What was Finland like under Russian rule

What was Finland like under Russian rule

Objectively better than under Sweden

t. Finn

It was terrible. They forced an invented culture and a language nobody spoke on a nation of unwilling Swedes.

I thought that had to do with whites and reds? And all the reds where killed

Reasonable until the Tsarist government went apeshit and decided that the duchy should be Russified. That was at the very end of the empire though.

Becoming an autonomous duchy was a huge improvement compared to being part of Sweden. However, reactionary Czars started to limit that autonomy during the latter part of the 19th century.

Another problem was that because of population growth and legislation meant to promote industrialisation, there was a huge increase in the number of people who didn't own land (mostly different types of tenant farmers). This culminated in the civil war of 1918 (know to its contemporaries as "torpparikapina", "the tenant farmer rebellion").

I corrected a typographical mistake I made here . No, not all of the reds were killed, many of them survived the prison camps and went on to claim their lands when the land reform was instated.

And yes, the Finnish sides of the conflict were called the reds (factory workers and tenant farmers) and the whites (land owners). It was more complex than that, however, since there was considerable foreign involvement during the war, namely from the Bolsheviks and the German Empire.

I guess they had it better than the Poles, since there was no Finnish uprisings.

They did. Political violence only started to escalate in Finland when the Russification reforms began, one notable instance being the Governor General's murder in 1904.

Finns were model subjects of the crown until Russification started as the other user noted. Then it was beatings, murders, strikes, refusal to serve in the army and assassinations after the other. The czar family used to spend their holidays in Finland.

I should probably add that besides the Germans giving significant military support to the whites and the Bolsheviks sporadically helping the reds, white Russians also contributed to the white war effort in Finland by effectively disarming the Northern Finnish red guards by not selling them any weapons during the escalation phase (the weapons trade in Northern Finland was in the hands of middle class Russian traders).

In general, it was not an idelogical conflict, although the literate red leadership probably saw it like that and the whites definitely framed it as such after the war. The violence was rather fueled by the injustices of the tenant farmer system, together with the hardships a new class of the urban poor had to face. The void in legal government caused by the Revolution gave these elements the chance to exact what they saw as justice. The "Me vaadimme" declaration which was the unofficial political program of the red guards was Fennoman social democratic in character, and included points such as land reform and Finnish independence. Most of the demands were met by the succession of independent Finnish governments after the war.

Many of the Fennoman youths actually had trouble passing gymnasium during the Russification period, since Russian was made mandatory and they refused to learn any of it.

>»Sivén: Aijotteko ylioppilaaksi?
>Sibelius: En tiedä, minä en lue ryssää.
>(Hetken hiljaisuus)
>Sivén: Minä kunnioitan Teitä. Miksi ette lue?
>Sibelius: En voi sietää sitä.
>Sivén: En minäkään. Minulla on siinä aina prinsiipistä 4.
>Sibelius: Minä saisin siinä vaikka ehdot – prinsiipistä.»

In English:

>»Sivén: Do you intend to become a university student?
>Sibelius: I don't know, I refuse to study Russian.
>(A moment's silence)
>Sivén: I respect You. Why don't you study it?
>Sibelius: I cannot stand it.
>Sivén: I cannot stand it either. I always have a 4 in it on principle.
>Sibelius: I would even fail that class – on principle.»

>This culminated in the civil war of 1918 (know to its contemporaries as "torpparikapina", "the tenant farmer rebellion").

No it wasn't. Contemporaries most commonly called it "rebellion", "red rebellion", and "civil war", with the more politically loaded "vapaussota" often used by the Whites, and "vallankumous" used by the Reds.

The name "tenant farmer rebellion" was sometimes used, but it's a fairly misleading name, as tenant farmers were not the single largest group of people of the Red side (IIRC landless farm workers were), nor were they the main driving force behind them, and about as many tenant farmers fought on the White side as did on the Red side. The main reason it's still occasionally being called "torpparikapina" is, and I'm not kidding, Väinö Linna and his very influential "Under the North Star" book trilogy. Because he depicts the Finnish Civil War mainly from the viewpoint of tenant farmers fighting on the Red side, the idea that it was first and foremost a "torpparikapina" has been embedded in the minds of many Finns, even if historically speaking it's a fairly flawed interpretation of the conflict.

You are correct, torpparikapina was not a term contemporaries would have used. I apologize for making that mistake. Would it be more correct, in your opinion, to say that the driving force behind the conflict was the opposition between the landless population (including tenant farmers) and the land-owning class?

(As an aside, I seem to recall that most of the tenant farmers who fought for the whites were from Ostrobothnia, where tenant farmers were generally in a better position economically.)

They don't remember

>Russification reforms
Firstly in was a short time: 1899—1905 and 1908—1917. Secondly knowing of an imperial language as second was good for trade with another regions of the Empire. I thing "sortovuodet" as "Golodomor-Ukrocost" full of myth because patriotic intend.

>I thing "sortovuodet" [...] full of myth because patriotic intend.

That is stupid and wrong though, since the Russification measures are well documented and were in line with Nicholas II's other nationalist conservative policies.

>in was a short time: 1899—1905 and 1908—1917

No wonder it was just a "short" time, since the Russian Empire ceased existing and Finland became independent after that.

Should Finland have adopted monarchy liked they planned to after the civil war

>Would it be more correct, in your opinion, to say that the driving force behind the conflict was the opposition between the landless population (including tenant farmers) and the land-owning class?

Not him, but yes. Finland wasn't properly industrialized at that point (even though small industry existed) and urbanization wasn't a thing. Some reds were factory workers but most weren't. It is very obvious that in both pre-civil war and post-civil war the main drive for class tension was the landless/landed divide. Before the war, we had books like "Punainen viiva" which was about describing the life of a poor tenant. Immediately after the civil war both Torpparilaki and Lex Kallio were introduced which were both laws that allowed tenures (torpparilaki) and other landless farmworkers (Lex Kallio - Lex Kallio also made it so that those who got land under Torpparilaki could buy more land) to redeem the land they rented from the landowner. Seeing that contemporary literature addressed the issue, and it was addressed by the government right after a devastating civil war it is pretty safe to say that yes the landless - landowner divide was the main force behind the conflict. The aftermath of Torpparilaki and Lex Kallio also support this, as the desire for communism almost vanished. 99% of Finns denying the Terijoki hallitus, and fighting against the Soviets together in the Winter War is a sign of this.

The Russification attempts were not just Russian being introduced as a second language. Without going too deep into it, it was a long term plan to take all autonomy from all governing bodies of Finland. It was only stopped because the Empire collapsed, the Russians were entirely set on Russifying Finland. They even transferred up to 100k soldiers near/to Finland during WW1 in case of any unrest.

>are well documented
like Holocost and Ukrocost?

At least second language learning was legal, as decrete by Great Finn Konung Nicolas II, is not?

Did Finns helped Bolsheviks get power above the Russian Empire in exchange of independence like Balts did?

Buncha gooks larping as Swedes.

kinda relevant to this thread, but i'm compiling a list of historical works on finland to make a Veeky Forums chart (given that finland is a meme around here). I've already got a lot of works, but no real extensive studies focusing on a particular period. So if anyone has come across any works post em here.

More autonomous then the other Russian colonies