The Liberation/Civil War Aftermath in Finland 1918
On 16.5.1918, a day after the expulsion of the Soviet Russian occupation army from Finland, the Finnish Liberation Forces arranged a victory parade in Helsinki, the modern capital of our country.
While a vital step in the road of independence of Finland, the troubles of our beloved homeland were not over: the liberation/civil war (the parallel name for the presense of two foreign armed forces within our borders) had left more open wounds than healing hands; some 10,000 fighters (within a total population of 3 million Finns at the time) had been killed in action in hardly more than three months, mostly by Finnish brothers between themselves; a wide execution and prison camp problem plagued the country yielding another 10,000 dead, to which a third 10,000 plus dead was added by hunger and starvation in the prison camps.
Despite the fact that the Finnish political scene was not characterized by all-out puppets typically related to the double occupation with secret partition contract (as in Poland 1939, and in Iraq since 2003), much of the Finnish administrational scene had collapsed, and the second foreign force, the German Baltic Division, remained within the Finnish borders, a factor causing terror as such in the party seemingly defeated, the Reds.
The atrocities committed by the death squads against civilians, often executed simply because moderate ordinary people, and thus not willing to partake in committing extremities, and interpreted as (potential) enemy combatants were definitely not helpful in the readily unfortunate situation: at this point of time the First World war had continued nearly four years in Europe, leaving Finland, the poorest country in the continent what came to both to the natural and cultural resources and contacts, Finland with practically non-existent supply of food and other necessities of life, adding to a high level of starvation and misery among our people.
NDHF Team Analysis on the Root Causes of the Success of the Finnish Liberation War
(Royal 27th Prussian Jaeger Battalion arrival: Parade in Vaasa (Keskustori) on 25.2.1918. Please, do note the 27th Jaegers’ flag carried by the unknown armed man in the middle of the front row.)
The ultimate success of the Finnish Liberation (including at the face value “defeated” moderate, non-extremist “red” socialist-democratic party) may be best explained by the consistency of the “stay on target” policy of the Finnish people: the bottom line is that finally only the protecting the people from fully non-sectarian basis has any meaning or significance. Therefore, the occupation forces become exposed and correctly understood as what they are, the Disease, and thus systematically targeted.
In general terms, any idea of “national reconciliation” under a multi-national, internally inconsistent occupation can only be a plot of the latter to buy time for their vicious goals, murdering the legal, native population.
Today, these lessons, it seems, were, and have been learned by most of the Finns to an extremely satisfactory degree. To show how, there is a Wikipedia article dealing with the Finnish Defense Forces (FDF) available in full here.
That the main contributors of the article in question are Finns is revealed by the characteristic mode of native thinking, recurring in the Jaeger March, the National (Liberation) Anthem of Finland, both items starting from the blow itself, rather than political explanations that are somewhat optionally introduced later on in the texts in question.
In what follows the NDHF Net – as a political unit – follows the opposite course, omitting the blow (of which cf. the Wikipedia article) and presents the Finnish defense policy – cut out from Wikipedia with slightly reshuffled chapter division and tiny corrections to the language - instead:
Finnish Defense Policy (Wikipedia + NDHF editorial arrangement)
(Royal 27th Prussian Jaeger Battalion Inspection in Helsinki (Senaatintori) 16.5.1918. General Mannerheim, the Commander of the Liberation Army facing the photographer, backgrounded by a lot of Finnish unidentified gunmen)
“From 1968 onwards, the Finnish government adopted the doctrine of territorial defence, which require[s] the use of large land areas to slow down and wear out a potential aggressor.
The doctrine was complemented by the concept of total defence which calls for the use of society's all resources for national defence in case of a crisis.
The Finnish military doctrine is based on the concept of total defence.
The term total means that all sectors of the government and economy are involved in the defence planning. In principle, each ministry has the responsibility for planning its operations during a crisis.
There are no special emergency authorities, such as the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations. Instead, each authority regularly trains for crises and has been allocated a combination of normal and emergency powers it needs to keep functioning in any conceivable situation.
In a war, all resources of the society may be diverted to serve the national survival.
The legal basis for such measures is found in the Readiness Act and in the State of Defence Act, which would come into force through a parliamentary decision in a case of a crisis.
The main objective of the doctrine is to establish and maintain a military force capable of deterring any potential aggressor from using Finnish territory or applying military pressure against Finland.
To accomplish this, the defence is organised on the doctrine of territorial defence. The stated main principles of the territorial defence are
- military non-alliance
- general conscription
- territorial defence
- training of conscripts for wartime units
- dispersed mobilisation
- flexible readiness responding to military threats of various degree
The defence planning [is] organised to counteract three threat situations:
- A regional crisis that may have effects on Finland
- Political, economic and military pressure, which may include a threat of using military force and its restricted use
- Use of military force in the form of a strategic strike or an attack beginning with a strategic strike aimed at seizing territory
One of the aims of the new doctrines is to prevent a strategic strike which Soviet Union employed successfully to topple the government of Czechoslovakia in 1968. During 1970s and 1980s, the Defence Forces capabilities were developed from this basis.
In an all-out confrontation between the two major blocs, Finnish objective [would be] to prevent any military incursions inside the borders and, in this way, to keep Finland outside the war.
The collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 did not annihilate the military threat perceived by the government, but the nature of the threat has changed.
While the concept of total, territorial defence [is] not dropped, the military planning has moved towards the capability to prevent and frustrate a strategic attack toward the vital regions of the country.
In all cases, the national objective is to keep the vital areas, especially the capital area in Finnish possession.
In other areas, the size of the country is used to delay and wear down the invader, until the enemy may be defeated in an area of Finnish choosing.
The Army carries most of the responsibility for this task.
The Next Stop of the U.S. Endless Chain Wars: The European Theatre of Operations
(Liberation War Victory Parade in Helsinki, North(?) Esplanadi 16.5.1918)
As hinted by us yesterday, the current problem of the Finnish domestic and foreign policy are intertwined in a complex, but fully transparent manner.
Rather than bothering anyone with by large irrelevant hijacking of the Finnish government, readily almost resolved (while the publication of the solution will take some time on) the true problem behind the Finnish policy scene would be – so to quote a skilled, understanding setting forth of a news categories - the “Lie of the Century”, or “9/11” or more generally, the so-called “War on Terror”.
What is wrong in the 9/11 set-up is not only the dubious character of the event, but - as not made secret by the neoconservatives (i.e. the U.S. lunatic party media office) – the supposedly consequent retaliation (revenge), a.k.a. “endless”, “hundred-year” or “chain war”.
What is presupposed by the choice of such terminology, and particularly the last one is that each war waged must sow the seed for the next one.
In that sense, to identify the future war in the chain, one is to identify the new conflict-arising component that is readily available in the “central front”, i.e. in the Iraq war.
Studying the Iraq (and Afghanistan) war for such identification purposes indicates soon enough that each county that partook in these occupations was consequently “rewarded” by a NATO-membership.
In this sense, the Middle-East Front (targeting Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, etc.) is accompanied by a second one, the European theatre of operations, in which the aggressor creeps in stealth mode towards a suitable engagement and/or assault position against Russia in a way indicated by map below:
In lack of any other possibile threat, this means that the next chain of the U.S. “endless war” would be an all-out war between Europe and Russia.
So to cause the necessary escalation in the European Theatre of Operations (= ETO) the U.S. goal is to partition Europe into two blocks (the pro-U.S. vs. pro-Russian), thus initially restoring the Berlin Wall cold war scenario with a good deal of military-industrial profiteering involved, of course, the NATO force hardly stronger in reality than, say the FDF Team alone.
That this is indeed so, is confirmed by the fact that the U.S. administration would like to sell and import the necessary and sufficient condition of a such a inter-European civil war, two opposing military build-ups within the borders (like the U.S. and Iranian occupation forces now in Iraq) in the form of the so-called Missile Defense Shield into Europe.
The very words “missile shield” tell all about the form of the planned conflict: the hostile party, no-one’s friend intends to puppet the US-occupied Europe through NATO so to refocus and escalate the former US vs. Soviet cold war into an all-out nuclear war between Europe and Russia. The idea is simple enough: to nuke both off the Earth, then secure the Caspian oil fields through Georgia, thus recycling the legendary military target of the Nazi empire during the Operation Barbarossa in 1941-1945 – and of course, wipe a huge number of European and Russian consumers off so to secure all the oil available for the US war industry.
Such a plot, far beyond the initially forged 9/11 false flag operation, initially follows the stadard Israel (mostly behind the hijacking of the U.S. government) modus operandi: for puppeting such an effort, there are always extremists available: racists, phony, noisy “nationalists” which are first by organized, the armed and finally arisen against the “enemies”, readily identified with the very illusions and fears of the extremists.
Royal 27th Finnish UN Jaeger Battalion Foreign Policy
(A photo from the liberation victory parade in Helsinki on 16.5.1918. Please, do note the 27th Jaegers’ flag carried by an unknown armed man riding the white horse between the two others)
Needless to say, the 27th Finnish UN Jaegers evaluates the designs surrounding the murky “Missile Defense Shield” as complete waste of money, time and human lives.
As living right between the parties in question, the Finns readily assure all our readers that there is nothing wrong with the Europeans nor Russians and that they are just as unconnected to the 9/11 or “terror” as the innoncent Iraqi and Afghan peoples, now bearing the burden of the 9/11 terror black operation that all the intelligence agencies of the world agree was orchestrated by the U.S. administration and its minions and allies themselves.
While nothing threatens Finland, the independent and non-aligned nation (and definitely to remain so), the lovely, kind and helpful Finnish UN Jaegers of the Royal 27th are eager to save some hundreds of millions of innocent European, Russian and Amerian lives in addition to our main effort, partaking the all-important task of the humanitarian, national and religious salvation of the Iraqi people.
The enormous sufferings of the completely innocent, courageous Iraqis under a pattern of systematic serial killing does not exactly arise trust towards other doomsday plans of those responsible for these atrocities.
While confident that Finland – fighting, if necessary to keep our homeland out of war – is capable to reach this goal in all and any circumstances, we would like to ask the entire American people whether they truly want to be taken into what Mr Gates recently called “possible big wars with other countries” in the European theatre?
Such big wars for big money, ultimately targeting all the peoples of the world, including the American one, come with “regional crises” of devastating scope and magnitude and clearly go far beyond the capabilities of the U.S.-Israeli hijackers of the U.S. government, lacking any professionalism so to manage even the current ones.
We’ve lost all the “hope” that the US war administrationg could achieve a single success in anything, and to tell you the truth, are somewhat pleased with that as well.
The bipolarization by terror, the US (via Bush) threat “Either you are with us, or…” may initially recruit required extremists to the both sides of such set-up, but in addition there are always two more parties, the ordinary people caught into the middle of the war, and the extraordinary ones, characterized by protecting the ordinary ones as well as providing their strong arms for the task of forcing the extremists to quit, ultimately bringing and restoring the peace.
As an example of such person with good reputation among all the parties in the Middle East we’d like to point out the Finnish UN General Ensio Siilasvuo, who - while still alive – told a following story:
Mr Siilasvuo partook in Suez war aftermath under the Finnish UN peacekeeping command and while there he carried a Cross of Iron the Germans had rewarded him with for his merits in fierce and bloody combat actions in Kiestinki sector against the Russians.
Naturally, the cross-of-iron-behaviour disturbed the Brits and Americans present there, who in 1956 still had fresh memories of other carriers of the cross of iron so finally approaching Mr Siilasvuo asking him to get rid off his medal, to which General Siilasvuo responded: “Gentlemen, which one of us here has fought both the Germans and the Russians?”
Ensio Siilasvuo, a man of humor as well, concluded his narrative by confirming that “after that point the discussion was over, and never again taken up, so that I carried the Cross of Iron through the entire Suez mission among my other similar equipment.”
What Mr Siilasvuo brings forth a very important point that should be understood by anyone dealing with the Finns: The same attitude is quite generally the truth about the General (WWI), later (WWII) Marshall Mannerheim, and characterizes the Finnish defense policy and, of course, the Finnish Defence Forces Team, just as the the Finnish UN Peacekeeping Command, all because these attitudes by and large are the natural positioning the Finnish people alltogether. Rather than taking sides with Western or Eastern – or any other – blocks as such, staying independent is, and will always be preferred here.
Should that become contested, one is in no doubt that the Finns rather fight the both parties, even simultaneously than let themselves to become puppeted by any outside party whatsoever.
Therefore it should not become as a surprise to anybody that while having no relations, official nor unofficial to Finnish Governmentals nor the Finnish Defense Forces, the 27th Finnish UN Jaegers fully commit to the official Finnish defense policy as sketched above, by the sole change that as an political unit, we replace the words “defence policy” with “foreign policy” (control+h) in the Wikipedia extract above.
By doing the same, the reader readily understands our motives and intentions, including that the 27th UN Jaegers may well be in a collision course with the “Finnish” multi-national coalition party puppet installation that – foreign poodles as they seem to be - attempts to sell out the Finnish Defense Policy, the Finnish Defence Forces, the Finnish President Institution, and quite generally, the Independent Finland alltogether for their regrettable personal motives.
So not to disappoint our readers, but to avoid mentioning any persons involved by name, a sort of Sherlock Holmes-style intelligence quest is provided for you: at the bottom of this article there is the related NDHF Open Source Center file from which those interested are welcome to help themselves with the following clues available for the investigation of the crime scene:
The “Finnish” collaborators want to make end of the independency of Finland by a full NATO-membership, destroy the Finnish Army by wiping off the conscription and cutting the troops. In addition “their” goal is to replace the essential component of the stability of Finland, the strong precident institution with an Anglo-Saxon-styled puppet PM, and weaken our constitution as well as promote all-out sectarian collaboration of one blog using well-known PR dentist terms such as “active role” within that.
NDHF Open Source Center
vs.
FATHERLAND, HOME, RELIGION AND FREEDOM WERE DEARER FOR THESE MEN THAN THEIR OWN LIFE
NDHF Net News Wire Harvest for 10.3.-15.5.2008 (+ Extras)
15.5. Finland's Lipponen would strip president's foreign policy powers
12.5. Finland's Thors defends Häkämies over Nato speech
12.5. Finnish Left Alliance tells Vanhanen to rein in Häkämies and Niinistö
9.5. Halonen Reacts to Recent NATO Membership Comments
9.5. Finnish PM hopes for consensus on constitutional reform
9.5. National Coalition would overhaul Finnish foreign policy decision-making
7.5. Finland's Halonen won't comment on defence minister's Nato speech
6.5. New US Ambassador in Helsinki emphasises importance of war against terror
5.5. Speaker Niinistö to take Finnish delegation to United States
25.4. Former Finnish FM to take place on foreign affairs committee
22.4. President Halonen's popularity on the rise among Finns –poll
16.4. Georgian President warns: concessions to Russia could be reflected in Finland
15.4. Rice's visit to Finland not likely - Finnish FM in Sweden
15.4. Chief of Intelligence: Stronger Russia needs to be taken into consideration
10.4. Presidential candidate Obama would gladly see Finland join NATO
8.4. Finnish Defence Forces expect political decisions pertaining to national defence
8.4. Vanhanen: NATO statements by Russia no cause for concern
8.4. Stubb says no change in Russia's stand on Finnish Nato accession
7.4. Kaskeala asks where Finnish government stands on conscription
7.4. Salolainen says Russia's repugnance to Nato shackles Finland
4.4. President Halonen: NATO wants more Finns in Afghanistan
4.4. President sees FM change as indication of "new times"
4.4. Finland welcomes Nato's promise to keep PfP countries in loop
4.4. NATO Endorses U.S. Missile Defense Plan
3.4. President Halonen wants UN to lead Afghan civilian aid
3.4. Finnish president welcomes upgrade in politicians' moral code
1.4. Vanhanen says Finland lost experienced foreign minister
1.4. Prime Minister Vanhanen: Sacking Kanerva "Unfortunate"
1.4. Finnish SDP leader caught unawares by foreign minister choice
31.3. Parliament gives approval to NRF participation
28.3. McCain won't win over Europe unless U.S. exits Iraq
28.3. More than one of ten Europeans see US as military threat, poll says
28.3. Bildt says Sweden never promised NRF entry in step with Finland
28.3. Finnish Parliament approves NRF participation
27.3. Finnish FM sees Russia joining EU crisis management
20.3. Finnish security policy: No Joy, but Finland Joins Nato Force
19.3. Finland receiving direct military information from United States and NATO central commands
18.3. Finland's solitary struggle [= jihad]
21.11. President Halonen: Advantages of Non-alignment Forgotten