E. H. Carr: "a dialogue between the present and the past". In reconstructing and interpreting the past the historian is always influenced by the attitudes and prejudices of the age and society in which he lives


Download 223.64 Kb.
Date conversion18.06.2018
Size223.64 Kb.
  1   2   3

TWO COURSES IN HISTORY, ONE DEALING WITH MODERN FINNISH HISTORY AND THE OTHER WITH WORLD HISTORY (both old and more modern, depending on what you are interested in).



1. What is HISTORY?

-Reliability and bias

2. Essaywriting

-technic and content


1. The discipline which studies the past.

-the analysis or description of the past.

-the notion of human activity during history (causes -consequences)
2. Events in the past, object to historical research.

-man is the object, therefore the historian is forced to extreme criticism.(You have to examine the motives and background of a certain text or source).

2.1. Every answer to the question "WHY" is in history an interpretation, generalization or a consolidation of different information. The historian's attempt to reconstruct and interpret the past, not the past itself. Predjudice!

3. History is the story of mankind.

Even when historians write about a natural process (climate, diseases) they do so only to understand why and how men and women have lived.

What is unique about the human species is not its possession of certain faculties or physical characteristics, but what it has done with them - its achievments, or history in fact.

4. History is a serious discipline with a rigorous methodology but it involves a high degree of interpretive and creativ imagination.

5. E.H. Carr: "a dialogue between the present and the past". In reconstructing and interpreting the past the historian is always influenced by the attitudes and prejudices of the age and society in which he lives.


Many different kinds of history exists; History isn't about learning a lot of what have happened in the past or to understand cause-consequence-chains as someone have interpreted them to us. History is also to penetrate a world of prospects where one can get associations and ideas and thoughts which one is able to use in one's life.

History is also something we can not avoid, it's

something we continuosly experience and learn us. We collect a capital of history through our impressions. Fragments which imprint our view of the past, the present and the future but also our attitude towards blurred moralconcepts as wrong or right (evil-good).

What is the use of history?

Try to imagine what it would be like living in a society where there was no knowledge at all of history (G. Orwell; 1984). History is to community, as memory is to the individual. It's a question of identity. It also help us to orientate ourselves. Thanks to our knowledge of history we find that instead of being totally adrift on the endless and featureless (formlös, intresselös) sea of time, we do have some idea of where we are, and of who we are.

The social importance of history is brought out by the way in which we are constantly coming up against history.

It's the one subject where you can not begin at the beginning. We can trace the chain of human descent back to the appearence of vertrebates (ryggradsdjur), or even to the photosynthetic cells. We can go even further, even to the origins of the universe. Yet this is not history. The historian is interested (or history appears) when MAN comes on the scene (just when exactly that was, is a matter of dispute.


George Orwell "Who controls the past controls the present" (1984)

History, or the image of the past has very much to do with power. The ones who has the power in the society usually also are the ones who "produces" history. A question of manipulating people into a certain view.

Certain values and views are emphazised. There is always somekind of objective behind this. Why do some events appear in the historybooks while others are valued as less important. In a totalitarian society this is quite obvious. A certain historical view has a clear purpose: to legalize and strengthen the rule of the totalitarian state. "Producing" history is a generally used method - falsification of facts. Could you mention any examples?

Generally, at least in the so called "democratic" countries, one assumes that one is presented with more objective history. Of course one seldom runs into examples of clear falsification but especially when dealing with modern history the presentations (or the history presented) are more or less biased. In more traditional cases it's the interpretation of the victors which is presented as "history". Just to mention one example from Finland; The history of our civilwar (1918).

This is of course traumatic and can result in a national historical trauma (something I will return to later) but usually it's dealt with when enough time has passed (In Finland this process began in the 1960's and during the 1990's the national historical trauma of the civil war is definetly accepted and dealt with).

I have mentioned Orwell (and his warnings) a couple of times but alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD.

In Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared thiose who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture.

While people are very well aware of the Orwellian warnings they tend to forget Huxley's visions.

Especially in the Western World (which in many cases is looked up to as some kind of model example) this is a definitive threat which also includes manipulating history to serve a certain purpose. The war in the Persian Gulf was one clear example of how people were served enrmous amounts of information without revealing what really happened. The war was presented as entertainment, a computergame-soapopera. Which were the objectives behind this?

An other way to manipulate history is to emhazise a certain event and at the same time forget an otherone. Noam Chomsky, an american professor in linguistqs has turned his attention to this feature. I will show you a short example of the American presentation of the genocides in Cambodia and East-Timor which took place approximately the same time. But while the Worldopinion was focused on what happened in Cambodia there was an almost complete silence about the terrible development on East-Timor. The reason why I think this is an good example of how history is produced is the fact that when historians creat history they use all avaible sourcematerial and the more sources they can get (the more a certain episode has been covered) the bigger is the chance that this event is valued as "important". How do you think the historian chooses what to include and what to exclude when he is writing for example a schoolbook in history?

Chomsky, who isn't actually working with the past but with the present, is talking about THE MANUFACTURE OF CONSENT - A technic to control the people to serve the purposes of the ruling class. When you can't control people with force you have to control what they think.

According to Chomsky it's, what he call the elitémedia which does this while they are the agendasetting media - the major televisionchannels and newspapers. They set the framework and local media adopt to their structure.

They do this in many ways;

-by selection of topics

-by distribution of concerns

-by emphasizm

-by framing the issues

-by filtering the information

The elitémedia determent, select, shape, control and restrict in order to serve the interest of dominant elitégroups of the society.

They produce a perception of the World.

I could examplify Chomsky's point by one example from the mid-70's.

If we study our historybooks of today (eventhough we are dealing with events which are not more than 20 years away) I'm quite convinced that we can find quite a lot on the atrocitys which the Khmer Rouge are responsible for while I think we would find it difficult to find anything on what happened on East-Timor the same time.


When a nation, or parts of the population in it, is suffering from a trauma the reason can usually be found in the past and how the history have been presented.

To understand this I think one could compare it with an individual trauma.

A trauma appears when you have experienced something terrible but you can't deal with it. The only way to cure yourself is to try to find out what happened in the past and deal with it.

When talking about a nation we are dealing with a historical trauma when something terrible have occured (civil war, war) but the people isn't allowed to find out what exactly happened. The only cure is to try to find the truth and in this case historical research is of great importance.

In this process one should aim at revealing the truth which requires sincerity and an openminded attitude.

Finally one can conclude that the written history, or the interpretations on what have happened is changed by time.

The historical view, or presentation, is usually becoming more objective as time goes by. The victors story turns into history.

Assignment: Examine a historical event (any) from two different point of views and present; a. the differences and possible explanations to them. b. Your personal judgement of the sources used. Which of them is more accurate or reliable?


To discover what people thought and did and to organize this into a chronological record of the human past, historians must search for evidence - for the sources of history. Most sources are written materials, ranging from government records to gravestoneinscriptions, memoirs and poetry. Other sources include paintings, photoraphs, sculpture, buildings, maps, pottery and oral traditions. In searching for sources, historians usually have something in mind - some tentative (hypotetiska) goals or conclusions that guide their search. Thus in the process of working with sources, historians must decide which ones to emphasize. What historians ultimately write is a synthesis of the questions posed, the sources used, and their own ideas.

THOUGH THE WORD "RESEARCH" is used frequently it has quite a strict meaning when talking about academic historical research. In history : diligent(omsorgsfull) and scholarly investigation in all available primary and secondary sources in order to extend human knowledge in a particular area. Research, as generally understood by historians, implies work carried out in primary sources.



-A source which came into existing during the actual period of the past which the historian is studying - the basic contemporary (samtida) raw material of history.

-Documents written or formed by individuals involved in the matter under investigation. Historians consider these documents their main building blocks for learning about and interpreting the past. They are pieces of evidence that show what people thought, how they acted, and what they accomplished. At the same time historians must critizise these sources both externally - to attempt to uncover forgeries and errors - and internally - to find the authors' motives, inconsistencies within the documents, and different meanings of words and phrases.


-Is any interpretation, written (or made) later looking back upon a period in the past - often interpretations written later by historians.

-Secondary sources are documents written by scholars about the time in question. Usually, they are interpretations of what occured based on examination of numerous primary documents and other sources. They reflect choices the authors have made and their own particular understandings of what has happened. Often there are important differences of opinion among scholars about how to understand significant historical developments. Secondary sources should therefore be read with these questions in mind: What sort of evidence does the author use? Does the author's argument make sence? What political or ideological preferences are revealed in the author's interpretation? How might one argue against the interpretation presented by the autor?

At times the distinction between Secondary and primary sources becomes blurred, as when the author is a contemporary (samtida) of the events she or he is interpreting. If a document by that author is read as an interpreatation of what occured, it would be a secondary source. As evidence for the assumptions and attitudes of the author's times, however, the document would be a primary source.


-AUTHENTICITY (If the source is a falsification it doesn't mean it's worthless on the contrary but it's essential to know).
You have to question any information, material or statement you come across to test and establish its meaning and truth.

A series of basic questions which the historian must ask of every source he has to deal with:

1. What type of source it it? (official dokument or private message).
2. Who created the source in the first place (possible attitudes, prejudices, time, society).
3. How and for what purpose did the document come into existence? (Who was it written for - the differences in diarys).
4. How far is the author of the source really in a good position to provide first-hand information on the particular topic? (Title or position in the society, in some cases connections)
5. The historian has to be sure he has properly understood the document.

a. possible problems with inscriptions or handwritings (Paasikivi)

b. problems of foreign languages (Medieval Latin - Classical Latin, but also the differences in modern languages comparing to languages in the past).


"Essays are consumable - use them to feed the skill of writing history". The mistake many make is to consider the product more important in itself than the process which produced it.

Usually, any essay subject which you are set will take the form of asking you a direct question. A first obvious point then is: ALWAYS ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED, not some other question you would like to have been asked (for example the questions on Spain in IB final exams). To answer the question you will need to analyse your material, not just present straight narrative or description. When you are writing an essay you should show that you are thinking all the time, not simply setting down information. You must be selective in the material you include, making sure it is relevant to the questions you are asked (or have raised yourself - hypothesis). Every idea, comment or observation must be supported by facts or reasons. Finally, you must organize your material, both within individual paragraphs and in the essay as a whole, so that the answer you are giving communicates as effectively as possible with the reader. Use your own language, don't try to write in a fancy or "academic" way if it isn't yor way of presenting information.

1. Introductory part
1.1. Titlepage

-Title, the most important in the essay is that the content reflects the Title (exactly). While the title is the most important in the essay it's advisable to construct it after finishing the essay. One of the fundamental skills of the historian is to ask questions and the title is your most important question to which the essay should provide an answer.

-Name of the author

-Subject (history)

1.2. List of contents

I. Introduction

I.II. purpose or aim of the examination

I.III. survey of the litterature

I.IV. methods
The introduction has to answer;

-aim of the essay, statement of intent

-framing the problem


-methods of research

-messages to the reader

-information about manners of presentation


2. TEXTPART, the thesis.

-Answers the purposes which are described in the introduction.

-The presentation is divided in to entiretys (helheter) if possible. Every entirety is divided in to introduction, text and summary.

-Numeration of chapters, 1., 2....

-subtitles, 1.1., 1.2....

When writing a history essay, most people have more facts of knowledge available than they conveniantly could use - SELECT the information to suit your question. Avoid information which isn't relevant, do not repeat facts. Understanding the relevance of a piece of information is really assessing the importance of it. The reader has to understand WHY you are including a piece of information. Arrange the information in a logical way.


-Conclusions - results of the essay (research)

-Criticism - estimate the results.

-No new information


-SOURCES - Difference between printed and not printed sources.

Not printed sources are taken up refering to the archives or places where the sources are. Ex.

Finlands riksarkiv (FRA)

Leo Mechelins brevsamling
Printed sources are refered to below suitable heading. Ex.


Hufvudstadsbladet (Hbl) 1920-1929

Paasikivi, J.K.: Toimintani Moskovassa ja Suomessa 1939-41 I-II. Porvoo 1958.

Autobiographys can be used as sources if the information is suitable and relevant. Ex. Paasikivis diarys.
-LITTERATUR - The bibliographical list is done in alphabetical order (author). Litteratur without any certain author are dealt with according to the title of the piece.

The name of the author is always written in the way it's done in the book used.

The title is written as on the titlepage (usually the page after the cover).

For each piece of work you have to mention the place of print and the year of print.

A article is refered to in the same way except that the title is mentioned in quotationmarks.
Everything which isn't common information or your own conclusions should be supported i.e. (dvs) should be able to control. Every reference should include;

1. The name of the author

2. Year of print

3. Page

The references are given as footnotes in the end of a page. Ex.

Carlsson 1949 p. 14

Carlsson 1949 p. 130f.

Carlsson 1949 p. 203ff.

Carlsson 1949 p. 212-220.

Carlsson 1949 p. 40, 49.

If you quote a text it has to be done exactly as in the original text. If you leave out words this is marked /.../, if you leave out sentences or longer paragrphs it's marked /___/.

If you quote a quotation you shoul show this by using simple quotationmarks.

After the bibliography. Only if they are relevant for the essay.


The historian starts with some knowledge or facts, adds opinion, interpretations, judgements, and presents them in a logical and relevant essay. The last of these objectives is most important, since understanding it will make the difference between good and bad essays or grades.


For all but the last few thousand years of their two million years existence humans have obtained their subsistence by a combination of gathering foodstuffs and hunting animals. In nearly every case people lived in small, mobile groups. It was without doubt the most successful and flexible way of life adopted by humans and the one that caused the least damage to natural ecosystems.

The fact that the remains have, so far, only been found in a few areas of the world, mainly east and south Africa, has naturally influenced exlanations of the likely geographical origins of human ancestors and their development.

Fossils found from about 2-1,5 million years ago and called HOMO ERECTUS are recognised as being the direct ancestors of modern humans. But much earlier fossil remains reveal evidence of certain 'human traits', notably upright posture and toolmaking linked to the first stonetools about 2 million years ago.

The earliest humans lived in small, thinly spread populations. The groups probably depended mainly on the gathering of nuts, seeds and plants. The food supplemented by hunting small mammals or scavenging dead animals killed by other predators. Gathering and hunting was to last the human way of life until the development of agriculture about 10.000 years ago.

Earlier one believed that these human groups lived under the constant threat of starvation and that all time was spent on the search for food. New approaches have a more positive view of gathering and hunting groups. Obtaining food and other forms of work probably only took up a small proportion of the day, leaving a large amount of time free for leisure and ceromonial activities.

In order to obtain the necessary subsistence, gathering and hunting groups depended on a deep knowledge of their local areas. (We would probably not survive anymore, but we are one of the first generations who wouldn't).

Modern examples of gathering and hunting groups tell us a good deal about the way in which historical groups would have operated in the various environments they inhabited around the World. All groups seem to have tried to control their numbers so as not to overtax the resources of their ecosystem (this can seem cruel to us but actually this is one of the largest problems today and in the future - explosive growth of the population 5,5 billons today and 11 billions in 50 years. 1500 A.D approximately ½ billion). Just before the adoption of agriculture, about 10.000 years ago the World population was approximately 4 million.

The gradual development of human societies and the spread of settlement across the globe into different environments can be traced to four basic traits (karaktärsdrag) that distinguish humans from other primates;

1. Fundamental to all advance was an increase in brain size. A bigger brain seems to have been important in achieving the power of ABSTRACT thought so vital in development of technology.

2. The ability to stand fully upright on two feet. This was important not just in increasing mobility but also in freeing the hands to undertake other tasks such as using and making tools.

3. The use of speech. We don't know when but this opened the way to increased group co-operation and more social organisation in general as well as aiding the spread of general cultural advances.

4. The adoption of technological means to overcome difficulties imposed by hostile environments. Although the animals use tools the humans are the only who make them. Stone tool-making began about 2 million years ago. Wooden spears - 400.000 years ago.

Fire - The exact date at which the fire was first deliberately used is a matter of considerable controversy. The first widely accepted evidence comes from about 500.000 years ago.

We use a lot of different terms in dealing with human history. A written language is the difference between historic and pre-historic time.

Generally the time span from about 2 million years ago to acout 3000 B.C. is called the STONE AGE, because it was a period when man made most of his weapons and tools of stone.


HOMO ERECTUS had definetely spread outside Africa 1½ million years ago. But the areas occupied were still restricted; semi-tropical areas with a considerable variety of vegetable material that could be gathered easily and a wide range of small and easily hunted animals.

The first evidence of human occupation in Europe is dated to about 730.000 years ago and most areas of Europe had seen human settlement by about 350.000 years ago. A nomad life moving with the mammuthherds hunted.

The permanent settlement of Europe (80.000 - 12.000 years ago) at a time of extremely severe climatic conditions was a major human achievement and a sign of increasing human control over the environment.

The boat - Australia settled about 40.000 years ago (a voyage about 60 miles).

The settlement of America was almost the last stage in the movement of humans across the globe. This was because it depended on the ability of human groups first to survive in the harsh climate of Siberia and then to advance eastwards to the Bering Strait.

By about 10.000 years ago nearly all parts of the globe had been settled. The final phase took place relatively late in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The last two major Islands of the World were settled by humans about 800 A.D. (New Zealand, Madagascar).

Humans had become the only animals to dominate and exploit every terrestrial ecosystem.


For about 2 million years humans lived by gathering, herding and hunting. Then in the space of a few thousand years a radically different way of life emerged based on a major alteration to natural ecosystems in order to produce crops and provide pasture for animals. This more intensive system of food production was developed separately in 3 core areas of the World - South-west Asia, China and Mesoamerica - and it marked the most important transition in human history.

The consequences of the changes were revolutionary but in a way its misleading to talk about a revolution. The timescale over which these changes took place was long, at least 4-5000 years.

Adjustment to agriculture enabled a larger population to be supported (population growth) but meant that it became impossible to go back to a gathering and hunting way of life because the large number of people could not then be fed.

Human societies did not set out to invent 'agriculture' and produce permanent settlements. Rather a series of marginal changes were made gradually in existing ways of obtaining food as a result of particular local circumstances. Gathering and hunting groups did practise certain forms of cultivation; burning ground and this way improving nutrient recycling, replanting and sowing plants in the wild.

In the Levant as early as 18.000 BC humans were herding gazelles in a semi-domisticated environment. At the same time these groups were also harvesting wild forms of plants such as einkorn, emmer and barley(korn) that were to be domesticated (kultiverad, för hushållsbruk) 10.000 years later.

Farming was the greatest of man's transformatons of the environment. In a hunting-gathering society hundreds of square kilometers were needed to support a group, whereas in primitive agricultural society only a tenth of this was enough. In terms of population growth alone, a huge acceleration became possible.

An assured food surplus also meant settlements of a new solidity. Bigger populations could live on smaller areas and new villages could appear.

Specialists not engaged in food production could be tolerated and fed more easily while they practised their own skills.

Within the farming communities distinctions of role multiplied. When the surplus aloud trade this development accelerated. This may also have encouraged into warfare.


I would like you to act as a small settlement and logically live through the stages and "inventions" which will result in a River Valley Civilization.


1. Geographically charactirezed by the large rivers which cross them (The Nile, Eufrat, Tigris, and Indus)

2. The climat was similar, in the zone between the northern part of the globe and the Tropics.
3. Historically, large and organized settlements, the first ones which tell us about themselves in writing.
Ex; Egypt and the Nile.

The Nile was and still is of the greatest importance to Egypt. The width and length (6500 km) makes it one of the longest rivers in the World. At the mouth of the river 3 continent meet eachother therefore one can see the Nile as the key to contacts between Africa and the Meditarrenian countries.

The Nile is a perfect river as it is easy to travel on (only on 5 places one has to cross naturalobstacles like waterfalls. The wind is also steady and very reliable.

The floods

In late july the water started rising to reach its maximum in September (approx. 6m above normal). After this the water starts to return and fertilizes the land. In February the waterlevel has returned to normal and the farming can start.

A concept with positive tone eventhough it definitely wasn’t any development in the welfare of most humans.

As man gained control of the environment, something taking place approximately the same time on different places on the globe (Nile, Eufrat-Tigris, Indus, Yellow River), one was forced to pursue spezialisation of occupations.

A wide range of earlier inventions were combined and one could produce the conditions necessary to civilization – A HIGHLY ORGANISED SOCIETY, ADVANCED SKILLS IN ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY AND MAINTENANCE OF WRITTEN RECORDS.

Socially and economically more differentiated societies emerged – one can talk of a URBAN REVOLUTION, which means a kind of city state often characterized by fortifications.


The farming and draining required masses of labour which had to be governed.

This resulted in the birth of a political structure – the tribe was replaced with the state.

The irrigationplants increased the surplus in production – more and more were freed to pursue spezialised occupations. They moved to the city which became the center for all craftsmen and businessmen.

The surplusproduction and spezialisation resulted in the need of commerce (both extensive and with closer areas).

In this increasingly complicated economy existed a need of bookkeeping which gave birth to writing.

The power and the wealth had to be protected which explains why armies emerged.


The main objectives why we have decided to include a course in Finnish history are;

1) As we live in Finland and Finland plays a minor role in the ib-history programme we thought you should have an opportunity to study the history of the country you live in.

2) If someone, after this initial pre-ib year decides to quit the ib-programme and move to the ordinary upper secondary school you can compensate this course.

This course is demanding in a very different way in comparison with the first you did. During the course all of you write an academic essay. We'll discuss details later.

You will also have a test in the end of the course. The test will look as much as possible as ib-historytests do.

A visit to Helsinki will be included. I’ll divide you in groups and each group has to present something in Helsinki to the other students. We will also visit some important places during this day.

The content of the course;

We will begin by trying to get an image of the Finnish past. The influence through time from both east and west.

After this we'll discuss the Russian time (1808-1917) mainly focusing on the later part. Finland's role as a autonomous Grandduchy and the influence of Worldeconomy and -politics.

The main focus will be on this century and Finland as an independent state. There are no suitable books available which means a lot of notes. If you master Swedish/finnish you could try and borrow some existing coursebooks for this course (4) on the national stream.

But before we begin I would like to listen to your opinions on this. Suggestions and questions.


How many of you have studied Finnish history?

What do you know of this country and what would you like to know more about?


Finland's political traditions and institutions originate, for the most part, from the period before the country turned independent in 1917. The foundation of the social institutions was laid during 600 years under Swedish rule, and Finland began to take on a political character of its own during more than a century under Russian rule.

FREEDOM is the most important heritage Finland acquired from its Nordic past. The Finns never experienced feudalism an were never enslaved (compare with Russia).

Swedish rule and the authority of the Catholic church solidified (blev solidare, fastare) their position in Finland during the 13th century (Crusaides - rivalry with the Orthodox church).

Chronic warfare between Sweden and Novgorod/Russia had a major impact on Finland. Finland's eastern border was first deliniated (skissad) in the Peace Treaty of Pähkinänsaari 1323.

The declaration of 1362 by the Swedish King decreed that "each time when a new King has to be elected, the LAGMAN must be present, accompanied by elected peasant representatives, to select a king on behalf of the people of the Province of the Eastland" . This declaration established the right of the free peasants to participate in the election of the Swedish king.

During the Sweden-Finland period such Nordic traditions and institutions as religious practices, a system of justice, education and public administration took root in Finland. In the 16th century, following the reformation, the work of advancing Finnish culture and literacy got under way when religious texts were translated to finnish. Swedish civil and criminal codes remained in effect throughout the period of Russian rule.

Of even more lasting importance was the promulgation (utfärdande) in 1772 (constitution) and 1789 (Act of Union and Security) of the constitutional laws in which the power of government became concentrated in the hands of the King (these laws were part of a coup d'etat in Sweden and designed for enlighted despotism). As this constitution was to remain unchanged until 1919 and during the period of Russification were interpreted differently by the Finns and the Russian authorities it will be refered to during this course. Some remnants of this law can also be seen in the form of Government Law of 1919 which established the government of independent Finland. This also one historical eplanation to why the President in Finland has quite extended powers.


Why did Finland become part of the Russian Empire?

The deal made between Alexander I and Napoleon at Tilsit in 1807. Alexander promised Napoleon that he would persuade Sweden to participate in The blockade against Britain. When the swedish king Gustav IV didn't respond to diplomatic means , military coercion was resorted to. Alexander probably never intended to annex Finland but as the Russian forces succeeded in occuping the country without much Swedish resistance he decided it could be an option.

The peace of Hamina (1809) established the present-day border between Finland and Sweden along Tornio river and ceded the Åland Islands to Russia. Viipuri province,

which Sweden had already lost in 1743 was returned to Finland in 1812.

To pacify the Finns, and maybe also as an experiment of liberalism (at the time Alexander was open to liberal ideas which definitely wasn't the case after the devasteting war against Napoleon) Alexander I gave Finland a special autonomous status as a Grand Duchy with himself as grand duke, within the Russian Empire. All legislation was separated entirely from Russian administration.

The consequence of this was that Finland and Russia were united into a personal union with the ruler as the sole uniting factor. The Grand duke was to be represented in Finland by a General Governor who also would be the chairman of the Imperial Senate (government) which members were appointed by the grand duke.

Alexander I called for the Finnish estates to meet in Porvoo on March 28, 1809. At this meeting Alexander pledged that Finland could retain its rights under the Swedish constitution, its religion, and special privileges of the Finnish estates(the promise could easily be done as this constitution had been designed for totalitarian rule). Legalative changes could only be done with the estates and the ruler but the ruler wasn't obliged to assemble the estates (which in fact didn't happen until 1863).




(komplettera sidorna 3-4 från kurs 6 anteckningar)

Last topic discussed was the building of the railway-net in Finland mwhich was essential for the industrial process. The first track, between H:ki - Hämeenlinna was finished in 1862.


AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: The rapidly changing times required big reforms among the farmers as well. These investments required capital ( farming machines ). Usually a farmer had only two options to get the money: either he owned forest which could be sold or he had to ask for credits from a bank. It was due to this (and the more liberal legislation which allowed trading on the countryside) that the one moved to moneyeconomy on the countryside as well (this late).

The rising value of the forests and the need for investments in farming (if one wanted to continue as a farmer) resulted in:

1) Farming became one sector in the industrialization of the society (The mechanisation of the agriculture).

2) a growing rift between rich (big) and poor(small - crowfter) farmers. Numerous crowfters and landless farmers had were forced to give up look for a new (usually not very attractive) life in the industrial sector as industryworkers.

3) Quite a few farmer became dependant on a bank (big debts). When the farms(and forests) suddenly became valuable it resulted in problems when the hereditary domains had to be divided. This usually resulted in that the farms were divided in to smaller ones or that one heir had to become dependant to a bank to buy out the other heirs. In Finland this partly explains the existence of our numerous small farms.

4) Some of the farmers, who owned big forests, became very wealthy. This wealth could be invested in new machines but also in educating their children which resulted in a new, educated farming class with a big self-confidence (politically - the founding of a party for the farmers. Has had, and still has, an enormous impact on the political life in our country).
As a consequence of the industrialization Finland the country witnessed a migrationmovement far bigger than ever before (same pattern in all countries which were industrialized). Migration and emigration. Push-pull factors.

The primary reason was to find work and the first time this accured in large scale was due to the last so called years of famine in Finland (1866-67) when the crop failed in most of the country (similarities to the potatoplague in Ireland 1846-47).

At the same time the need of working labour in the agricultural sector was cut down (the machines replaced the crowfters). New places of work could be found in constructing, service, railwaybuilding and industry (typical in Finland was that most of the work wasn't necessarily found in the towns which explains the quite slow urbanization, compared to other industrialized countries.

1900 - 88% of the population still living on the countryside. (Helsinki had 100 000 inhabitants, 50% swedishspeaking). Every fourth finn moved during the 1890's.


Grew in to a massmovement during the last years of the century. Usually people moved to countries with similarities to Finland; Sweden, Norway, Russia and United States (Canada). The main reasons were economic but during the russificationperiod also a question of escaping. The peak during the years of 1901-10 (160 000). After this emigration slowed down due to stricter immigrationlaws in USA.


Already from the early 1860's one could observe Russian nationalism in Finland. The ones reading Russian newspapers and litterature could more and more often read about demands that the Finnish autonomy should be cut down. Nationalism, which had been spreading all over Europe since the beginning of the century had reached Russia approxiamatelt the same time as it came to Finland. The juridical expertise in Finland emphzised the fact that Alexander I, in his speech in Porvoo had raised Finland to a nation among the nations. In his regentassurance (regentförsäkran), which all Granddutchies after him also signed, he had confirmed the constitutional laws of Finland (RF 1772, FSA 1789).

According to these consititutional laws the Russian Czar didn't have the supreme powers he had in Russia. Laws couldn't be made or changed without the acceptance of the Finnish diet.

The juridical expertise in Russia claimed that while the Czar stood above everyone and everything he also had the right to withdraw his regentassurance.

During the former part of the century there didn't exist any friction in this matter while there didn't exist any demands of change (neither in Russia nor Finland) but now when nationalism altered the situation it created a acute stage.

In Finland one wished to develop the territorial exceptional position while one in Russia regarded the Finnish autonomy as a threat against the unification of the Russian Empire (one should remember that about 50% of the population in Russia were non-russians). The Russian nationalists wished to create a united and strong empire.

After the upheavals in Poland (1863) the radical Russian nationalism rapidly gained support. One emphazised russian superiority in comparison to the other non-russian peoples in the empire.

The strengthening of non-russian nationalism in the Russian border areas was seen as a dividing and dangerous development.

Russian nationalism also played the important rôle of attracting the discontent masses and focusing their discontent on a feature and thus avoiding the growth of an oppositional force.

This is also the age of imperialism, the struggle for colonies and the emergence of strong nationalstates on the European continent. This national rivalry urged the rulers in St:Petersburg to consolidate the great Empire with the help of russification policy.

The Russification started in Poland and spread through the Baltic states.

The situation was different in Finland which made it slightly more difficult for the russian nationalists to find a reason why the policy towards Finland should be reversed. Finlands autonomy had been cemented during a long time and while there had never been any problems or upheavals the autonomy had actually increased since the beginning of the 1860s.

1881 Alexander II was assasinated and was followed by his son Alexander III who was extremely shocked by the murder on his father.

As the only way out he saw the strengthening of the totalitarian rule and he was supported by the Russian nationalists.

Alexander III didn't like the Finnish autonomy but due to reasons of realist politics he didn't make any changes in the status of Finland while it was unnecessary to provoke problems where these didn't exist.

The dilemma was the Russian nationalists who louder and louder demanded a revision of the specialstatus of Finland.

At the same time the military expertise became increasingly worried about the security of St:Petersburg and in these fears Finland played a predominant rôle. Finland was a securityrisk if a hostile nation (Germany) wanted to use Finland as a springboard in a attack against Russia.

This fear wasn't justified as the population of Finland remained totally loyal towards the Granddutch until the very end of the century. The finns saw the Granddutch as some kind of fatherfigure.

(fyll i)


The intention was to weed out the elements of "Finnish separatism" by depriving the country of its special status and absorbing it into the Empire.

With this in mind, Nikolaj II appointed the passionately pro-Russian General Nikolay Bobrikov as Governor-General of Finland in 1898, with powers to implement a stringent programme of Russification, including merging of the Finnish military with the Russian army, adoption of the Russian languaga for use in the senate, government offices and schools, the opening of all official posts in Finland to Russian citizens, and extension of the legal code of the Russian Empire to the Grand Duchy.

The Tsar issuen a decree on the 15th February 1899 which the Finns saw as an attempt to seize power from the Diet.

With the Febrarymanifesto the Russian Tsar and Duma gained the powers to the legislation of so called nation-wide laws and it was the Tsar who had the powers to decide which laws were to be interpreted as nation wide ones.

The Februarymanifesto gave rise to a vast outcry. At the beginning majority of the Finns thought that the Gran Dutch had been fooled and the Finns raised a Great Petition (with more than  million names of a population on 2 million). The petition was submitted to the Tsar but he refused to accept accept it. The same happened to the Cultural petition.

After this the Finns were divided in their views how one should react and response to the Russian oppression.

Those who advocated a more conciliatory approach were in favour of a policy of appeasement towards Russia in order to save what still could be saved (and of course there existed those who hoped to personally benefit). This line of action was mostly supprted by the so called old Finns.

The Constitutionalists took a sterner view of Russification, believing that there was a place for passive resistance and civil disobedience (The Young Finns, The Swedish Party and the Liberals and the majority od the Socialdemocrats who had founded their party the same year). A minority of the Socialists advocated a policy of activ resistance (part of the Marxist doctrines). The activists (radical Finnish nationalists) also preferred active resistance.

1900 - Through a postmanifesto Finland lost its own national stamps.

A languagemanifesto introduced Russian as administrative language in higher offices and the teachinglessons in Russian in the schools increased.

Censorship was tightened and newspapers and magazines were forced to close.

1901 - Through the conscriptionlaw the Finnish army was dissolved and military service in the Russian army became compulsory (passive resistance and increased emigration).

1903 - Bobrikov received dictatorial powers.

1904 - Bobrikov assassinated by Eugen Schauman.

1904-05 - The Russo-Japanese war.

The Russian defeat in the War resulted in the first revolutionary attempt in Russia. After the Bloody Sunday a general strike spread throughout Russia and to Finland were it became a protestmovement against the oppressive policies.

During the year of 1904 the political situation changed drastically in Finland. The unrest and opposition increased. Russia dragged itself into a war with Japan and Bobrikov was assassinated by Schauman. In August Nikolaj II announced that the diet would be assembled in December to decide on change in the elctoral system. Due to this the question on suffrage came up-to-date, and this was a issue which only the socialists had been engaged in.

When Nikolaj opened the diet in december ha announced that the Februarymanifesto would still be in maintained which caused wild protests from the Finnish representatives. The franchise reform stranded on this while the Constitutionalists claimed that constitutional matters couldn't be dealt with as long as the Manifesto was valid. At this point one can notice a division in the finnish society while the Socialdemocrats tried ta awken a popular movement on the franchise issue.

I march the Tsars situation became even more difficult due to increasing Russian opposition. In Finland this resulted in a slightly slackened russification policy. The conscription law from 1901 was revised.

When the Finnish diet could come to any agreement on the franchise issue the rift between right and left widened and the first signs of a serious conflict appeared. The socialdemocrats prepared for a generalstrike.

A revolutionary development was distinct in both Russia and Finland.

At the same time an interesting alliance saw daylight. Some Finnish activists took contact with the Japanese embassy in Stockholm and proposed cooperation in their struggle against Russia. Japan promised economical assistance and with japanese money the activists succeeded in buying arms in Great Britain. The shipment was smuggled out of the country with great difficulties on a leased ship - John Grafton but the affair had a dissappointing end when the ship went on a rock in the Ostrobothnian coast and sunk with its cargo.

In August 1905 the Russian railwayworkers started a nationwide proteststrike against the regim and this strike was the spark which resulted in a landslide of strikes in the Empire which paralyzed Russia. All different oppositional elements in Russia joined the protests which became increasingly violent. The objectives were to change circumstances and the legislation in Russia. This was to be achieved through a legilative peoples representation. The radicalisation of the movement and the fact that the socialdemocrats actually controlled the strikemovement started to worry other bourgeois elements. Quite soon the Tsar had to accept defeat and new principles for the ruling systems in Russia were proclaimed. Civil rights and franchise were increased. The ruler still had extensive powers. Actually one could talk of a compromise between the Tsar and preoppositional non-socialstic elements. These joined together in a new coalition and crushed the labourmovement. The development in Russia went towards a civil war while both partners had armed themselves.

In october the Russian strikemovement spread to Finland were a generalstrike very soon paralyzed the country. The Finns were more unanmous - it was a question of the peoples proteststrike against the Granddutch and his policy of Russification but after a while the rift between the socialists and the non-socialistic elements widened.

The Constitutionalists decided that now was the moment to assist the Russian liberals to get rid of the nationalists and this would eventually result in the reestablishment of the autonomy and the end of the russificationpolicy. The Finnish politicians weren't satisfied with a promise from the Granddutch but demanded that everything connected with the russification should be withdrawn. As Norway had broken their union with Sweden the same year some Russian liberals became worried that a similar kind o separatism was the motive behind the Finnish demands as well. The Constitutionalist assured that this wasn't the case i Finland.

The 30.10.1905 the senate was dissolved and the Generalstrike was proclaimed. Constitutionalists and Socialdemocrats demanded the introduction of universal suffrage but as the labour mowement chose a revolutionary program of action it immediately caused friction to the non-socialists. Finland was paralyzed. AS the policeforces, which had been an instrument of Russification, ceased to exist, voluntary forces with the task to uphold the order were set up. In Finland the strikemovement was mainly directed against the Russification but the socialists also demanded other changes in the society. This widened the rift between socialists - non-socialists and it even came to violent clashes between the guard of the both partners.

Nilolaj and his government overestimated the powers of the protestmovement and decided to accept the Finnish demands.

The Granddutch proclaimed the Novembermanifesto which meant that the russificationpolicy ceased to exist and Finland regained its Autonomy.

When the protests continued (Viaporirebellion), under the command of some red guards and Russian sailors, it was suppressed by the Finnish authorities.

The most important outcome of the Novembermanifesto was the Parliamentary reform of 1906.

This represented a major step towards democratization of the Finnish society. The outdated concept of the four estates was replaced with a unicameral Parliament with 200 members elected fo 3 years. Suffrage was universal and equal and the minimum voting age was set at 24 years.

The outcome of this reform was that Finland developed a modern style partysystem in which the existing parties were joined by the Swedish People's Party and the Agrarian Party.


Quite soon after the Great strike and the Parliamentreform it became obvious that the political shift, which granted the Finnish autonomy, was merely a breathing spell.

The global situation had become more favourable for the Russian Empire (treaty with Britain - 1907) and the Russian oppositional movements had been suppressed while the Czar had regained his control of the Duma.

Russian ruling circles were annoyed over the fact that revolutionaries were finding asylum in free Finland (e.g. Lenin and Stalin met here for the first time).

As soon as Nikolai II had regained his confidence the brief era of liberalism was over. As for Finland this meant that the political thaw turned in to a second period of russification.

In 1908 a decree was announced which said that all matters relating to Finland were to be submitted to the Russian Ministerial Council for examination before beeing referred to the Granddutch. This decree repeaded (slopade) the symbol of a personalunion between Russia and Finland (before this Finland had been represented by a ministerstatesecretary who had personally related Finnish matters to the Granddutch).

1909 -

1) Frans A. Seyn was appointed as new generalgovernor. A man of the same kind as Bobrikov.

2) Nikolai II issued a number of illegal decrees and edicts, one of which established Finland's participation in Russia's military expenditures on a permanent basis.

Finland's strategical importance grew while it was believed Sweden would join the Central Powers in the event of a major War (pro-German monarch).

1910 -

Changed Imperial legislation (a renewing of the Februarymanifesto). All more important laws concerning Finland were to be enacted (antas) by the imperial assembly and the Czar.

Finland was entitled to elect deputies to both chambers of the assembly - but this was never done, in protest.

1912 -

Parity act (likställighetslagen); civil rights awarded to russians in Finland. Russians could (and did) man the senate and key state offices. numerous civil servants were ousted and sentenced to prison by Russian courts for violating the provisions of the parity act.

No dictatorship was instituted, everything was arranged in accordance with the new laws. The Press was more free than during the earlier russification period.

A programme for total russification was made up in the beginning of the First World War but it was never carried through in practice due to the War.


The constitutionalists resigned from the Senate in early 1909 and the Old Finns the same autumn.

No compliants. This time the Finnish people wasn't divided and the number of activists grew steadily. Also the socialists were more active and established close connections to the revolutionaries in Russia.

The Finns sought compensation for their political reverses in the area of sports. At the Olympic Games in Stockholm, 1912 Finland was projected on the Worldmap which was important for the national self-esteem.


With the outbreak of the First World war Finlands rôle in the Russian Empire changed drastically. From beeing a quite remote and uninterested country Finland suddenly became very interesting from a military strategical point of view.

Suddenly the area could be a threat to the Empire if one couldn't secure the safety. The biggest threat was the security of St:Petersburg and a possible German assault through Finland.

The russian military expertise emphazised the danger if the enemy could make use of the Finnish separatism and try to launch a popular rebellion at the same time as aattack was launched through the Finnish territory.

These considerations are part of the explanation why Nikolaj II decided to carry through a complete russification of Finland.

Due to the war extensive rearmarment- and fortificationprojects were started in the southern parts of Finland. A strong russian defense was created (100 000 soldiers as strongest).

At the same time the finnish labourmovement intensified its contacts with the russian revolutionaries.

Immediately with the outbreak of the war the finnish activists also increased their activity. This was the kind of situation the activists had been longing for.

In 1915 the idea of a finnish military force fighting the russians was brought up among the activists.

Konni Zilliacus was in contact with swedish officers. He tried to raise a swedish interest in the idea of a trained finnish elitunit which could be used in the war against Russia. The idea wasn't completely utopian while Sweden had a king who openly was very pro-German and who actually wanted to bring Sweden in to the war, fighting Russia together with Germany.

But the monarch didn't have any powers in practice anylonger and the Swedish government was definetly against any involvment. The Swedish neutrality was the definite obstacle which prevented interested swedes from assisting the Finnish activists.

After this the activists were in direct contact with the Germans. One was in direct contact with the Reichschancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and Emperor Wilhelm II who showed their interest in the Finnish cause. Germany needed allys and one shouldn't forget the enrmous amounts of non-russians in Russia.

In the start the germans didn't want to do more than support the Finnish to start a rebellion but the activists refused and demanded something more concrete. One demanded a direct German intervention and German guarantees in the coming peacenegotiations. As the German resources already were connected to the war they didn't want to make any bounding promises. The idea of a close military alliance between the Finnish activists and the German army wass therefore postponed.

The only result of the contacts was the German promise to provide some volutary Finns with military training to carry out terroracts against russians in Finland in the future. The idea was to give the activists a couple weeks training in sabotageactivity. The training was disguised as a scoutcamp in Lockstedt. But very soon the German chancellor suceeded in getting the Emperors approval to a more extensive training programme and the Finnish jaegers were received in Lockstedt as members in their own Finnish union, the 27th jaegerbatallion, all together 1886.


When the war broke out Germany managed to blockade the Baltic Sea which resulted in that the Finnish trade with the western countries ceased to exist. A very little part of the export was possible to transport on the Swedish railwaynet.

The Finnish timberindustry was immediately paralyzed while most of the tradingpartners had been in the west. Due to the war also the domestic constructionworks had to close down. As the sawmills had been the biggest employer in the industrial sector the social consequences were immense. Most of the sawmills had to close down and the workers became unemployed. As the sawmill often was the only employer this resulted in a great migrationmovement. The unemployment gradually diminished while the war increased the Russian market and in 1916 there even existed a lack of labour.

As most of the new jobs could be found in the cities Finland went through quite a big urbanization. The fortificationworks provided 100 000 finnish workers with work (as most). A lot of agricultural workers left their former work to enroll in the fortificationworks as it was better paid which resulted in a smaller harvest and demands of increased compensations among the remaining agricultural workers and crowfters - upheavals on many perts of the country.

These factors were to cause very big problems in 1917 when the fortificationworks were abruptly stopped.

The war brought with it a big inflation and the drastically increased pricelevel resulted in friction between the employers and the employees.

Finlands political life took a halt during the war but in 1916 we had a election to the diet. Due to the war and the fact that the diet had been stripped of almost all its powers the population wasn't very interested in going to the polls. 55,5% gave their vote and the results, which few paid any attention to at the time, was that the socialdemocrats gained majority of the seats in the diet.

This revoulinary electionresult had an immense concequence the next year when suddenly the old system was revised due to a spontanious revolution in Russia.


The class divided in 4 groups;

1) The story of a jaeger

2) The Russian secret police

3) The working class in Finland during the second russification period

4) The Olympic games 1912 and the struggle against russification among the athlets.



-the abdication af the Czar and the transfer of power to the provisional government.

-the MARCHMANIFESTO: returned to Finland the priviliged position it had enjoyed before the years of oppression.

-as the governor general had been dismissed and the senate dissolved the first political problem was the forming of a new government. Now the results of the parliamentary elections of 1916 became valid - after disputes between and inside the different parties a all-party senate led by the socialdemocrat O. Tokoi was formed. In the senate the powerstructure was 6 socialdemocrats and 6 bourgeoise seats but when the votes went even it was the vote of the chairman (Tokoi) that was decisive.

The outstanding and fundamental issue was: Who had inherited the powers of the Grandduke;

a) The Provisional government in Russia

b) The Finnish Parliament

The socialdemocrats embarced on a collision course with the Russian government as it favoured the latter view and didn't even bother to discuss the problem. The Finnish Parliament had given an oath of loyalty to the Provisional government as the autonomy was restored.

During the spring the Provisional government faced growing problems in Russia as the Worldwar continued (The government had made a promise to the Russian people to end the war but in secret Kerenskij's government had signed the Londonagreement which obliged Russia to continue the war against Germany and forbade any separatepeace).

Lenin arrived to Russia in the spring and caused problems as he urged the Russians to continue with the revolution (not a very popular announcement even among the bolsheviks).


The 18:th of july th Finnish parliament declared itself as the body having supreme authority within Finland - not a full declaration of independence as foreign and military matters were still left in the hand of the Russian government. But Kerenskij interpreted this as an act of mutiny. The Finns tried to benefit from the problems facing the government in Russia.

The Kerenskij government responded by dissolving the parliament which could be done by a governmental decree which was realöized through the non-socialist members in the senate and the general governor Stahovits who had the right to participate in the senate (something he hadn't done before this). Obviously it was some of the right-wing parties which stood behind this action as it meant dissolving the parliament and new elections.

The new elections deprived the socialdemocrats of their absolute majority (107-93).


The Civil War had led to a division in the Social Democratic Party and this division became definite after the Civil War with the founding of the Finnish Communist Party (FKP), founded in Moscow the summer of 1918. The communists organized their actions and policy from Russia at the same time as SDP was shaken by an struggle between different fractions of the party. The issue was what kind of political line the party should adopt in the future.

As the Communist Party couldn't operate openly in Finland but it was essential for the communists to get into parliament, the more radical socialdemocrats left the SDP and formed The Socialist Labour Party (SSTP). This party, together with the communists (functioning under ground) concentrated on fighting the SDP to get the support of the working-class.

The communistmovement was most succesful inside the tradeunions where they succeeded in taking over many of the unions which could be seen in the amounts of workingstruggles in the early 20's (1920-146).

These, often violent struggles, resulted in that the employers organized their own strikebreaking organisation - exportpeace (vientirauha) which functioned throughout the 1920's. The aim had been to break up political workingconflicts but actually the organisation was used against the workers in all kind of conflicts (certain kind of heritage of the civil war). The most famous leader in the organisation was Vihtori Kosola - the beginning of Finnish fascism.


Finnish industry had initially assumed that the post-war reconstruction boom in Western Europe would create a significant demand for timber and timber-related products. But depression and internal disorder held back the economies of the region. At the same time uncertainty continued to exist over the degree of future Finnish access to the once important Russian market.

Throughout the 20s there was a steady decline in prices for timber products but Finnish exports didn't suffer that much from this while there was a continuing fall of the value of the finnish mark on the international market, while our closest competitor, Sweden, contrtasted with the strong performance of the Swedish crown.

The development with the West was however hindered to some extent by the persistence of doubts in a number of Western countries over the long-term permanence of Finland's independence (which served Swedish export industries). The Finnish industrialists tried to reinforce an image of Finland as a Scandinavian, rateher than a border state.

The first major post-war slump in Finnish exports occured in the early half of 1921 - both France and Britain decided to increase their tariff barriers on paper and timberimports.

This convinced the Finnish government of the need to aim for official trade agreements, capable of providing a stable framework for future commercial relations, with the country's major trading partners. The first of these agreements was made with France in 1921 and providede Finland with preferred nation status in tariff issues.

The mid-1920s saw the Finnish balance of trade move into surplus, exceeding pre-war levels in volume terms. Finland continued to remain behind Sweden, however.

Britain and Germany emerged as Finland's most important trading partners.

Britain - While Finnish exports to Britain during the 1920s represented on average nearly 40% of the country's total exports, British exports to Finland amounted to less than 20% of Finlands total imports. In Germany's case, the situation was reversed (imports - 30%, exports - 20%).

The first major extension of Finnish trade relations outside Europe took place in North America, and during the 1920s trade links were also opened up to a smaller extent with South America (Brazil. Argentina).

Espoo, 3.4.2003

PAPER 1 (documentbased)

Doc. A


SPP – Swedish People’s Party 21

FP – Finnish Party 33

YFP – Young Finn Party 23

Ag. – Agrarian Party 19

CWP – Christian Workers’ Party 1

SDP – Social Democratic Party 103

Doc. B

  1   2   3

The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page