GDT: Quarterfinal - May 23 - Finland vs Sweden

[Lepardi]

There was no intentional oppression of Finns as a linguistic, cultural or social entity.

All I have to say to prove how false this is is "Svenska talande bättre folk".

 

[RageQuit77]

Some nice phrases and terms on Tre Kronor, used by Finnish media:

'sysipaska' = pitch dark/coal black shit
'a bucket of potato peels' in sentence something like: "Leijonat veivät Ruotsia kuin perunan kuoria ämpärissä"

I can only imagine what are words and terms used in Swedish media. Probably the perception was exactly same.

 

[Monaakko]

All I have to say to prove how false this is is "Svenska talande bättre folk".

That expression is from the 19th century (though it cannot be exactly dated), so during Russian rule, referring to the nobility and bourgeoisie being mostly Swedish-speaking and even then it doesn't denote direct intentional oppression of Finnish-speaking people. It is true that the nobility and bourgeoisie was largely Swedish-speaking, but there was (and is) still a large number of Swedish-speaking agricultural workers i.e. peasants. The distinction "svenskatalande" makes no sense in a context where Finland is still part of Sweden and there is no meaningful distinction between Swedish-speaking and Finnish-speaking peasants. Also it should be noted that "bättre folk" in this case refers to a higher socioeconomic status (although at the time that probably included a sense of moral superiority as well).

So why did the higher classes speak Swedish? Well, this was a relic from Swedish rule, the nobility and the burghers who remained in Finland after 1809 continued to speak the language they had always spoken with other people in their class, and being more mobile than the peasants the moved in the same circles as their Swedish counterparts and thus spoke the majority language or did in fact come from Sweden proper. Peasants spoke the language of the region they inhabited, and in the coastal regions the did and still do speak Swedish, and further inland they spoke Finnish. The Swedish-speaking peasantry being a minority and geographically entrenched on the coast after 1809 furthered the idea of language as a marker of class because the Swedish speaking people that interacted with Finnish-speaking people where by and large of a higher socioeconomic status.

It is possible, or even likely, that the expression emerged as a response to Russian suppression of the Swedish language in Finland to sever the cultural ties to Sweden early in the 19th century. Later on towards the end of the century the Russians began a similar process to undermine the Finnish language and identity as a means of averting the rising nationalism. My point is simply that the connection between language and nationality didn't emerge as a question of identity until the rise of nationalism, in fact, it would be difficult to establish even an identity category of Finns prior to the 18th century. We're just so used to thinking about things from a viewpoint of modern nationalism. Now, we could go on and on about the language strife from the 1860's until today (during which suppression of language did occur in both directions), but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether the Finnish peasantry was oppressed to any greater degree than the Swedish one during Swedish rule.

 

[BullLund]

I agree that Sweden during its rule did not intentionally "oppress" the Finns, the actions that were taken as well as the consequences of those actions (for example the Cudgel War or Nuijasota), were no different from how European nobility generally dealt with "peasants", especially "peasants" that were a culturally different group (meaning that the two parties would have struggled to communicate with each other, due to language differences). It was harsh and brutal, but these are not particularly democratic or enlightened times that we are talking about. Any peasant uprising would've been dealt with in a barbaric manner.

If there's any bitterness, then it might result from how the conversion of Finland to Christianity was handled, but looking at history, it does not appear that Finn groups (mostly Karelians and Tavastians) were entirely innocent in that process. It seems that there existed some fairly infamous raider groups of Finno-Ugric origin, that have been forgotten next to the more famous Scandinavian Vikings, which prompted even the Pope to turn its eyes towards a largely ignored land in the North.

Overall, as a Finn, I don't see Finns as a historically "oppressed" people, atleast not in an uncommon sort of way for medieval times. The Finnish people were always quite capable of defending themselves and had a reputation for excelling at violence, thus, the Swedes and Russians allowed them to remain in relative peace, atleast until the latter Czars who ended up burying themselves with their policies.

 

[illone84]

I still find it hard to make sense of the fact that many Swedish fans claim this year's roster was a second tier team in the world championships while they had more NHLers than ever before. 21 in total. More than last year, and more than the year before.

 

[BullLund]

I still find it hard to make sense of the fact that many Swedish fans claim this year's roster was a second tier team in the world championships while they had more NHLers than ever before. 21 in total. More than last year, and more than the year before.

Based on results it ended up being a second-tier team compared to their winning teams from before.

More NHLers doesn't necessarily make for a better team. A Marjamäki coached Finland had more NHLers but it kind of sucked.

You have to pick the right guys for the job, and Jalonen seems to be capable of doing that, even with limited options. If the coach acts like a kid in a candy store, he might pick great individual players, but not necessarily players that play with any chemistry as a team.

 

[RageQuit77]

@BullLund

Part of that "bitterness" originate probably also from the years of independence. In the civil war that was clearly a class war in its nature, Swedish speaking nobility was almost unanimously on the White side, and experience of Winter War added to top of that... Official Sweden withheld the support in the most critical moment of the Republic. Token ambulances, individual volunteers and some material help organized by individual Swedish persons. Considering the unifying impact of Winter War among Finnish ranks (whom fathers and grandfathers fought on both sides of civil war belligerents), world wide moral sympathy, but minimal practical acts toward Finland probably culminated to Swedes for their inaction.

At least they took care of multitude of Finnish children during wars, but certain grudged mentality was still left behind. Svea Mamma didn't help enough...

Nevertheless, every Finn knew then and know now that Sweden is Finland's most natural ally.

But not in a hockey rink. That for sure.

 

[BullLund]

@BullLund

Part of that "bitterness" originate probably also from the years of independence. In the civil war that was clearly a class war in its nature, Swedish speaking nobility was almost unanimously on the White side, and experience of Winter War added to top of that... Official Sweden withheld the support in the most critical moment of the Republic. Token ambulances, individual volunteers and some material help organized by individual Swedish persons. Considering the unifying impact of Winter War among Finnish ranks (whom fathers and grandfathers fought on both sides of civil war belligerents), world wide moral sympathy, but minimal practical acts toward Finland probably culminated to Swedes for their inaction.

At least they took care of multitude of Finnish children during wars, but certain grudged mentality was still left behind. Svea Mamma didn't help enough...

Nevertheless, every Finn knew then and know now that Sweden is Finland's most natural ally.

But not in a hockey rink. That for sure.

Possibly, but a person like Mannerheim would've been more associated with the Russian Czardom, in which he served as a military officer, than Sweden at that point.

I believe that one of the fears directed towards the likes of Mannerheim, and other "nobles", was that they would've fought in order to make Finland be subservient to Russia once again, if the Whites on the Russian side were to win their civil conflict (which they ultimately didn't), re-establishing the hierarchy between nobles and peasants. After Russia became a Communist country, there was no chance of that happening, of course. Finland became a democracy and the previous nobles had to earn the respect of the public through their actions, rather than birth-right.

In the end, those whose loyalties were doubted, ended up proving themselves as heroes eventually in the Winter War, and Finland became a rather equal country even without a socialist revolution.

I think that Finnish dislike towards Sweden can get over-estimated, they were too occupied with Russia at that time to care about Sweden much. The whole 19th century as an autonomous country, becoming independent, WW2, Cold War, Russia played a huge factor in those events while Sweden faded into the background. If there was ever a time when Finns were truly bitter at Sweden, it was probably when they lost the war for Finland against Russians. Finnish poems made Swedes seem like cowards while hailing the Finn soldiers as courageous and willing to fight. That created a lasting impression and it certainly wasn't helped much by the events of WW2 (with Swedes unwilling to take part).

Such a bitterness wouldn't have lasted long, though, as our attentions were directed towards the East rather than the West.

 

[FiLe]

Since history is the topic of the day, do you guys know when was the last time Finland and Sweden met in a WHC quarter-final?

You have to go all the way back to 2003. That one game... we don't talk about.

So, it took us 16 years, but I guess payback's a [female dog].

 

[MoeTheHobo]

Håll kusten ren, håll kusten Finlandssvensk.

We finns sure love to take a sip of some Victim-brew whenever it fits us.

People who call Finns a opressed people have read some history but don't understand it.

 

[JHB]

I think you're just not paying attention.
It's similar how Finns talk about Estonians. No one is innocent but we shouldn't talk about Sweden and Finland like they were brothers, because that's simply not the case.

You can be both brothers and enemies at the same time. If that wasn't the case, thousands of Swedish volunteers wouldn't have traveled to Finland to help fight the Russians during WW2.

 

[JHB]

This is a nice piece if you want to learn some of the stuff they actually teach in Swedish schools. However none of it is true It's a cool story about Swedes washing away their ancestors sins.
"Finns were cavemen before we brought the christ"

The Finns had multiple kingdoms and an identity before the Swedish oppression.
There are archeological findings that predate anything that happened in Sweden. Sweden has a long history of xenophobia. Ranging from industrial scale sterilization of gypsies to skull measurements of Sami people just to prove how different we are. What Sweden is doing today is flat out hilarious considering the skeletons in their closets.

How I wish we could turn back time.

 

[RorschachWJK]

Highly interesting OT talk here History is an interesting topic.

A special favorite of mine is 'what if' history, i.e. where top level historians speculate on alternative outcomes of e.g. major battles and their consequences. When done properly, fascinating stuff.

 

[RageQuit77]

Håll kusten ren, håll kusten Finlandssvensk.

We finns sure love to take a sip of some Victim-brew whenever it fits us.

People who call Finns a opressed people have read some history but don't understand it.

A Finnish tourist guide in Prague once warned me to talk about ethnic Finns in historic Swedish Armies ravaging and pillaging around Europe.

Elder Sami fisherman in Lapland sometime asked me about how Finns can be so sensitive for their own freedom. I didn't understand what he meant then (as teenager traveller)...

WWII concentration camp network in The East Karelia, Arvo Ylppö eugenics, and all...

Nobody can know for sure how much oppression there was between Tavastians and Karelians, and both oppressed locals where ever they decided to "collect taxes" as it goes under conventional euphemism.

So, indeed. We Finns need to be careful when we use that victim -card.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

I still find it hard to make sense of the fact that many Swedish fans claim this year's roster was a second tier team in the world championships while they had more NHLers than ever before. 21 in total. More than last year, and more than the year before.

Well, a lot of these NHL:ers were fringe NHL:ers at best.

Could've gone with SEL/KHL:ers instead, who are used to the bigger ice abd haven't played 80-90 games that season.

 

[BullLund]

Highly interesting OT talk here History is an interesting topic.

A special favorite of mine is 'what if' history, i.e. where top level historians speculate on alternative outcomes of e.g. major battles and their consequences. When done properly, fascinating stuff.

The one I like to speculate about, was Charles XII's "Great Northern War" against Peter the Great's Russia. He was the original warlord that decided to invade Russia and march onto Moscow during winter-time (while suffering the consequences, of starving and losing men to frost-bite).

History would most certainly be very different if the Swedish king had pulled off the feat of conquering Russia. The Swedish army at that time was imposing, and was marching from victory to victory, even against significant odds, until the winter got to him and his men.

The Swedes were ultimately crushed by an army twice their size, and the king was sent to exile.

This was a turning point in Swedish history, and their Empire was never quite as great again.

 

[Chimpradamus]

I still find it hard to make sense of the fact that many Swedish fans claim this year's roster was a second tier team in the world championships while they had more NHLers than ever before. 21 in total. More than last year, and more than the year before.

They shouldn't have been, they should've battled for medals, but they never found the second gear. The fast skating engines were benched and the tractors that couldn't connect a pass were overworked. Or what, do you mean a team that couldn't defeat the Czechs, got crushed by the Russians and barely won over Switzerland and Latvia somehow was a good team? No. They struggled to play well from the start to finish.

Most of the tournament they just looked tired and worn out.

The one I like to speculate about, was Charles XII's "Great Northern War" against Peter the Great's Russia. He was the original warlord that decided to invade Russia and march onto Moscow during winter-time (while suffering the consequences, of starving and losing men to frost-bite).

History would most certainly be very different if the Swedish king had pulled off the feat of conquering Russia. The Swedish army at that time was imposing, and was marching from victory to victory, even against significant odds, until the winter got to him and his men.

The Swedes were ultimately crushed by an army twice their size, and the king was sent to exile.

This was a turning point in Swedish history, and their Empire was never quite as great again.

Partly true. Sweden was attacked by an alliance of Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania and Russia simultaneously. He didn't attack or declare any wars, the Swedish Empire had actually started to settle down. The previous king didn't start wars at all (he saw war at a young age and hated it) and merely improved the nation with better organization and important reforms. Charles XII's ambition was to make Russia concede, as he had done with Denmark-Norway and Poland-Lithuania. It's quite weird to call someone "the original warlord" when you're the one receiving the declarations of war. Charles XII was attacked because he was so young, the enemies of Sweden saw that as a big weakness.

But sure, that was the end, the empire was too poor and didn't have enough men to manage the damages. It was remarkable it even got that far, the empire was too poor to lose any war, at all, for hundreds of years. In the 30 year war they were even too poor to be able to make peace.

 

[illone84]

They shouldn't have been, they should've battled for medals, but they never found the second gear. The fast skating engines were benched and the tractors that couldn't connect a pass were overworked. Or what, do you mean a team that couldn't defeat the Czechs, got crushed by the Russians and barely won over Switzerland and Latvia somehow was a good team? No. They struggled to play well from the start to finish.

Most of the tournament they just looked tired and worn out.

Nope, again. Where do you people get all this bull**** from? Sweden was attacked by an alliance of Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania and Russia simultaneously. He didn't attack or declare any wars, the Swedish Empire had actually started to settle down. The previous king didn't start wars at all (he saw war at a young age and hated it) and merely improved the nation with better organization and important reforms. Charles XII's ambition was to make Russia concede, as he had done with Denmark-Norway and Poland-Lithuania. It's quite weird to call someone "the original warlord" when you're the one receiving the declarations of war. Charles XII was attacked because he was so young, the enemies of Sweden saw that as a big weakness.

But sure, that was the end, the empire was too poor and didn't have enough men to manage the damages.

True. It is, what it is. I remember the Sweden team in 2013. Sedin twins carried that team on their backs. Very good team. Yet, not so many NHLers.

 

[Chimpradamus]

@BullLund

Part of that "bitterness" originate probably also from the years of independence. In the civil war that was clearly a class war in its nature, Swedish speaking nobility was almost unanimously on the White side, and experience of Winter War added to top of that... Official Sweden withheld the support in the most critical moment of the Republic. Token ambulances, individual volunteers and some material help organized by individual Swedish persons. Considering the unifying impact of Winter War among Finnish ranks (whom fathers and grandfathers fought on both sides of civil war belligerents), world wide moral sympathy, but minimal practical acts toward Finland probably culminated to Swedes for their inaction.

At least they took care of multitude of Finnish children during wars, but certain grudged mentality was still left behind. Svea Mamma didn't help enough...

Nevertheless, every Finn knew then and know now that Sweden is Finland's most natural ally.

But not in a hockey rink. That for sure.

Well, ww2 was frightening to be in. If Sweden officially allied with Finland, Stalin would've declared war on Sweden as well. Sweden still sent most of their military equipment (like Bofors guns), a big chunk of the air force and unofficially sent 8000 volunteers, which was more than any other nation (like France and Great Britain who promised a lot, but sent basically nothing). Sweden's military wasn't in a condition to fight a war with anyone, let alone a super power. Then Norway was invaded and Norwegians still complain Sweden didn't help them more either. Sweden had nothing left to give, what should they do, declare war on both Stalin and Hitler? Yeah, how about an epic suicide as a nation? Which sane smaller nation would consciously declare war on two super powers, let alone one? None.

Still, it left a huge mark in the realization for Sweden that the declaration of neutrality didn't mean anything if you don't have tons of weapons to back it up. Hence Sweden built the 4th biggest air force in the world during the Cold War and had a huge army for its country's size, with great quality in armaments, built within the borders. Then Sweden was ready for when the shit would hit the fan, but the war never came. And now we're back to square one ("There will be no more wars, let's have a pathetic army", lol).

 

[Aurinko]

I wish I had a swedish friend...

I could remind about this win for the next 360 days

 

[RorschachWJK]

Well, ww2 was frightening to be in. If Sweden officially allied with Finland, Stalin would've declared war on Sweden as well. Sweden still sent most of their military equipment (like Bofors guns), a big chunk of the air force and unofficially sent 8000 volunteers, which was more than any other nation (like France and Great Britain who promised a lot, but sent basically nothing). Sweden's military wasn't in a condition to fight a war with anyone, let alone a super power. Then Norway was invaded and Norwegians still complain Sweden didn't help them more either. Sweden had nothing left to give, what should they do, declare war on both Stalin and Hitler? Yeah, how about an epic suicide as a nation? Which sane smaller nation would consciously declare war on two super powers, let alone one? None.

Still, it left a huge mark in the realization for Sweden that the declaration of neutrality didn't mean anything if you don't have tons of weapons to back it up. Hence Sweden built the 4th biggest air force in the world during the Cold War and had a huge army for its country's size, with great quality in armaments, built within the borders. Then Sweden was ready for when the **** would hit the fan, but the war never came. And now we're back to square one ("There will be no more wars, let's have a pathetic army", lol).

I think Finland was the only country to wage war on both Germany and Soviet Union in WW2 and to remain unconquered. Not simultaneously though. But just to stop Soviet Union alone, when they had pretty much undivided attention on Finland, is of course a miracle.

The Swedish volunteers will never be forgotten.

These days, it seems like both Sweden and Finland have learned from errors in the past. The (military) alliance being forged seems practical and working. Important to rehearse now and iron out incompatibilities in the systems...it is too late for that when/if shit hits the fan. Less important which fighter planes are chosen, as all of the choices are system compatible anyways.

 

[BullLund]

Partly true. Sweden was attacked by an alliance of Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania and Russia simultaneously. He didn't attack or declare any wars, the Swedish Empire had actually started to settle down. The previous king didn't start wars at all (he saw war at a young age and hated it) and merely improved the nation with better organization and important reforms. Charles XII's ambition was to make Russia concede, as he had done with Denmark-Norway and Poland-Lithuania. It's quite weird to call someone "the original warlord" when you're the one receiving the declarations of war. Charles XII was attacked because he was so young, the enemies of Sweden saw that as a big weakness.

But sure, that was the end, the empire was too poor and didn't have enough men to manage the damages. It was remarkable it even got that far, the empire was too poor to lose any war, at all, for hundreds of years. In the 30 year war they were even too poor to be able to make peace.

I did not mean "warlord" in a negative sense, it's just well-established that Charles XII was a great warrior, rather than just strategist, and largely spent his life fighting in wars, whether he started them or not. He is remembered for his military prowess, and as one of the last kings to have fought in the thick of battle, thus I regard him as a warlord rather than just a regular "lord" or "aristocrat", a man who fought his battles rather than send other men to die in his stead.

By original, I meant that he was the first European leader, to my recollection, that decided to ambitiously march into Moscow, as the French and Germans did later, with no greater success. Russia's infamy as a nation "impossible to conquer", begins with him.

 

[aphyro]

All I have to say to prove how false this is is "Svenska talande bättre folk".

Ehm that sentence was just weird man...

 

[aphyro]

I did not mean "warlord" in a negative sense, it's just well-established that Charles XII was a great warrior, rather than just strategist, and largely spent his life fighting in wars, whether he started them or not. He is remembered for his military prowess, and as one of the last kings to have fought in the thick of battle, thus I regard him as a warlord rather than just a regular "lord" or "aristocrat", a man who fought his battles rather than send other men to die in his stead.

By original, I meant that he was the first European leader, to my recollection, that decided to ambitiously march into Moscow, as the French and Germans did later, with no greater success. Russia's infamy as a nation "impossible to conquer", begins with him.

You forgot De La Gardi campainge...

 

[RageQuit77]

@BullLund

You're right about that overall interpretation about Carl XII (that was/is also by mythos of Swedish nationalists).



However, Jacob De la Gardie - Wikipedia should be considered The Queen's warlord, considering his career.

@aphyro

Ninja'd.