Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

Thanks Bat-Cat--that was fun! Unsurprisingly, Stephen King's makes the most sense: just 2k words/day no matter what. And I used that adverb in his honor. :-)

I didn't see a thread for questions or upcoming reads so if it's okay I'd like to ask a question about August's read The Odyssey. I have never read it, (it's a little intimidating to me) and I was looking last night at some different translations for it. I was just wondering, what are your opinions on what the best translations are?

Renee, it's okay to ask here. Personally I'll be reading the Fagles edition as I'd prefer to read it in verse and I've been impressed with his other work. I've heard good things about several translations, especially Lattimore and Fitzgerald, or there are prose versions if you'd prefer. Usually when there are lots of choices I try to sample some different texts on free websites or Amazon previews and see which one flows best for me.

Renee wrote: "I didn't see a thread for questions or upcoming reads so if it's okay I'd like to ask a question about August's read The Odyssey. I have never read it, (it's a little intimidating to me..."

Thanks Pink. I was actually looking at the Fagles translation last night. Good idea though to compare with free previews. Maybe I'll try that and see if there is a big difference between them.

For a quick summary, the 3 most well-regarded modern translations are Lattimore, Fitzgerald, and Fagles. They each have their pros and cons.

Quick summary: Fagles for fun. Lattimore for learning. Fitzgerald for more accessible learning.
However, definitely check the previews - you might end up really liking one compared to another!

Fagles is the most poetical. However, he takes liberties with the translation text to get the translation to flow properly. He basically focuses on making things "sound" as best as possible. He keeps the meaning section by section but perhaps not the meaning line-by-line. If you're reading for pure enjoyment, he should be a good choice. I've never read his translations myself, but a friend was assigned both Fagles and Fitzgerald in school and she said Fagles was more fun to read.

Lattimore tried to keep the same meter and line length of the original, and keep as much of the original meaning as he could while keeping it as poetical as he could - he's basically going for a scholarly middle ground. From what I understand, if you're trying to learn Greek or get as close as possible to the original, Lattimore is the way to go. I haven't read his Illiad or Odyssey but other work by him that I've read has seemed pretty dry.

Fitzgerald threw out the original meter and uses iambic blank verse. But he also tries to keep fairly close to the original meaning. He's seen as being rather scholarly but accessible. His is the translation I was assigned in school.

I read the Fagles translation of The Odyssey in college, remember enjoying it, would re-read and recommend it. I have not read other translations so cannot compare. Whichever one you choose, happy reading!

Dan wrote: "Totally random here. I'm almost finished War and Peace and I'm so looking forward to joining some group reads in this group!"

We look forward to reading with you!

Oh, challenges! I really need to read less and attend to other things from time to time at least.

Well, I have hard time finding some time to read (or actually motivation)...
I changed a job and even though it should not take anymore time, I definitely have less time to read at the moment...
I do need to prepare my food to take with me, so that is time consuming. And also next week I start to train even more, so probably I don´t have even this much time.
I think I´m not going to make my challenges, even though I have read already over 70 books this year, but many have been outside of the challenges. I probably would have read the challenge books if they were not in the challenge, hah!

Hello everyone. I am quite random as well. Currently reading The Catcher in the Rye and was wondering if there was a discussion thread for it?

Jaylee wrote: "Hello everyone. I am quite random as well. Currently reading The Catcher in the Rye and was wondering if there was a discussion thread for it?"

Yes heres one https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

i havn't gotten to it myself yet but its is on my todo list, hope its good :) .

Wreade1872 wrote: "Jaylee wrote: "Hello everyone. I am quite random as well. Currently reading The Catcher in the Rye and was wondering if there was a discussion thread for it?"

Yes heres one https://www.goodreads.c..."

Thanks for the link. And it is...depending on your perspective.

In case anyone is interested, Audible's daily deal for today (US) is Jane Austin's "Sense and Sensibility" for $3.95

Continued from another thread...

Mickey wrote: "What did you mean when you said that you were on the wrong side of WWII? Do you view the victory of the Allies as a loss to your country? Is this a widespread opinion in your country or not? (Sorry to hijack this thread, but I find the opinions of people from the smaller countries of Europe fascinating...)"

Well we did lose the war. We lost about 12% of our land, including our second biggest city, my grandfather had to leave his home along with 420,000 other people (about 11% of the population), we had to pay huge war reparations to the country that had invaded and started the war in the first place, had to accept the presence of the Allied Control Commission (though Finland was not occupied at any time during or after WWII) and were under a threat of a communist takeover as long as they were in the country, and even try our democratically elected leaders for "being responsible for the war" in a trial that was against our constitution and Western juridicial principles. So it certainly felt like a loss. UK even declared a war against us and USA was supplying our enemy. Not an ideal place to be for a poor nation of about 3.7 million people, being at war against three superpowers at the same time. But what can you do, it's not like there was any other choice.

Though obviously our fate was better than our smaller Baltic neighbours' (with whom we were in the same position in 1939) who lost their independence and where the population was purged in executions and mass deportations, so in that sense we succeeded in our goals better than Stalin who had wanted to annex the whole country, and our military even stopped the major offensive of the Red Army twice, first alone during the winter of 1939-40 and then for the second time in the summer of 1944, now with German help, the only country willing to help. There is even a memorial for the Kuhlmey Detachment of Luftwaffe, their effort was invaluable at Tali-Ihantala and boosted the morale of the forces fighting on the ground.

We lost almost 100,000 in casualties but at least we were spared from Stalin's persecution. Everyone knew what had happened to ethnic Finns in the Soviet Union all throughout the 1930's. Starting in 1929 whole families and villages had been deported to forced labour camps in Siberia from where few returned and around 1935 the mass executions had started (and others died of hunger because of the forced collectivisation), so the will to fight was strong, even against an enemy that was 50 times bigger, because everyone realised what was at stake. Even the communists knew that Stalin had liquidated practically the entire Finnish Communist Party in the USSR before the war and for example Finnish Jews served their country as officers, soldiers and female volunteers just like everyone else. With the loss of Viipuri many of them had also lost their homes and their future in the USSR would have been just as bad as the rest of the Finns: bullet to the head, especially if you were an educated person or a leader in your community, just like what happened to the Polish officers and leaders at Katyn in 1940.

Is it your opinion then that Finland was right in fighting alongside Germany against the Soviet Union? Do you consider Stalin's Soviet Union a greater threat to Europe in general than Hitler's Germany?

Tytti wrote: "Continued from another thread...

Mickey wrote: "What did you mean when you said that you were on the wrong side of WWII? Do you view the victory of the Allies as a loss to your country? Is this a ..."

Tytti, I know your post was in response to Mickey, but thanks for explaining this information. To be honest, I knew hardly anything about Finland's history during or after WW2 until you posted about it a few months ago. I think we're used to hearing one version of events, with Germany, Italy and Japan vs the allied forces, but of course history isn't that simple. Just taking Russia for example, depending on which event is being considered they're either a major good guy or a major bad guy. I hate all aspects of war, but I do find it interesting and important to learn about. So thanks for enlightening me some more about your country.

Mickey wrote: "Is it your opinion then that Finland was right in fighting alongside Germany against the Soviet Union? Do you consider Stalin's Soviet Union a greater threat to Europe in general than Hitler's Germ..."

Well it was a greater threat to Finns. As I said, Stalin had been killing tens of thousands of ethnic Finns before even starting the war. I also wouldn't have liked to have been born in the Soviet Union and have my relatives executed for no reason. Maybe the Allies wanted that the Finns would have sacrificed themselves and let Stalin occupy the country and kill a big part of the population while finishing his ethnic genocide but I'm not really sure why Finns should have agreed with that. It doesn't really sound fair.

Pink wrote: "I think we're used to hearing one version of events, with Germany, Italy and Japan vs the allied forces, but of course history isn't that simple."

Yeah, that's the Western history writing, nobody really cares about the Eastern Europe where things were much more complicated. As I mentioned in the GWTW thread where this started, it's actually useful to be able to see and sometimes understand the feelings of the other side intuitively because we have been on that side. I have often wondered if that's the reason why some Finnish politicians have been quite effective peace negotiators in the past.

Tytti wrote: "Maybe the Allies wanted that the Finns would have sacrificed themselves and let Stalin occupy the country and kill a big part of the population while finishing his ethnic genocide but I'm not really sure why Finns should have agreed with that. It doesn't really sound fair. ."

I'm trying to get the time-line straight. When the U.S.S.R. was allied with Germany, they drew up an agreement about spheres of influence and the U.S.S.R. attacked Finland with German consent. That war ended in '41 with Finland giving up land. In the same year, Germany invaded the U.S.S.R. in a surprise attack and the Finnish fought with the Germans to invade Russia. Was that offensive or defensive? The Soviets were busy being invaded by the Germans. They weren't trying to expand at that moment. Is this not correct? This is just what I gathered from googling it. I'm sure you have a more in-depth perspective.

It really is true that politics makes strange bed-fellows. Did you ever hear of any of the Finnish Jews upset at having to work with the Nazis?

No, the Winter War lasted "only" 105 days but the USSR continued pressure even after that and they had a base in Finland, close to Helsinki. In 1941 the Soviet planes bombed Finnish towns and Finland started the offensive soon after the Germans. Of course everyone had known that the war was not over yet, so Finns had to choose a side and were ready to attack. Western democracies weren't really interested in helping so there was only one option. The Baltic countries had just been annexed and the first deportations started just before the Operation Barbarossa. And no, Finnish Jews knew the situation just like everyone else. Three were awarded with German Iron Crosses but of course they refused. They even had a field synagogue at the front and Germans knew about it. Fighting simultaniously against Germany, the USSR, UK and later USA would have been a bit too much even for Finns... I mean there was only less than 4 million of us, Leningrad had a bigger population, and the maximum strength of our military was about half a million men and over 240,000 trained female volunteers.

Mickey wrote: "They weren't trying to expand at that moment. Is this not correct?"

One would have to be pretty naïve to actually believe that and it would be even more stupid and irresponsible from a leader to trust that and risk the survival of the whole nation. There was no reason to believe that Stalin wouldn't try again. He just was a bit busy with the Baltic countries and Poland, their leaders had to be destroyed first. (https://youtu.be/qhK7MlaPm24?t=7m20s) Reportedly Stalin had also asked Hitler's help with Finland but Hitler had then changed his mind and considered Finns "honorary Aryans" because of the Winter War. At that time Finns were considered to be an inferior race by some people, though there is a court ruling from a trial in the US that says Finns are white Europeans and not Asian Mongols (or something).

Tytti wrote: " In 1941 the Soviet planes bombed Finnish towns and Finland started the offensive soon after the Germans. Of course everyone had known that the war was not over yet, so Finns had to choose a side and were ready to attack. Western democracies weren't really interested in helping so there was only one option."

Didn't the bombings happen after the Germans had invaded? So first there was a coordinated attack and then the retaliation? I don't see how the Finns had to choose a side. Why not stand back and have the Germans and the Soviets kill each other without getting involved? I understand wanting land back that you recently lost, but is that really a good reason to fight with the Nazis?

Not that Stalin was ideal to ally with, but the Germans were the ones who created that situation by attacking them. We didn't seek him out.

I'm just not seeing the immediate danger that would explain the partnership. I don't see the "no choice". Land just doesn't seem like a good enough reason, even if it's popular nationally.

Tytti wrote: "And no, Finnish Jews knew the situation just like everyone else. Three were awarded with German Iron Crosses but of course they refused. They even had a field synagogue at the front and Germans knew about it. Fighting simultaniously against Germany, the USSR, UK and later USA would have been a bit too much even for Finns... "

It's great that Finnish Jews and their religious practices were taken care of so well. The Germans knowing about it didn't mean that they had repudiated their aim to exterminate the entire group. The Germans were asking for the Jews to be sent to extermination camps, and the Finnish authorities refused, but the partnership continued.

I'm not sure how all these nations could be allied against you. The only reason the UK and the USSR were at war with you was because you were actively fighting with the Germans. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no reason to declare war, since both were busy fighting for their survival. Not working with the Germans would not have meant that they would've declared war on Finland. They're busy in the Soviet Union. Finland was not in any special or more immediate danger if it had not allied itself and fought with the Germans.

Tytti wrote: "One would have to be pretty naïve to actually believe that and it would be even more stupid and irresponsible from a leader to trust that and risk the survival of the whole nation. There was no reason to believe that Stalin wouldn't try again."

The only thing we have is history. If the USSR had really wanted to annex Finland or even to set up a puppet government (and it did this in several countries) at any time before its dissolution, it could have, but that never happened. Finland stayed a democracy.

Reading about this history has been very interesting. It seems like Finland is in a very singular position when it comes to WWII. Other democracies were hostile to the Germans and this leaves the Finnish people having to defend the decisions they made which were radically different than other democracies. That can't be a comfortable position to be in. I've had several good European friends from different countries and they all have opinions and preconceptions of each other based on what happened historically at different periods of time. It can be very hard to be judged for what happened before you were born and I think people from smaller countries might feel it more keenly. It seems like Finnish people feel pretty defensive about what happened. Do you ever think it might be better to just give a "mea culpa"?

Mickey wrote: "I don't see how the Finns had to choose a side. Why not stand back and have the Germans and the Soviets kill each other without getting involved?"

When there were both German and Soviet troops in the country? Not bloody likely, Finland would have ended up as a battle field and/or occupied by either side, just like the Baltic countries and Poland. Stalin himself said that Finland won't be allowed to remain neutral. Why did the Western Allies aid Stalin? He had created the situation by invading six countries. You don't see the immediate danger? After one war that had left the country defenseless and with another Soviet invasion planned, and after shooting down a passenger plane during the "peace"? Finland had hardly any planes or tanks (and no gasoline even to those few old ones we had), no ammunitions, not many cannons, the main anti-tank weapon was the Molotov Cocktail (this is the war that gave it that name), not much food or medical supplies, no defensive lines; Finland would have been a sitting duck. The Western Allies were helping the USSR, it could have still used that help against Finland, just like it used it against the Baltic countries and the rest of the Eastern Europe. Finns knew what had happened in Estonia, there were plenty of Estonian men who had escaped to Finland to fight for us.

And the reason why Finland stayed independent was because we had stopped the invasion, twice, and were even prepared to start a guerilla war in the case of an occupation. Finland defended herself against a dictatorship. That other democracies decided to side with a dictator that had already killed millions doesn't chance the fact that he was a dictator and responsible of several ethnic cleansings, and one of those ethnicities were the Finns. I see nothing wrong with fighting for the survival and freedom of your own people. If others have a problem with that, so be it, but it's not like they cared before, either. I see no reason to apologize for our survival.

Tytti wrote: "Pink wrote: "I think we're used to hearing one version of events, with Germany, Italy and Japan vs the allied forces, but of course history isn't that simple."

Yeah, that's the Western history wri..."

You are certainly correct Tytti, there wasn't much written in our history books. I too appreciate your telling of what happened in Finland. I had no idea. I also saw a post awhile back where you talked about Estonia. I had never even heard of that country until seeing the Documentary called "The Singing Revolution" about 8-10 years ago. It was interesting to hear of your close connection to that country as well. The documentary was so good, I wish more people would see it. I was lucky enough to see it in Chicago with a theater full of Estonians and a question and answer with the director afterward. It's too bad the violent revolutions get all the attention.

I'll try to take your questions one by one.

Tytti wrote: "When there were both German and Soviet troops in the country? Not bloody likely, Finland would have ended up as a battle field and/or occupied by either side, just like the Baltic countries and Poland. Stalin himself said that Finland won't be allowed to remain neutral."

Weren't the German troops in Finland because Finns invited them? If you hadn't invited them, wouldn't they have just concentrated more of their troops in other places like Romania? I don't think that they would've invaded your country on the way to invading Russia. I read that Hitler was very impressed with the way the Finns had handled themselves in '39-'40. Why would he pick a fight with you to tip off the Soviets that they were coming? It seems there was a choice there to not participate.

Instead of saying, "We had no choice," wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "We hated the Soviets so much that we teamed up with the Germans." or "We were so blinded by regional concerns that we didn't look at the war in the big picture. When Germans offered to help us get back our land, we took them up on it."

The Germans were not going to stick around Finland when they were planning a surprise attack. They would go straight into Russian territory whether they were setting off from Romania or Finland. Finland's best chance to stay out of the way was...staying out of the way. If the Germans were in Finland, then the Soviets were going to bomb Finland. If they weren't in Finland, the Soviets would not waste war material on Finland.

Stalin was fighting a defensive war. His country was being invaded. He would not have roped Finland into the war against his own country at that time.That doesn't make sense to me. He wouldn't want more enemies. Exactly when and how did he say he would not let Finland be neutral?

Tytti wrote: "Why did the Western Allies aid Stalin? He had created the situation by invading six countries. You don't see the immediate danger? After one war that had left the country defenseless and with another Soviet invasion planned, and after shooting down a passenger plane during the "peace"? Finland had hardly any planes or tanks (and no gasoline even to those few old ones we had), no ammunitions, not many cannons, the main anti-tank weapon was the Molotov Cocktail (this is the war that gave it that name), not much food or medical supplies, no defensive lines; Finland would have been a sitting duck. The Western Allies were helping the USSR, it could have still used that help against Finland, just like it used it against the Baltic countries and the rest of the Eastern Europe. Finns knew what had happened in Estonia, there were plenty of Estonian men who had escaped to Finland to fight for us."

The Western allies aided Russia because the Germans attacked them. The opening up of the eastern front meant that less Western men would be killed. For a long time, we pretty much stayed away and allowed the Soviets and the Germans to kill each other.

It certainly wasn't an ideal alliance, but we used one dictator to permanently rid Europe of another. I think it's too bad we couldn't have gotten rid of Stalin, too. Of course, a power vacuum that huge might have had all sorts of unintended consequences. Who knows what the results might have been?

Finland was in no danger of being invaded by Russia in June '41. The Russians were being invaded by Germany. It seems that the Finns were concerned mostly with getting back land from the Soviets and threw in their lot with the Germans to achieve it. This is odd in and of itself because it was the Germans who supported the Soviets in their invasion of Finland two years earlier.

The reworking of history to fit an narrative is not simply a trick reserved for the winning side. I don't know how much I believe that "history is told by the victors". History can be told by all sides. The overview that we learn in school is generally a simple story, but books are always available to take one deeper into the issues. The trick is to be able to analyze the information.

The passenger plane that was shot down happened a full year before hostilities started, if it's the one I read about. What is its significance?

Tytti wrote: " Finland defended herself against a dictatorship. That other democracies decided to side with a dictator that had already killed millions doesn't chance the fact that he was a dictator and responsible of several ethnic cleansings, and one of those ethnicities were the Finns. I see nothing wrong with fighting for the survival and freedom of your own people. If others have a problem with that, so be it, but it's not like they cared before, either. I see no reason to apologize for our survival.
"

I don't think anyone is faulting the Finns for their actions in the Winter War. The Soviets invaded Finland and the Finns fought them off. If that had been the end of the story, the Finns would have been lauded for their heroism. But the story continues. The Finns allied themselves with the Germans to invade Russia. This wasn't a defensive war for the Finns. Many other countries were overrun by the Nazis and at least had the bragging rights of having resisted. The Finns didn't earn those rights. There are many other countries who did not ally themselves with Germany willingly who managed to survive WWII, I don't see how it was necessary for Finns to.

Are your views on WWII very mainstream in Finland? Do you know of how they developed over time?

I don't want to give the impression that I don't admire Finland's accomplishments in the Winter War or that I don't see the danger in being Russia's neighbor. I just don't see that there was no choice in the decision to ally themselves with the Germans for most of the war. It seems that a better choice now would be to admit the mistake than to think of oneself as blameless.

At this point, should we just agree to disagree?

I have a couple of books about Europe that I wondered if you have an opinion about, just with your views and all. Have you any opinion about these books?

William Vollman's Europe Central
Tony Judt's Post War
Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem

For those of you who have read Moby Dick, has anyone know anything about the Wadsworth Classics Edition? It's only $3.95 on Amazon right now so I was thinking of buying it because I definitely want to read it at some point. If this one isn't good, is there an addition you recommend?

Not about Moby Dick, but I once encountered an omission of several paragraphs in a Dickens book published by Wordsworth Classics! I had bought several books from that series because they were cheap and easy to get here in a non-English-speaking country, but won't any more.

Nente wrote: "Not about Moby Dick, but I once encountered an omission of several paragraphs in a Dickens book published by Wordsworth Classics! I had bought several books from that series because they were cheap..."

That's horrible! I got a couple Dover Thrift editions of Dickens because they were cheap. I hope those aren't bad also. I'm only just learning that the edition can make a big difference. What a shame.

I've had good luck with Dover Thrift editions.

Kathy wrote: "I've had good luck with Dover Thrift editions."

That's good to know. Thanks!

Nente wrote: "Not about Moby Dick, but I once encountered an omission of several paragraphs in a Dickens book published by Wordsworth Classics! I had bought several books from that series because they were cheap..."

Wow, that's pretty bad. I had a trade paperback copy of Child of God that was missing 14 pages. They hadn't fallen out, they just weren't there. I think it was just a fluke printing error. If it's paragraphs and not full pages, that really says something about the edition.

Mickey wrote: "Weren't the German troops in Finland because Finns invited them?"

Germans were already in Norway, they could have easily walked to Finland (or attack through Finland whether we liked it or not), and both sides wanted Petsamo. Finland was surrounded. Sure you can believe that the USSR wouldn't have invaded Finland but you can afford it, the Finnish leaders couldn't. No sane person would have trusted that, it would have been wishful thinking. Of course Stalin had every intention to occupy Finland, he had already tried it once. Finns had no reason to trust Stalin, he had broken every promise he had ever made, either to Finns or Estonians (a kindred nation). But in the summer of 1940 Finland had every reason to believe that Stalin was preparing for another invasion, all the signs were there (the same thing had happened in Estonia), and the USSR was not respecting the peace treaty but kept making more and more demands and blackmailing Finland. Besides, Stalin had already had more people killed than Hitler (ever did?). Why does everyone forget that? The reason why the USSR didn't invade then was because Hitler had changed his mind regarding Finland and was against it. And Stalin himself said in 1947 that Finland owes her independence to Marshal Mannerheim, and he wasn't talking about the Winter War. Btw, Mannerheim just got a plaque in St Petersburg and there was an exhibition about his life about 10 years ago at State Hermitage. (Mannerheim was probably the only man respected by both Stalin and Hitler but he disliked them both.)

To look at the big picture? Finns was in no position to "look at the big picture" when the survival of the whole country and her people was at stake. The worst case scenario for Finland would have been that the whole country was emptied of Finns, by shooting or by taking them to Gulag, deporting them to some remote location in Siberia or just by taking all their food away so people would starve to death. That had been already happening in Karelia, Ingria and Estonia, and during the Holodomor in Ukraine. That was the reality, the threat of a Finnish genocide was very real. After all we are talking about a tiny nation of 3.7 million. There is no way that Finland could have survived alone, Finland was facing famine, especially because of the loss of the agricultural land. (You see that land was important, not just some of the best farmland in Finland but the factories and businesses, too, not to mention homes, the livelyhood of over 400,000 people.) After the Winter War Finns were exhausted, missing pretty much everything and under a constant Soviet pressure. It's pretty telling that most Finns in general felt safer when there were German troops in the country, Finland was no longer alone. That should tell you how much people feared the Soviet Union. And you are saying that Finns should have done nothing?

The main responsibility for the leaders of Finland is for the Finns, and their most important job is to try to secure the safety of their people, so they have to prepare for the worst case scenario. Finland had been dealing with the Soviet Union for over 20 years and with Russians always, this wasn't the first war. People knew what was going on there, they knew Stalin, they knew about Gulag, refugees had been coming over the border for all that time, Gulag survivors wrote books. Mannerheim, the Commander-in-Chief of Finland had spent 30 years in the Russian Imperial Army, he knew Russians better than they knew themselves. He had been warning for years before WWII that the USSR was going to invade and he was right. Finns had to decide between being occupied by the USSR, just like had just happened to the Baltic countries, or accepting help from Germany. That was realpolitik. The end result was that Finland was the only country that shared a border with the USSR in 1939 and was still unocccupied in 1945, she was also the only independent and democractic country, and a country where all civilians had been relatively safe (apart from the bombings and partisan attacks) throughout the whole war. I don't care for any bragging rights that might have cost the lives of maybe a million Finns and a countless number of raped Finnish women. In many Eastern European countries Finns are understood because they know what it was like, and the people in the Baltic countries were only able to dream that they had survived as well.

Tytti, I am a rather typical less than educated American who is into reading and learning about WWII. The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing. I knew nothing about what Finland went through during WWII. Thank you for sharing.

I admit, as I child when I heard that Russia was part of the Allies for part of WWII, I was confused. Even as I child, I knew they were the bad guys too. I think what America had to do was to choose the "lesser" of two evils and say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". After reading what you have explained, I think Finland did something similar.

Thank you again for sharing what your country went through. I have already picked up a book from the Finnish POV regarding WWII and will continue to do so to learn more.

Does anyone know a good book to learn about the big chunk of Russian history going from the revolution to the end of soviet Russia? I picked up A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes (I don't know if it's any good) and of course there is the major Second-Hand Time by Svetlana Alexievich but I missing the years in-between... Can you help fill the gap?

Emerson, you are looking for nonfiction, I take it?

I have no recommendations, but would advise to accept from the beginning that it's unlikely you'd find a full and objective account... more than 25 years after USSR dissolution, we are still taking it hard, Russian society is heavily polarized and all other former republics are naturally resentful and hate Russia's guts, and those historians who want to do a good job just choose earlier time periods, where there's more chance of being objective, accessing documents without interference, etc.

As for an outsider's view, that might work better, but they would have even more trouble getting documentary evidence, and there's no relying on anything published to the outside world in Soviet times, it was so heavily propagandized.

Tytti, I just wanted to let you know how interesting I've found this conversation. It's difficult to imagine as an American what it is like to be a smaller country in an area with many countries. I've looked up a few things on Google the last couple of days, so I'm obviously not an expert on inter-European politics and alliances and grievances, and I'm just expressing my very general impressions.

I'm getting the impression that Finland deals with being a smaller country in Europe by finding the biggest "friend" and helping him out. That's definitely a strategy and it's pretty smart as far as what can happen. It keeps the casualties down. For instance, Norway and Poland (and many others) fought against the Nazis and were overrun and occupied during WWII. When faced with that possibility (I'm still not convinced that it would have happened. Germany was after Russia, not Finland), Finland invited the Nazis in without being occupied and were their allies. They invaded the USSR together. When the Germans were in retreat. Finland went behind their back and signed a treaty with the USSR in 1944. The Russians told the Finnish to push out the Germans, and the Finns did. The reason for Finnish safety has more to do with geography than anything else. The Russians (and the other Allied Forces) were in a race to get to Berlin. Finland isn't on the road to Berlin.

From what little I read about Finland during the Cold War, I gathered that there was a famous political term called "Finlandization" where, although Finland was nominally an independent democracy, the Finns functioned as a puppet state without the need of a puppet. Again, it seems like Finland's strategy is to be an ally of the biggest power on the block and if the situation changes, to align itself with the new power.

That's one way for a country to survive and thrive in an environment like 20th century Europe, but it doesn't seem very...admirable. What is that saying about jackals? They eat second best because they stalk the lions and eat their leftovers.

I think it's one thing to sort of own the label, but it seems like there's a lot of spin. I still do not believe that Finland was acting defensively when teaming up with Germany to invade Russia. Germany was the biggest power at that time and had the most momentum. Being its ally was a choice. Claiming proudly that Helsinki was never occupied in WWII is sort of half the story. It was never occupied because you didn't resist the Nazis like others did. Claiming that Finland was able to stay an independent and democratic state during the Cold War doesn't tell the story that the USSR didn't need to set up a puppet government in Finland because Finland would do all the things Russia wanted it to do without having to resort to putting a sympathetic government in place. That isn't an independent state. But then again, maybe the name was all you could hope for.

I read Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil and one of the things that struck me was the variety of ways that the other European states deflected following Hitler's orders on race. (The Italian story was so inventive, I found myself actually laughing out loud.) There are many subtle ways of dealing with a despotic power to lessen the blow. I haven't seen anything that shows that Finland was subtly working towards subverting or sabotaging the people they were attaching themselves to. They seemed focused on how they can get the best deal for themselves and who was in a position to get them those things.

Sue wrote: "You are certainly correct Tytti, there wasn't much written in our history books. --- about Estonia. I had never even heard of that country until seeing the Documentary called "The Singing Revolution" about 8-10 years ago."

It always gets me angry when I heard about the Allies liberating Europe or "fighting for freedom". One American documentary even said that the Red Army "liberated" Finnish villages. From whom? It certainly didn't felt like that and I am pretty sure for example most Poles would agree with me.

I think this part is a good example of how even young Finnish girls understood things getting worse in June 1940: https://youtu.be/PP9p97Li3Z8?t=27m10s It's an Estonian documentary about Estonian and Finnish girls and women during WWII, I have linked it before. (And here a Jewish Lotta talks about her experiences in the docu: https://youtu.be/PP9p97Li3Z8?t=41m5s)

It's also important to realise that as long as a country has a legal government in place with the support of the people and a reasonable army with the control of her own land, it can somewhat protect her own citizens, no matter who they are. If Finland had been occupied, that protection would have been gone. That's why the Finnish Jews were safe (and e.g. French weren't), Germans had no control over them. And that's why Ingrians and other refugees were not, they were Soviet citizens (some might have been "White Russians"), so Finland had to turn them to the USSR after the war, though some managed to hide. They were of course immediately deported to Siberia, just like millions of Soviet POWs. And this clip shows that Jews knew whom and why they were serving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OGMP... The "Pro Patria" plaque shows it.

I don't really care what Hannah Arendt writes, and I'm not really sure why the lives of Finns are less important than the lives of Jews. Why don't you have a problem with Stalin for killing Finns for the sole crime of being Finnish?

Mickey wrote: "That's one way for a country to survive and thrive in an environment like 20th century Europe, but it doesn't seem very...admirable."

I have to say that your attitude is of a citizen of a superpower that has never faced any real danger. If the Soviet Union wasn't a threat, why there even was a Cold War and why there was/is a need for NATO? I have always find it funny that Americans started to be afraid of the Russians only from the 1950's onwards. That was after the worst times were already over. Have you read The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956?

Are you really saying that small countries are not allowed to do their own decisions for the good of their people and work with the hand they were given? That they should follow the orders and rules of the bigger nations even though they would be the ones who suffer because then they could be "admired"? Are Estonians admired by Americans? Or were they simply forgotten for 50 years? I am guessing the latter. I believe there are still fewer ethnic Estonians in Estonia now than there were in 1939. Here is a documentary from 1990: https://youtu.be/UcZstY9a_pE?t=7m45s (Btw, Max Jakobson who was interviewed was yet another Jew who fought in WWII.)

Finland fought against the Soviet Union when there was a grave military threat and dealt with it otherwise when that threat was much smaller. By 1944 Finns had fought at least three wars (depending how one counts them) against the Communists/Soviets, the first one in 1918, and knew perfectly well the nature of the "Red Terror" from the beginning. Finland also never "aligned" herself with the Soviet Union. There is a reason why Finland still has a conscription army and maybe the strongest military in all of Europe if one takes the size of the country into account. My late father was an officer in reserve, as a civilian he was a school teacher for 9-12-year-olds. In the case of war he would have left to his post without even waiting for an order, and everyone knew where that attack would have come, it's even a bit of a joke.

Calling Finland "the puppet state" is an insult from someone who doesn't know how it was in real puppet states, our leaders just knew to pick their battles. For example a ferry line was opened between Tallinn and Helsinki in 1965 which was very important to Estonians who had been cut off from the rest of the world for 20 years. They still remember fondly of the visit of our president, it was so important for their national psyche that he also held a speech in Estonian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K8Rf... One can't complish things like that if you act aggressively. It's not like anyone would have helped Finland if something had happened, we would have been alone again. Finns valued peace, prosperity and freedom more than some outside ideas of "toughness" or "honour". Most Finns knew quite well what was happening in the USSR because unlike many other people, we had actually visited the country. A smart person will sometimes bend so he will not break.

It's so easy to be judgmental when you are a MUCH bigger country protected by oceans on both sides. Finland shares a 1200 km border with Russia. I think it's still longer than the Russian borders of all the NATO countries combined. Leningrad/St Petersburg is 200 km from the border and has almost the same population than all of Finland. Those are the realities. Like our politicians have always said, Russia will always be our neighbour, for better and for worse, and we can't change the geography.

Jen wrote: "I have already picked up a book from the Finnish POV regarding WWII and will continue to do so to learn more."

What book is that? Some are not very good, or at least their POV is not that of a Finn, even though they claim so. (And you can imagine my suprise when I realised as a child (during the Cold War!) that USA had been helping Stalin during WWII.) But this looks to be pretty good Hitler's Nordic Ally?: Finland and the Total War 1939 - 1945 or these Finland at War: the Winter War 1939-40 and Finland at War: the Continuation and Lapland Wars 1941–45

Here is an article from a Russian Jewish POV, though with few details that are not quite accurate: http://jewishquarterly.org/issuearchi... It also mentions how Jews were treated by Stalin (pretty much the same way as all the other ethnic minorities).

Nente wrote: "Emerson, you are looking for nonfiction, I take it?

I have no recommendations, but would advise to accept from the beginning that it's unlikely you'd find a full and objective account... more tha..."

Yes, I made a big dive into Russian literature of various periods and I need to get the hard lines straight. I'll remember that versions and opinions will differ book from book but I didn't account with the difficulty of getting the information... I guess the only way is to gather different sources, but I was hoping someone had a good book I could start with, otherwise I'll go with Orlando Figes, which will get me to the year 1924.

Thank you for your input Nente!

Tytti:

You may be right about me being unable to completely shed my national orientation. It's a difficult thing to do. However, the actions and decisions of the Finnish are different from other eastern European countries, hinting that perhaps there were other ways to deal with circumstances than the Finnish way.

Whatever else you can say about it-Finland has managed to create for itself a completely unique history. It is totally different from its neighbors, and it seems like the willingness to get into special relationships with the most powerful European nation at any time-completely different ones at different times-is the biggest factor to this unique road.

What I'm curious about is how this attribute is seen by your neighbors. In the mid 1990's, I was acquainted with several Eastern Europeans. I had two really good friends: one from Poland and one from the Czech Republic. They argued all the time about their respective nation's history and which one hated and defied the USSR more. I can't imagine their reaction to a Finnish person. Since 1948, the USSR and Finland have had very close and warm relationship. I didn't say and certainly didn't mean to imply that Finland was a puppet government of the Soviet Union. What I'm saying could be considered a bit worse in terms of national pride: the Soviet Union didn't need to go through the expense and headache of installing a puppet government because the democratic one would do whatever they wanted. I've heard that the Soviets usually didn't even need to ask, let alone pressure the Finns to act in accordance to their wishes. While the neighboring countries broke out occasionally in protests against the Soviets and strained for independence from Russian influence, Finland was safe because they were trusted to do nothing with their independence. This is how it was kept. This "pampered pet" status of Finland doesn't seem like it would be too popular with other Eastern Europeans. I don't know if that has anything to do with how defensive Finnish people seem about their history. I was on some of the links you gave (and some of the recommended links), and the comments are pretty defensive.

It seems like with the dissolution of the USSR, Finland flipped a switch and began badmouthing its former friend. Now Finns present an entirely different story about the Soviet Union then it had when it was its most favored nation.

Again, this strategy of playing toady to the biggest bully has benefits, but it means that history will always be a landmine for a nation that follows this realpolitic philosophy and it's certainly not looked upon with a friendly eye among others who switch sides less adroitly.

Just as an aside, I don't think that it's accurate to say that Russia was only seen as a threat after 1950 in the United States or that the Americans had genuinely warm feelings for Stalin at any time.

It's tough to say, but I think it might be less damaging to a Finnish Jewish officer to be in hiding or maybe even in a concentration camp than to be fighting alongside the Nazis. This was the Russian campaign which saw some of the most brutal war crimes against the Jews, and there were Jewish officers there? That's a hell of a thing to make someone complicit in, and IMO, totally unforgivable if the goal was simply to regain the land it lost in the winter war.

Hey everyone, im happy to say that this morning I finished Bleak House. After reading Jane Eyre and then Bleak House, I'm looking for something newer to read, but I'd still prefer it to be considered a classic (I have Vonnegut, Pynchon, and Foster Wallace on my shelf, but I'd prefer it to be early 20th century instead). Any suggestions? I've read very little Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. and so if you can recommend a book either by them or from their time period, that would be great. Thanks in advance!

Warner wrote: "Hey everyone, im happy to say that this morning I finished Bleak House. After reading Jane Eyre and then Bleak House, I'm looking for something newer to read, but I'd still prefer it to be consider..."

The only Faulkner I've read is As I Lay Dying, which I really enjoyed. It might be different enough for a break after those two, plus it is much shorter!

Warner wrote: "Hey everyone, im happy to say that this morning I finished Bleak House. After reading Jane Eyre and then Bleak House, I'm looking for something newer to read, but I'd still prefer it to be consider..."

I read Light in August this month and it was one of the best books I've ever read.

I also really enjoyed To Have and Have Not. It may not be Hemingway's most profound work, be it was excellent storytelling. I loved the setting too. After I read it, I watch the film version (screenplay by William Faulkner). It was a good film, but very different from the novel.

Kathleen, that's actually the only Faulkner that I've read! I enjoyed it a lot, but some parts were just bizarre.

Nathan, both of those are good suggestions! I've heard great things about Light in August and I believe it won the Pulitzer prize. I want to read Hemingway badly, but I've already heard spoilers about several of his better known plots. To Have and Have Not is a lesser known work I believe (at least I haven't heard about its ending).

Thanks for the suggestions!

Warner wrote: "Hey everyone, im happy to say that this morning I finished Bleak House. After reading Jane Eyre and then Bleak House, I'm looking for something newer to read, but I'd still prefer it to be consider..."

East of Eden is my all time favorite book and the writing is wonderful. After that I would second Nathan's rec of Light in August :)

I haven't read the entire discussion about Finland in WWII but I've read enough to know I'm terribly ignorant about it. It's reminding me of the concept that history is written by the victors. For example, it was the allies that bombed Dresden, I believe, which would have been a war crime if we had lost. I think it's easy to judge when it's hindsight; it's a whole hell of a lot harder to make decisions in the moment.

Dan wrote: "Warner wrote: "Kathleen, that's actually the only Faulkner that I've read! I enjoyed it a lot, but some parts were just bizarre.

Nathan, both of those are good suggestions! I've heard great thing..."

Dan, I listened to the Donald Sutherland audio narration of The Old Man and the Sea and I was completely engrossed. I expected it to be stuffy and difficult but I was so absorbed that I ran a stop sign :)

:P

Dan, I actually just read both The Stranger and The Plague by Camus and loved them!

Sarah Anne, thanks for the suggestions!