Russian soldiers, whos behavior had began to seem unbridled.

February 8th: Sweden's prime minister Nils Edén declares for a deputation from Åland that Swedish troops could not be engaged abroad. Neither on Åland nor in Finland's ongoing civil war. But volontary corpses recruited in Sweden could be engaged on Åland as had already been the case in Finland. (In less than a week 530 volonteers were organized in a batalion and prepared for transport to Åland.)

February 10th: White troops fleeing over the ice from Finland to Åland request Swedish assistance for transportation to northern Finland.

February 12th: Russian military captures a group of Ålanders preparing for the volontary corps' debarking. Further captrures of Ålanders follows, compremetted men take refuge at Signhildskär, and due to the serious turn a small boat is sent in over the dangerously icy Åland's sea to Sweden to ask the corps to hurry up.

February 13th: The Swedish government decided to send an armored vessel ("pansarbåten Thor") and an ice-breaker (sp?) to resque the refugees. The volontary corps is prohibited to leave Sweden, and a cargo ship with weapons for the people on Åland is stopped.

February 14th: The White troop arrived at Åland's main island, attempting to take the Russian garrison with surprise.

The Swedish vessels anchor outside of Eckerö. A few days later followed by two more armored vessels.

In a few days are hundreds of Russians captured as prisonors of war, and several pickets are taken, by the White troops. Then Swedish officers initiate mediation between the Russians, the Whites and the Ålanders.

February 18th: A Red troop of 200 man lands at Godby. After a battle the 19th are the White officers prepared for a treaty of truce between the Russians and the White troops. The Red troops accepted the agreement and embarked for Turku, the White troops was transported to northern Finland via Sweden; and the Russians started evakuating the Åland islands according to the treaty.

A final problem occured as a Red troop of 700 man arrived, but after pressure from the Swedes on the Russians, and from the Russians on the Reds, the latter returned to Finland.

To quote Matts Dreijer's book: "Thereby the Swedish mission was successfully finished, however before the Russian vessel had left the bay where the ice locked it, it was with over 800 Russian soldiers captured by German unit on March 6th", arrived as a pair of German battleship had come to support the White side in the civil war.

March 12th: A Finnish governor arrives and give a proclamation asking the Ålanders to stop thinking off a re-union with Sweden, with not so hidden threats and hints at the Ålanders as "traitors and wretches".

March 16th: The German Emperor proclaims that "proper respect should be granted the Åland's peoples wishes" as Germany aimed at satisfying all involved parts having interests in the Åland issue.

It followed an occupation of the Åland islands by Finnish troops, leeding to some "misunderstandings" with the Swedish speaking population.

- - -

It's remarkable that the dates given by Matts Dreijer are different on point after point compared to the other text. Both texts are recent. This might indicate that historians in Finland still recognize this subject as sensitive, and hence do not try to get the facts straight.

Might it be that Finland not yet is prepared to receive the knowledge that the White side's version of the Åland crisis was falsified on several points?

regards!



Johan Olofsson

On Finnish Civil War 1917 - 1918, First at the battle of Godby, Åland:

'I gott vapenbrödskap angrep ryssarna och de röda skyddskåristerna vid Godby, men slogs tillbaka. Förhandlingarna om att ryssarna skulle lämna valplatsen kom ånyo i gång.

Innan någonting definitivt hann ske uppträdde på de vitas kommandoplats några svenska sjöofficerare. De hade sin regerings uppdrag att verka som medlare. En svensk trupp landsteg samtidigt på Eckerö. Bakom denna överraskande intervention av en tredje part låg en målmedveten politisk vilja. Företaget annonseras visserligen som en humanitär operation med syfte att skydda befolkningen mot onödiga lidanden, men den var också något annat.

Enligt planerna var det meningen att först förmå de finländska vita att lämna sina vapen och låta sig transporteras genom Sverige till det vita Finland, varefter också ryssarna skulle ge sig av.

Den svenska interventionen avvecklades stillsamt när tyskarna inledde sin hjälpaktion till det vita Finland genom att också för sin del landsätta en trupp på Eckerö.

<snip>

Svenskarnas intervention väckte i det kämpande Finland i vida kretsar både häpnad och förbittring. När medborgarna där hade gripit till vapen för att stärka den nyvunna självständigheten genom att driva bort ryssarna, avvisade det officiella Sverige varje form av deltagande. Inte ens transitering av vapen tillåts. Men väl fann man det lämpligt att utveckla militär aktivitet i syfte att besätta och med sig förena en del av grannens territorium.'

-- 
  e-mail: jmo@lysator.liu.se
  s-mail: Majeldsvägen 8a, 582 63  LINKÖPING, Sweden

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="print is 1">
 | <if variable="print is 1">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="print is 1">
 | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">
 | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">
 | <else>

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="print is 1">
 | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="print is 1">
 | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <insert variable="start_t">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <insert variable="start_m">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <insert variable="start_s">