Be careful what you say

In the early-to-mid 20th century, Swedes classified us Finns as Mongols or something, probably at least due to the fact that many Finns (especially eastern and northern ones) have a shorter skull in the back-to-front direction, not a long European skull. When a Finnish woman won the Miss World title in the early 1950's, Swedish tabloids cried "Mongol Won Miss World" or something like that.

We're not mongols really, but it's true that Finns are a bit different from other Europeans "racially", if it can be said that such a thing as "race" exists. There are two Finnish peoples genetically, Eastern and Northern Finns have come from the east, from the direction of Urals, before Slavs conquered it and founded Russia. Southern and Western Finns are genetically as close to Swedes as they are to Eastern and Northern Finns, and they tend to have more "European" features like a longer skull...

I wonder if the European, longer skull is originally inherited from the Neanderthals by the way, as they had a bigger and especially longer skull, and Europeans have the largest percentage of Neanderthal DNA in them if I remember right.

@HiljainenPerkele There is such a thing as race, but it is not to be confused with species, race has little to no effect on anything really except, as you said, some variations in appearance such as muscle placement and bonestructure, culture however is a much bigger factor than race in all aspects and that is what anthropologists of today are arguing for as the main difference between all humans.

Slavs didn't found Russia, they founded whatever it was that was there before Russia, since Russia was founded by the Kievan rus and the Rurik dynasty. Might be, though the neanderthal skull has more in common with a gorilla skull than anything modern human, besides today it is better defined as slight variations in bonestructure than actual differences.

I did not know about the whole Finns are mongols thing, but the Swedes were very fond of eugenics at the time.

@Danishmusician93
If anything, I would say you're the same physically to other northern Europeans, and any differences would be cultural.

@Danishmusician93 European scientists tried for decades to figure out a scientific definition for the concept of race, and failed utterly. Eventually the scientific community had to concede that "race" is a purely social construct and has no true biological basis. Person's phenotype, their "racial characteristic" in the old terminology, is only superficially related to their overall genetic composition -- a guy with African features can easily be genetically closer to a guy with European features than another African-looking guy.

Neanderthal skull really doesn't resemble gorilla in the slightest. It looks like a more robust Homo Sapiens skull with a larger brain cavity and broader jaw.

@Lightice
Species evolve from races, there can't be one without the other. Thus, races are older than species.
And denying the existence of race is essentially denying evolution and science.

What the "scientists" "failed" in explaining was that the race is not a discrete phenomenon, but a fuzzy phenomenon instead. Each individual is a composite of "races" and each race is a composite of older races (sort of like a rotation of factors in the factor analysis). But the races and racial components are quite persistent over time. And mixing of races does have consequences, not always pleasant (neanderthals are one such an example). Being mathematically fuzzy is not equivalent to nonexistence. Thus, the denial of races is purely a social construct and has no biological basis.

@ThorsomeTarmukas
No, no, no. Please, have even slightest understanding of biology before making such ridiculous statements. And kindly have some respect for people whose life's work is to study the phenomenon of evolution. Absurd repetition of over 60-year old debunked theories does not help your case in the slightest. You are an example of the social phenomenon trying to trump over actual scientific research with made up "facts".

Species evolve through subspecies, not "races". Human phenotypes are not even close to qualifying as different subspecies; the only thing they reflect is slight variations in external appearance, which is environmental adaptation at its simplest. It takes only a handful of generations for a species of butterfly to transfer from primarily black to primarily white colouration and back, depending on the most viable landing surfaces in their living environment. It doesn't take much longer than that for humans; light skin tone is less than 10,000 years old phenomenon, a far too short time in human generations to cause separation of subspecies, let alone species. Like the colour of butterfly wings, the colour of human skin tells nothing of genetic distinction in and of itself.

Neanderthals were a close species/subspecies to Homo Sapiens that was absorbed by our species with absolutely no adverse effect, so I have no clue about what "unpleasant" consequences of genetic mixing you are talking about. A wider genepool is always more viable for evolution than shallower one, and subsequently exchange of genes between more distant populations is always a positive factor from evolutionary standpoint.

@Lightice
It is you who are mistaken, I am afraid. Subspecies are races.
The races of white polar and brown bears have coevolved over millennia.
So have different subspecies of mammoths.
So have different subspecies of hominids.

And I have read that afro-africans and east asians have more trouble with their offspring, europeans (and indians and arabs) being the (missing) link between them.

You are an example of the social phenomenon trying to trump over actual scientific research with made up "facts".

[ Neanderthals were a close species/subspecies to Homo Sapiens that was absorbed by our species with absolutely no adverse effect... ]

Wrong again.
There were adverse effects accompanying the intermingling.
In fact, a large share of eurasians still suffer from those ill affects.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

Kindly, kindly do at least the most basic research on this subject. Look the damn Wikipedia page on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_categorization%29

Polar bear and brown bear are completely different species, not "races". As for hominids, only one subspecies remains, all others having been either destroyed or absorbed by the Homo Sapiens.

I have no clue what publications you have read, but scientific studies are clearly not among them. You have so far even managed to misrepresent the scientific method, itself, let alone genetic research. External physical attributes called "phenotypes", and they govern nothing more than a tiny handful of genetic strains. They are not even distant enough to qualify as breeds, as in those of dogs, which in turn are not genetically distant enough to qualify as subspecies.

[And I have read that afro-africans and east asians have more trouble with their offspring, europeans (and indians and arabs) being the (missing) link between them.]

I don't even know where to begin about all the things wrong with this sentence. Lets just start with fact that there is no scientifically valid data consulted about your reading material, whatsoever. All humans share identical biological reproductive behaviour. Trying to explain away cultural differences with biological factors became scientifically obsolete some 60 years ago.

@Lightice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_categorization%29

[ Race, as a social construct, ...]

No need to read any further, because I am not that much interested in social constructs in this case.

Race, as a biological and mathematical construct, is another matter entirely. And if you were to read that wiki article more thoroughly, then you would have to agree that "race as a social construct" is dead while the "race as a biological construct and mathematical model" is very much alive, more so than it ever has been in the past.

[ Polar bear and brown bear are completely different species, not "races". ]

They are intermingling species, which makes them subspecies and the phenotypes within them can be called races. And those races (well, phenotypes, actually, or genetic principal components) are more older than the species.

[ As for hominids, only one subspecies remains, all others having been either destroyed or absorbed by the Homo Sapiens. ]

Your logic is flawed.
If you assume that all others have been absorbed by the homo sapiens, then you would have to assume that all subgroups of homo sapiens are homogenous (and thus the assimilation has ended). They are not. The genetic components of dissimilarity among living humans goes back hundreds of thousands of years, back to homo erectus at the very least.

I have no clue what publications you have read, but scientific studies are clearly not among them. You have so far even managed to misrepresent the scientific method, itself, let alone genetic research.

[ All humans share identical biological reproductive behaviour. ]

I am not sure in which sense do you use the phrase "reproductive behaviour".
But I do know that diseases (including genetical diseases) vary among within-group offspring and between-groups offspring.
And that in scientific speak is statistically significant difference.

[ Trying to explain away cultural differences with biological factors became scientifically obsolete some 60 years ago. ]

Perhaps you should reread the wiki article you yourself referred to.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

There is delusion and there is wilful ignorance, and you are representative of the latter category. Since it is apparently difficult for you to actually read about the matters you are trying to convey authority on, I will provide the most important tidbits here and now.

[

When people define and talk about a particular conception of race, they create a social reality through which social categorization is achieved.[31] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[32] These constructs develop within various legal, economic, and sociopolitical contexts, and may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[33] While race is understood to be a social construct by many, most scholars agree that race has real material effects in the lives of people through institutionalized practices of preference and discrimination.]

[Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. ]

[

The term race in biology is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally, when it is used it is effectively a synonym of subspecies.[65] (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies;[66] there are narrower infraspecific ranks in botany, and race does not correspond directly with any of them.)]

[Population geneticists have debated whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. To do this, a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly, there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. ]

[On the other hand, in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, but there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists.[71] Likewise this typological approach to race is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists.]

[

One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was the anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, slow migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines.[76] In part this is due to isolation by distance. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines".[77]]

I could go on, but I think that I have made my point very clear. The concept of a "race", as it is applied to human phenotypes, is biologically and anthropologically obsolete. Due to its lack of clear definition, modern researchers have long since switched to more specific terminology when it comes to the study of the human species. In some other disciplines the term continues to be used, but under very different function than that of the human phenotypes.

@Lightice
[ I could go on, but I think that I have made my point very clear. The concept of a "race", as it is applied to human phenotypes, is biologically and anthropologically obsolete. ]

You have only made clear that you are not familiar with the recent developments in genetics research.

Autosomally (atDNA), native europeans generally consist of 3 principal genetic components: WHG + ANE + EEF. Those components have persisted among native europeans for the last 35 000 years. Not stayed the same, yet not changed much either. The "white race" can be described by these 3 principal components. Other races can be described by other subsets of principal components. As with PCA and factor analyses methods, one can have slight variations on those components. For example, instead of WHG, one might get EHG and SHG. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that races can be described by such subsets of principal genetic components.

And this is just with atDNA. There might be something similar with epigenetics and gene expressions.

So the relevant part from your post is the following:
[ The term race in biology is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally, when it is used it is effectively a synonym of subspecies.[65] (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies;[66] there are narrower infraspecific ranks in botany, and race does not correspond directly with any of them.) ]

Different species do not get offspring.
Subspecies can get viable offspring.
Races are something that can outlive individual subspecies and individual species. And here the polar bears and brown bears are a perfect example. And the neanderthal component(s) among humans. Races are an adaptation to regional environments. If those environments persist or return (like ice ages and interstadials), then races can intermingle into one and later on regenerate themselves as separate races with the help of some parts of important genetical components that have survived through the intermingling.

[ Due to its lack of clear definition, modern researchers have long since switched to more specific terminology when it comes to the study of the human species. ]

Definitions can be respecified without changing the label.
It works for gravity and for other phenomena as well.
The very essence of human species as we understand it is in constant change.
So some debate whether we should call ourselves as humans or something else (perhaps a subspecies of homo erectus). I prefer to keep the label 'humans'.

Different schools of thought in some other fields use at least 4 different labels for the same phenomenon. The use of one does not negate the use of the others. And even if the scientists of the field do agree to use one label for the definition of one thing, nothing can stop the people to reuse another label for the very same thing with the very same definition. The race is on.

'@Lightice'
I think you ought to know you are arguing with a brick wall, a crazy brick wall, who believes things like being able to split languages into maritime and inland categories based on how people live who speak them.

'@Danishmusician93'
Kievan Rus was a different thing than Russia, basically a really loose kingdom with a main guy in Kiev and countless little domains ruled by Princes and stuff. The Mongols blasted it apart and some time after that the city of Moscow slowly started becoming the dominant center of something new, which would be Russia. The dynasty ruling in Moscow happened to be Rurik, but it could just as easily have not been.

@Danishmusician93

Yeah, I put a few curves of Russian history too straight there... I know there were several precursors to Russia, and Vikings were involved according to some theories.

@HiljainenPerkele There's no such big group as "other Europeans".

@Louhikaarme

Yeah, of course there are genetic differences in European peoples, but compared to us outlier Finns they were pretty close to each other genetically, if i remember correctly that illustration I once saw. That infographic showed for example that the Swedes were as close to or closer to Italians than to Finns, which was surprising to me considering hair colour etc.

@HiljainenPerkele
No idea about skull forms - from what I read they can change depending on childrens' diet, growing speed and whatnot.
But since you mentioned Neanderthals, I'm convinced Europeans' pale skin is their legacy. People in other places in the north or south were not nearly as pale. For Greenlanders or the indigenous people of Fireland or New Zealand one can make the case they haven't been living there as long. But the people of Tasmania were there as long or even longer than anatomically modern humans have been in Europe, and they were pitch black. 50000 years don't seem to be long enough to "bleach out" for a population. So we Europeans probably inherited this adaptation to our lack of sunlight from the people who had been here for much longer time.

'@Myrica'
Pretty much everyone outside of Africa has some Neanderthal DNA, be they dark or light. It's really only Africa that doesn't. And plenty of areas with plenty of Neanderthal population are not pale as northern Europeans are either. Like southern Europe and the Middle East.

"But the people of Tasmania were there as long or even longer than anatomically modern humans have been in Europe, and they were pitch black."

You seem to be under the impression that New Zealand and Tasmania have the same climate as central/northern/eastern Europe. They don't.

@sagas

And Eastern Asians may have some Denisovan DNA.

@Myrica

The skull forms must have a genetic, heritable element too, otherwise there wouldn't be such differences as can be witnessed in Finland for example.

I've thought about that pale skin hypothesis too, or read from somewhere. Also, there has been speculation about the genes causing red hair and freckles, that they would have come from Neanderthals through interbreeding, and as many have witnessed, redheads often tend to have the the palest of all skins.

So Ireland, Scotland and Wales are the most Neanderthal countries. (No offence, they had the biggest brains of all human species and were pretty advanced)

@HiljainenPerkele I watched a lecture the other night that dealt with this topic. The speaker posited that skull shape was related to when farming was introduced. The lecture is on youtube, it is called "Are Finns Different?"

@brahm Finns are defenitely different, how they otherwise would have created such a society.

The Huffingtin Post , the blog 07/06/2016
Finland Is Still the World’s Best Kept Secret
"I am going to list the areas where Finland is considered a leader in the world, and provide links to the data."

1.Education. Finland has been recognized over several years to have one of the top education systems in the world. Depending on what ranking you read, it is often ranked first.
2.Happiness. It may be hard to believe for a country that spends the winter in darkness, but Finland is ranked 5th in happiness.
3.Prosperity. In spite of its economic stagnation of late, Finland is ranked 9th in prosperity.
4.Innovation and Technology. According to Bloomberg, Finland ranks first in research personnel, third in research and development and postsecondary education, and fourth over all innovation categories.
5.Most literate. According to the latest ranking, Finland is the most literate country in the world.
6.Least corrupt. According to Buzzfeed, Finland as the least corrupt, least failed state, best country to be a mother, and Helsinki as the most livable city in the world among other leading categories.
7.Mobile Games. Finland has been called the games start-up capital of the world. Rovio, maker of Angry Birds (which has just been turned into a successful movie), and Supercell, maker of Clash of Clans and Hay Day, are just two of the successful mobile games companies from Finland.
Greenest. Since it tops the Environmental Performance Index, Finland is ranked as the greenest country in the world with the least amount of pollution.
8.Most sustainable and least fragile. Finland stands alone as the only country in the “Very Sustainable” category.
Cleantech. Finland is recognized as a world leader in Cleantech.
Human Capital Index. Finland tops the rankings of the Hunan Capital Index.
9.Most competitive. Finland has been ranked as Europe’s most competitive economy.
10.Information Technology. In 2014, Finland topped the rankings for the second consecutive year for embracing new IT.
11.Most socially progressive. According to the Social Progress Index, Finland is the most socially progressive country in the world.
12.Many other categories. Finland also leads the world in per capita coffee and milk consumption, saunas, and heavy metal bands. Some might think this weakens the points above, but others believe it strengthens them so I have included it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-kalb/finland-is-still-the-worl_b_10774930.html

@HiljainenPerkele "If you google "Finland mongoloid" of course you will get Finns who look like that. You are in essence googling something that supports your preconception. That's like googling images with "irish old man" and then wondering why do Irish people in the results look like old men."

"The idea of Finns as east Asian looking comes from hundred year old racial theories, where Finns were seen as "non-white" and "mongoloid" as to prove they are inferior to "white" Europeans. This idea was then propagated by Western Europeans seeking to prove their supermacy. Thea idea of Finns as "mongoloid" partly originated from Finns having a language unrelated to Indo-European. The hundred year old incorrect racial stereotype still exists, and has moved on to be an internet meme joke, contributing to google searches you make."

"Now, Finns do commonly have N1-haplogroup which is common in Northern Eurasia, also with people who "look east Asian". But N1-haplogroup is so old (over 10 000 years) that we have no information what kind of people it originated from. The geographical origin does not tell us much. For example the haplogroup K2 likely originates from Southeast Asia. Descendant of that haplogroup is R-haplogroup, which is the dominant haplogroup in Europe. Still, Europeans are characterized by their lack of epicanthic folds, even though their dominant haplogroup ancestor likely originates from Southeast Asia."

"Likewise language isn't that good indicator either. Mexicans, Indians, Iranians, Greek, Irish and Norwegians all speak related Indo-European languages, but their related language is not an indication of how related these people are. For Finns the most related people after Estonians are Swedes instead of Uralic speaking Sami people."

How come Nazi Germany looks so much like England? [Looks at history and current politics....] Oh, nevermind. Carry on.

My husband's grandfather helped smuggle Danish Jews (and the police) out of Denmark.

He was walking to work one day, when the Nazis pulled a man out of an apartment building and just shot him dead in the street. The man had the same name as my husband's grandfather, and he felt guilty the rest of his life that a man was murdered on the street. He knew the Nazis were looking for him (and he was eventually caught and sent to a concentration camp in Germany)

@Darwy Massive respect for your grandfather-in-law and all those that took such risks for the freedoms we now enjoy.

@Darwy thank you for sharing the story of your husband's relative. I really love the stories of people that did the right thing in the middle of war, disaster and persecution, very brave people that deserve to me remembered

Comic about nazis, phrenology, eugenics, gas chambers, implying Greenlanders as inferior race... no biggie, how interesting, 80 comments. Comic about Brexit... holy flame war, over 1000 comments. :D

And my favourite question is, that do you know where Finnish Jews and "inferior people" run away or what happened to them? Nowhere and nothing. When Nazis asked us to hand them over, we simply said "No". And Nazis were like "Erm... okay then". Somebody has to wear trousers in the Nordic family. :)

@real-cool-cat The Brexit and anything EU related has been soaked in hostility. It's almost impossible to talk about without having it explode.

And to be fair the Finnish could say not because you guys were allied with Germany and they kinda needed you guys. Some of us were kinda occupied :P

'@ArcticAC'

We asked weapon supply and support from Britain, France and USA. Which they refused because they were scared that Stalin gets angry. We didn't refuse when Herr Hitler offered us guns again. We had common enemy, we were not allies. We even refuse to invade Leningrad, we just wanted back what Soviets stole from us.

We fought soviet union, (4 million population vs 293 million) first alone in Winter war. Rooskies failed. In continuation war, Stalin thought they will invade us in 5 days. Instead they fought 5 long years without success.

And THEN we fought Nazis in Lapland war. Which was a piece of cake compared to Russia and they lost relatively quickly. 75 000 Finns vs. 214 000 Nazis, so only three times more of them. We have never surrendered to anyone, our land can be occupied when you pull it out from our dead fingers.

So to be fair, Finland could say no, because there's no invading the gatekeeper of The North, the mighty Heimdall on the Bifrost. :XD:

@real-cool-cat I think I just fell a little in love with Finland after your comment...

@real-cool-cat
There seems to be some misrepresentations of history in your comment. Britain, France and USA indeed gave no help, unless you count all those fighter planes, bombers, anti-tank rifles and other assorted weapons they supplied us with, as well as financial aid. It also discounts the Franco-British expeditionary force of about 100,000 troops that the French and British were planning to send to our aid if we asked them. Granted, they might have tried to use that as an excuse for occupying northern Sweden to deny Swedish iron to the Germans, but at least some troops would have eventually made it to Finland and negotiations with the Soviet Union were helped by Stalin's reluctance to risk a war with the western allies. Oddly enough, France, Britain and USA were not afraid of angering Stalin, seeing as they hated communism and didn't have that much dealings with the Soviets anyway. Remember, the Soviets were not at war with Germany yet so they were not seen as part of the allies.

Now, there has been a lot of discussion going on about whether or not Finland was allied with Germany during the Second World War. Personally, I think that if you allow Germany to deploy over 200,000 troops in your country and let them use your territory as a staging ground for an attack on third party with which you yourself are also fighting, you are indeed allied with Germany whether you attack Leningrad or not. We also took the Russian city of Petrozavodsk (Petroskoi) which was not a place we had lost in the Winter War but one that had indeed always been situated in Russian territory.

In continuation war Finland was the one to attack, not the Russians. I have my doubts on Stalin thinking they could conquer us in five days considering Operation Barbarossa was already in full swing and the Soviets were taking a severe beating around Ukraine and eastern Poland by the time the Continuation war began. Oddly enough, they managed to force us into accepting a harsh treaty after a rather brief period of fighting in summer 1944, when they finally turned their attention towards us after two years of uneventful static warfare, during which they had been busy fighting for their existence against the Germans. We did manage to halt their offensive and score some victories against superior forces, but like in the Winter War our forces were very much spent by the time peace came and we couldn't have survived against another major offensive. The war also took only about three years from 1941 to 1944 and no, I'm not counting the Winter War when you specifically said Continuation War. Winter War, by the way, took a little over three months and ended with Finnish forces at their very limit, with front lines about to break and no reserves left. You know, just so none could say we had it easy. We did manage to botch their plans of completely annexing our country and instead have them settle for a big chunk of our land in the Eastern border, so much better than anyone expected. There was also about a year of peace between these two wars, so it's not like we were in war nonstop for five years either.

And when talking about the Lapland War one must always remember to mention that the Germans didn't intend on staying there anyway. They were already on the process of withdrawing to Norway when hostilities started, and they fought a delaying action against our forces. The way you put it would imply our troops drove them off despite numerical inferiority, when in actuality they were already going and we only managed to piss them off into burning Lapland to the ground as they went. I'm not sure we even managed to make them pick up the pace.

So yeah, it didn't go exactly like you told.

'@Vilkku92' Wow, that's a lot of blabla... And highly inaccurate.

Lot of countries gave some material help, including Sweden. But if west allies would actually agreed to support and supply us, we wouldn't have to become "Evul Nazyes" by accepting Germany's machine guns and methamphetamine pills.

In both wars, there were also Estonians, Swedes, Norwegian, Danes and all sorts of small groups all over the world voluntarily fighting with us. They were in our command. Nazis were allowed to use our land and they were not even in our command, nor were we in theirs. It's not like we agreed to something like "You get the Leningrad, we get the Moscow". We only wanted back our own land. That's defense. If someone hits you and takes your wallet and you hit back and take your wallet back, that hardly makes you the perpetrator?

And Germans were the ones who burned the Lapland in Rovaniemi area, not we. Lapland war lasted 7 months, before that they could've go voluntarily and they didn't, and you are saying that they were leaving? Hoh. Listen to yourself, you're delusional. Either that or Putinist.

@real-cool-cat
I did not say we were the ones to burn Lapland, I said we made them pissed off enough to have them burn Lapland. They did, in fact, try to go voluntarily, but because Finland had been issued a tight schedule for the disarmament of German troops in our soil by the Soviet Union, they could not pull out before Finland was forced to attack them in order to prevent a Soviet intervention. It should be noted that it takes some time to withdraw an army of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and all their supplies and equipment strewn across a large area without an extensive network of good roads.

Nazis were not in our command, yes. Unless, of course, we're talking about those units we sent to Lapland to help the Germans, who indeed were placed under German command. Similarly German troops sent to help Finnish forces in the southern half of the country were placed under Finnish command. We did not agree to anything like what you suggested, but we did agree to let Germans do all the fighting in the northern half of our country while we focused on the southern half. We also kept in contact with the German commanders, which led to us making our plans together with the Germans. The Germans actually informed us about the planned date for beginning of Operation Barbarossa and we planned our own attack with that date in mind. The Germans also supplied us with a lot of war material, including fighter planes, tanks, assault guns and anti-tank weapons. Also, we still let them deploy over 200,000 of their troops into our country and let them use our country as a staging ground for an attack against the Soviet Union, which is not something you are supposed to let non-allies do. For a country that wasn't allied with Germany we sure did act like we were.

Now, I don't actually recall making any kinds of statements as to whether or not we were right in trying to take back the lands we lost, nor do I remember saying we were the perpetrators in the war. I also don't recall saying Russians were right, which I believe is required for me to be a Putinist. You said that the western allies didn't help when, in fact, they did, just not as much as they maybe could have nor enough for us to make it on our own.

'@Vilkku92' Germany and Soviet union fought about ideologies, communist and national socialist. Germany just managed to be the first to start, somebody always is. And to me it appeared that we fought the communists and I had a reason to believe that if Soviet union managed to beat us, we would've made communists, whether with autonomy or not.

To be Nazi ally (liittolainen) instead of having common enemy and therefore being brothers in arms (aseveli), we would've had government that is national socialist or fascist (like Italy, Nazi ally). I just have hard time to see things that way. We just took what was offered to us, anything that would make us achieve that goal. Nazi's air strikes in our airspace helped us not to get butchered.

I think it's wrong to say that we were attacking Russia when we are attacking on soil that was internationally acknowledged to be ours. Just like saying that we are stealing wallet when taking back what was stolen from us, without taking anything else.

I did read incorrectly the burning of Lapland part. Lot of text. Of course I read fast, I'm an axis-ally Finn, I'm an evil Nazi, here drinking Nazi coffee with Nazi milk and Nazi sugar, what did you expect?

@real-cool-cat
I never said you're an evil Nazi. I never said you are a Nazi at all. I never said Finland used to be a Nazi state or have a Nazi government. All I said about that subject was that we were allied with Germany which was ruled by Nazis.

Now, what exactly is the practicable difference between an ally and a brother in arm? What is the difference between being allied to Germany and being co-belligerent with them? Alliances are not exactly dependent on ideologies, as capitalist America had no problem allying itself with communist Russia and calling it an ally. One difference is that co-belligerence sounds so much better politically. Being allied with Nazi Germany doesn't sound all that good - you immediately thought I was calling you a Nazi when I said we were allies with the Germans. A brother in arms, however, has a completely different ring to it. It means we can say we were not allied with the Nazis despite doing pretty much everything allies do, but because it's technically not an alliance it is somehow more okay.

Well, I don't really see it that way: if it looks like an alliance, sounds like an alliance and works like an alliance, it might as well be called an alliance. Yes, we took whatever help we could. Yes, we did it to further our own goals. Yes. those goals differed from German goals. No, I don't see that making us not allied with Germany. No, I don't think that was an inherently evil or wrong thing to do considering the circumstances we found ourselves in. And no, I don't think you are an evil Nazi.

Oddly enough both "aseveli" and "erillissota" (co-belligerence) in this meaning seem to be almost uniquely Finnish terms, since you hardly ever see them used in other contexts no matter how well they might fit. It's like they were specifically made up for some kind of a purpose...

We were attacking Russia. As in, we launched an attack on Russia to take back what we had lost to them. To use your example, when you punch someone to take back your stolen wallet, you're still punching someone. That doesn't mean you were wrong to punch them to get your wallet back, but it was still a punch, not a block, dodge or even a counterattack, because they had already taken your wallet ten minutes ago so you had to go to them and punch them to get it back. It's still an attack, just this time it has a good justification, it's initiated to right a wrong and the other side started the whole debacle by their own previous attack.

And no, I still don't think you're a Nazi. I hope that one is clear. (Also, why would I be any less of an axis-ally than you? I'm from Finland , I'm as much a citizen and an inhabitant of a country that fought on the side of the Germans during WW2 as you are).

'@real'-cool-cat
Actual Axis members were reluctant (sometimes to begin with, sometimes eventually) to be in the Axis. Hungary started out happily but ended up a puppet when Germany didn't actually allow them their own mind on things.
Bulgaria never wanted to be bothered but joined to take the heat off, and then managed to actually do even less than Finland while IN THE AXIS, which I personally find incredible. They never even declared war on the USSR in spite of constant requests to do so. Let alone take part in Barbarossa.
Hell even Romania, which was ruled by a bastard whose regime took pleasure in committing its own atrocities against Jews, started bucking Hitler when it got slighted in some diplomatic messes. And got away with it too.
You keep acting like her and myself are demonizing Finland by stating the truth that it was an ally of Germany. But the only one arguing within a black and white framework is you. The reality is alliance with Nazi Germany while bad, was a very complicated thing that does no imply full allegiance with the holocaust or even the war against Russia. Hell Jews were fleeing in droves to get to Italian controlled territory because they knew the Italians had no taste for the Holocaust at all. Neither did Horthy Hungary, and Bulgaria.
Actual Axis members, but god forbid someone point out Finland was a loose circumstantial ally that wasn't in the Axis.
No one was even throwing around "wrong" or "right" except as pertains to your collection of inaccuracies.

'@sagas' "You keep acting like her and myself are demonizing Finland by stating the truth that it was an ally of Germany."

Oh, I'm terribly sorry. You must excuse me, since there are so many sources that says different, that we were fighting alongside with Germany, not being Nazi allies.

How can you expect me to think different, since this my point of view has been stated by all history books, wikipedia, our government, German government, US government, Russia and practically full house of the United-sexual intercourseing-Nations?

And this ally-thing is only said by some leftist anarchist and putinists. So quite forgiveable mistake I've made here, don't you think?

@real-cool-cat
Odd that I remember there being history books and non-putinists, non-leftists and non-anarchists which have said Finland was an ally of Germany, because according to you those are nonexistent. I also find it odd that that I remember Russians saying we were allied with the Germans. On the part of our government saying we were not allies of Germany, well, the Turkish government is still saying there was no genocide of the Armenians during the First World war. Governments are not above trying to sweep the embarrassing, awkward parts of their history under the rug or embellishing to make them look less awkward and embarrassing. And that is before we get to the politics, where one might publicly agree with others in some matters of historical interpretation just to keep good relations with them, especially if it isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

As for lots of sources claiming otherwise? Yes, there are a lot of them. There are also a lot of sources claiming Finland was allied with Germany. Sources can contradict one another, they may be wrong about stuff, they may misrepresent facts, they may be misinterpreted by people and they might have been right according to the understanding of history at time they were written, but have since been disputed by more recent research. Just because they are 'sources' does not mean they are correct in everything.

Look, like a lot of things in history this is a matter of interpretation. My interpretation is that since Finland very much acted like an ally, was considered to be an ally by the Germans and was treated like an ally of Germany by the Allied powers, it was, in fact, a de facto ally of Germany during the war.

And no, I don't think you're a Nazi.

'@real'-cool-cat
"Oh, I'm terribly sorry. You must excuse me, since there are so many sources that says different, that we were fighting alongside with Germany, not being Nazi allies."

That is literally the definition of ally lol. This is not even really demonization anyway!

"How can you expect me to think different, since this my point of view has been stated by all history books, wikipedia, our government, German government, US government, Russia and practically full house of the United-sexual intercourseing-Nations?"

Really? Sources please.

"And this ally-thing is only said by some leftist anarchist and putinists. So quite forgiveable mistake I've made here, don't you think?"

Its almost like you should pay attention to the actual arguments and points being made to say you were an ally, and not the very fact of stating it. Then you can actually determine if there is an agenda or not.

'@real'-cool-cat
"We asked weapon supply and support from Britain, France and USA. Which they refused because they were scared that Stalin gets angry."

This is false.

"We didn't refuse when Herr Hitler offered us guns again. We had common enemy, we were not allies. We even refuse to invade Leningrad, we just wanted back what Soviets stole from us."

You were allies by the proper meaning of the term, though true in so much as you were not a signee to the Axis powers.
Completely false as concerns Leningrad, Finnish units were key in creating one of the lines isolating the city. Which was part of the siege, you don't wall people into a city and pretend you had nothing to do with it.

@real-cool-cat You were also using German military academies to train your own officers and using it for your own gain.
It's a bit more complicated than what you're implying is what I'm saying.

and you are neatly ignoring twenty thousand volunteer fighters from the rest of scandinavia who went to help out in the winter war.

Though to be fair Finland had less SS volunteers than Norway so...

I like Finland, don't get me wrong. I have much respect and I agree, you guys did by far the best on any of the nordics.
Denmark rolled over, Sweden assisted the Germans in exchange for no invasion, and Norway lasted two months (with help) but ended up occupied.

'@real'-cool-cat
Its not actually implying anything about Greenland natives, though she probably should have come up with a way to show this as 1930's Denmark rather than modern Denmark because it does kind of come off that way without realizing that.

You're being silly though about the Jewish thing. The Danes did marvelously well on that front, and it's incomparable to Finland's situation. Denmark was invaded and occupied by the Nazis. There was no such thing as saying "no" to them. Finland meanwhile was never invaded or even truly threatened by the Nazis (heck they needed your help against the Russians so that would have been counter-productive). You could afford to say no, and also get away with it.
Your example fits with other loose allies of the Nazis like Bulgaria. They were geographically far away from major Nazi concerns for the most part (like Finland), and their Tsar also happened to be a smooth operator. So they got away with never sending their (native) Jews to the Nazis, even though Hitler and his men kept pressuring them to do so. And this was an actual signee of the Axis pact!
Denmark was too close to play that game, and so too were other Nazi occupation zones and allies. Hungary (an ally, not even an occupation like Denmark) tried saying no many times, and eventually Hitler straight militarily occupied the country and installed a pro-Nazi fascist regime. And only then did Jews start being deported from Hungary.

Had Finland been literally next to Germany, you would not get to say no and get away with it.

'@sagas' They needed us, or did we need them, comme ci comme ça. Never the less, after continuation war, we fought Nazis. On our own land, in Lapland war. There were 3 times more of them. We won.

We fought much bigger Soviet union. In Winter war there were no nazi or any other help and Soviet Union was not busy fighting anyone else, it was mano a mano, when they tried to take over us. They failed.

No matter how you look at it, this is the case. We will never surrender and we DO say NO. This is still true today, we don't give a damn about who's around, we are not giving up our land nor we extradite our own citizens.

http://www.demotivation.us/media/demotivators/demotivation.us_FINLAND-Be-afraid.-Be-very-afraid_136166465010.jpg

'@real'-cool-cat
Both parties had needs, as is usually the case.

"On our own land, in Lapland war. There were 3 times more of them. We won."

They were attempting a general evacuation during half of that war, and just holding remote frozen areas during the other half. From territory they had no serious interest in holding outside a resource they later deemed not worth it. Finland was attempting to kick them out ASAP because you had shifted into peace with the USSR. This was not a war with the Nazis in the real sense. And was a completely unsustainable fantasy on their part.
This was going on in the thick of Nazi annihilation on the Eastern Front, nothing about Finland mattered at that point to them.
This is completely incomparable to the Danish situation in every sense.

"We fought much bigger Soviet union. In Winter war there were no nazi or any other help and Soviet Union was not busy fighting anyone else, it was mano a mano, when they tried to take over us. They failed."

They got Karelia, and this was a badly weakened USSR after years of military purges by Stalin. Their armies were in crap shape.
If the USSR of 1944 invaded Finland they would have defeated you.
Also....um what does this have to do with the subject?

"No matter how you look at it, this is the case. We will never surrender and we DO say NO. "

The case is that Finland only ever dealt with Nazi easy mode. If even that. You would have surrendered just the same as everywhere else of your stature if they had truly wanted to invade you. They never ever did, and you are lucky for that. Blessed by geography and not some cartoon national character. You could even put up a fierce fight, but they would win.
And then your politicians at best would do what Denmark did. Or at worst...well the holocaust would have had more victims. Of course a world where the Nazis would seriously invade Finland would mean a Sweden already conquered, so I don't know where you'd send your Jews.

"This is still true today, we don't give a damn about who's around, we are not giving up our land nor we extradite our own citizens."

Every Finn who would have said this and believed this is a good Finn. They would also be a dead Finn. The Nazis had at best a vague idea of Finns as Aryan. You would have quite possibly experienced the Eastern European treatment and not the Western European treatment, especially given your border with the USSR.
And then the USSR would have occupied you afterwards and made you the Finnish Peoples Republic as part of the East Bloc.
And that's reality outside of your nationalist romance.

'@sagas' Erm... Lapland war was war. Lot of people died there. There were 3 times more Nazis. And that's just nothing?

And in Winter war, our army was in really bad shape. It is called "Model Cajander", if you want to check it out. Not even proper clothes. Russians had Snowmobiles, we only had horses. Material difference is so unbelievable, 30 tanks against 6541 tanks. Difference in manpower was also astonishing. And you are telling that WE had an unfair advantage?

I don't know should I be insulted or flattered, "There's only ten Russians armed to their teeth against one Finn in pyjamas. That's so unfair... for Russians".

And two things you got completely wrong. 1. I am not a nationalist. Nationalist people here call me hippie. I'm a social democrat. 2. We still wouldn't surrender.

'@real'-cool-cat
"Erm... Lapland war was war. Lot of people died there. There were 3 times more Nazis. And that's just nothing?"

Its a drop of nothing in the context of WW2. More people died in the Pearl Harbor attack than the Lapland war let alone any of the true fronts and their major battles. A few of which were right next to Finland. Seriously, the only way you could react with surprise to this is to be so unfamiliar with WW2 as to even be unfamiliar with Finland's participation in WW2.
It counting as war doesn't make it equivalent to any conflict you want, that's completely nonsensical.

"
And in Winter war, our army was in really bad shape. It is called "Model Cajander", if you want to check it out. Not even proper clothes. Russians had Snowmobiles, we only had horses. Material difference is so unbelievable, 30 tanks against 6541 tanks. Difference in manpower was also astonishing. And you are telling that WE had an unfair advantage?"

And the Soviet army was down 30,000 officers from the past couple years, and yes also poorly equipped and not up to the standards they would have by the point that they broke the Nazis.
Tell me, how did Finland resist them. If you find yourself describing tactical and strategic victories over clumsy larger Soviet forces, congratulations. That fits the bill.

"I don't know should I be insulted or flattered, "There's only ten Russians armed to their teeth against one Finn in pyjamas. That's so unfair... for Russians"."

The Russian is fighting on the Finn's home turf with inexperienced low quality officers and is being picked off in the snow by effective guerrilla and defensive tactics.
Again though what's your point about all of this? That Finland is invincible and would never ever be beaten by a Nazi invasion, or 1944 Soviet invasion?

"And two things you got completely wrong. 1. I am not a nationalist."

You are by the very definition if in making a historical argument you make a point based around just how much cooler and braver your group is. Bonus points for the argument also hinging on being better than another group in the process.

"2. We still wouldn't surrender. "

So Finland alone in all of Europe wouldn't surrender (even occupied parts of the Soviet Union essentially surrendered and were full of collaborators), and yet you are totally not a nationalist.
This is stupid. You should be embarrassed.

'@sagas' This could be and has been argued but okay... I must correct my misconceptions, so let me get this straight, how did this go again, tell me if I'm making a mistake:

1. We were facing with 4 million population almost 300 million population, but this cannot be represented like this, because the situation was so unfair, since Russian officers didn't have enough time to practice how to fight in a war like we did. And one of their 1,5 million soldiers had a tummy ache. And because they only had machine guns, fighters, bombers, tanks, but not a single laser weapon or cruise missiles, so poor, bad quality Russian army.

2. We were Nazi allies since we accepted their assistance to take our soil back.

3. The Soviet army was in so bad shape that they could only reach Berlin and invade half of the Germany and therefore we should have been able to take over the whole SU with one battalion, but we sucked so much.

4. USA was generously helping us so much and in fact we poor things would've lost if it wasn't for US army there fighting with their planes and tanks on our soil and easily defeated Russia for us.

5. Lapland war was not really a war, we were there eating pickled herring sandwiches and drinking schnapps shots with Nazis and singing March of Erika and all the casualties there came from alcohol poisoning and accidents in pillow fights. Burning of Lapland was just our drunken mishap.

6. I'm a nationalist. And an evil Nazi. And I should be embarrassed and grateful to USA for coming here to rescue us.

Sounds about right now? Happy? History corrected?

@real-cool-cat dude - or girl - aren't you overreacting a bit to this?
No one said that Finland did a poor job in defending themselves. They're simply pointing out some things and details as to how the victories were made possible. How Finland used the enemy's lacking abilities for their benefit - that's the way you fight wars, after all. You gain the advantage - not specifically in numbers, but in whatever way you can find.

They also just pointed out that the Allied forces DID in fact provide some help for Finland. Was it enough? Probably not, but they DID send some. They didn't completely ignore Finland.

Is it because of the USA that Finland still exisist? Of course not. No one ever claimed that. Should you be ever so grateful to Americans? No, of course not.

Of course the Lapland War was a war. Again, people are just pointing out that there was lots of wars and battles during WW2, and that the Lapland war - while important to Finland - was not that important in the history of the over all war.

Finally, no one is calling you nazi - people have made that quite clear on several occassions. Finland was not invaded by Germany, but instead chose to work with them. Does that make you nazis? No. Does that mean that you had some sort of alliance? Yes. You made deals. You agreed to work together to a certain degree. Does that mean Finland was full of nazi-supporters? No. Finland wanted the land that Russia had stolen, so they allied themselves with an enemy of Russia. That's all, and no one ever claimed differently. It had nothing to do with nazis, it was all about land. However, that does still mean that Finland chose a side in the war and it was to fight alongside the Germans - at least for a while.

'@real'-cool-cat
"1. We were facing with 4 million population almost 300 million population,"

The entire population of the USSR invaded Finland? Really?

"since Russian officers didn't have enough time to practice how to fight in a war like we did. And one of their 1,5 million soldiers had a tummy ache."

You have absolutely no idea how terrible the Great Purges were do you.

"2. We were Nazi allies since we accepted their assistance to take our soil back."

Yes.

"3. The Soviet army was in so bad shape that they could only reach Berlin and invade half of the Germany and therefore we should have been able to take over the whole SU with one battalion, but we sucked so much."

Its honestly like you have literally never studied, read, or even heard of WW2 except for things that happened in the borders of Finland. The Nazis were crushing and smashing the Soviets for a long time, and captured vast amounts of their territory before they grinded to a hault. The pure size and scope of Russia allowed them to take such massive losses and still have so many more people that they had enough time and resources to completely turn themselves around. And by the other end their army had become incredibly powerful and well directed. They improved dramatically under the pressure of total annihilation. This is hardly unheard of for armies to start a war in bad shape, and on the other end have reformed and upgraded. Even in the Winter War this was true, the Soviets did much worse at the start before doing better near the end.

"4. USA was generously helping us so much and in fact we poor things would've lost if it wasn't for US army there fighting with their planes and tanks on our soil and easily defeated Russia for us."

I'm amazed you deny yourself to be a nationalist when you're so incredibly nationalist. The mere (correct) suggestion that you had foreign aid (no one even specified how much) makes you angry and unable to except the idea. The US had foreign aid in our independence war (from France mostly), but you don't see me throwing a tantrum about that undeniable fact. And why should I? Why are you? The Soviets had foreign aid against the Nazis too, the Nazis had foreign aid against the Soviets. So what?

"5. Lapland war was not really a war, we were there eating pickled herring sandwiches and drinking schnapps shots with Nazis and singing March of Erika and all the casualties there came from alcohol poisoning and accidents in pillow fights. Burning of Lapland was just our drunken mishap."

The Lapland war was a puny front of minor significance in the Eastern Front, let alone the entire war. Sorry if reality doesn't make you happy?

"6. I'm a nationalist. And an evil Nazi. And I should be embarrassed and grateful to USA for coming here to rescue us."

Your a nationalist. But you're not a Nazi (no one said you were), nor did anyone claim the US rescued or played a major role in the Winter War.

'@sagas' There's just no making you happy, are there? No matter what I say.

I have absolutely no idea how terrible...?

Reason we didn't surrender is not that we are so much more brave, but because we knew that death is better option than being under Soviet rule. If you were a little boy there in invaded village, watching from hideout seeing while your father gets beaten up by Russian soldiers, then shot, just like your pet dog that if shot first in tummy and left weeping, your mother and sister being raped before killed and your house burned with your sick grandma inside, and you managed to run away and grow in the times of war to be old enough to fight at the front, you'd knew that there is no such option than surrendering to Red army. It's not like surrendering to Nazis and eating sauerkraut and drinking schnapps with soldiers, dancing on the table in lederhosen. these murdering and burning villages happened in Chechnya and Georgia also in modern times by Russian soldiers, after media in West had people believe that everything's now fine there.

The word 'nationalist' is in people's minds here synonym for neo-nazi. Neo-nazi's here call themselves nationalists.

You obviously haven't seen any footage from our front in winter war or any other of our wars but let me assure you that none of those was easy by any definition, my great granddad and many of our people's fathers and grandparents died there and it was not because they were having so much fun and easiness there that they blew up they funny fuse. You are severely insulting the memory of our heroes and wiping your ass with their memories by claiming something that even sounds like that.

I believe that you sincerely have now idea how rude and inconsiderate you are, I'm used to that from many, especially young Americans and that's okay, there are cultural differences even in conversational cultures, I try to co-exist with all sorts of people, accepting their existence and their behaviour that seems ill-mannered to me. I was taught by a young age that you don't necessarily have to like everyone, just to get along with everybody. I'm a patient man and I have a sense of humour of an Englishman, but I'm really starting to not only see this conversation pointless but getting pretty tired of you blowing shit from mouth, it's so overwhelming. So if you would be so darling little angel and shut your sexual intercourseing piehole, since I'm really starting to get an actual headache. Your ignor.. perspectives has been stated pretty thoroughly already and you are clearly not satisfied to anything, you just love to argue "it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks". Thank you.

'@real'-cool-cat
"Reason we didn't surrender is not that we are so much more brave, but because we knew that death is better option than being under Soviet rule."

So did the Poles, Romanians, Czechoslovaks, East Germans, Hungarians and so on. In fact the Poles of that bunch including Finns probably knew it the best of anyone. And the East Germans had FAR more to fear than the Finns. There is nothing that would have natively prevented a 1945 takeover by the USSR in Finland excepting western power intervention that probably would not have come anyway.

"If you were a little boy there in invaded village, watching from hideout seeing while your father gets beaten up by Russian soldiers, then shot, just like your pet dog that if shot first in tummy and left weeping, your mother and sister being raped before killed and your house burned with your sick grandma inside, and you managed to run away and grow in the times of war to be old enough to fight at the front, you'd knew that there is no such option than surrendering to Red army."

And I repeat, same for the Poles, Romanians, Czechoslovaks, East Germans, Hungarians and so on.

"It's not like surrendering to Nazis and eating sauerkraut and drinking schnapps with soldiers, dancing on the table in lederhosen."

You're describing the Western European experience of Nazi occupation. Not the Eastern European experience of Nazi occupation, which was every bit as brutal and horrific as the Soviet one you just described. Worse even since the Nazis were also committing genocide as they went. Are you so sure Finland would have received the former and not the latter?

"these murdering and burning villages happened in Chechnya and Georgia also in modern times by Russian soldiers, after media in West had people believe that everything's now fine there."

lolllll, does Finnish media say that everything is fine in Russia and in Ukraine and Georgia? Because American media sure as hell doesn't. So yeah your "media in West" can go take a hike. And I'm honestly a bit disturbed here that you seem to think the Nazis were nice polite occupational troops, and just the Soviets were nasty. Nothing says nice polite occupation like Generalplan Ost!

"The word 'nationalist' is in people's minds here synonym for neo-nazi. Neo-nazi's here call themselves nationalists."

Well ok, but I'm using the word by its definition? So...

"You obviously haven't seen any footage from our front in winter war or any other of our wars but let me assure you that none of those was easy by any definition, my great granddad and many of our people's fathers and grandparents died there and it was not because they were having so much fun and easiness there that they blew up they funny fuse."

And I repeat, you don't really know anything about WW2. The Winter War does not even begin to compare to well...that whole rest of Europe south of you. I'm not saying it was nice. Far from it. I'm saying....things going on elsewhere? You apparently have no concept of how apocalyptic it was.

"You are severely insulting the memory of our heroes and wiping your ass with their memories by claiming something that even sounds like that."

My grandad fought in the Koreas, my father in law was a literal refugee from ethnic cleansing in Cyrpus, but watch this superhuman feat I'm about to do.
The Korean war, and the 74' invasion of Cyprus, were nothing compared to WW2.
The only way this could insult you is that you have zero perspective.

"I believe that you sincerely have now idea how rude and inconsiderate you are, I'm used to that from many, especially young Americans and that's okay, there are cultural differences even in conversational cultures, I try to co-exist with all sorts of people, accepting their existence and their behaviour that seems ill-mannered to me."

Manners have goddamn nothing to do with it. You are refusing to acknowledge the level of violence that defines WW2 because you are refusing to let anything be worse than a conflict long past relatives of yours died and fought in. Which is patently ridiculous.

"I'm a patient man and I have a sense of humour of an Englishman"

No you don't. The English are self-deprecating!

"So if you would be so darling little angel and shut your sexual intercourseing piehole, since I'm really starting to get an actual headache."

It's not me who killed 1/4 of Belarus or commited the Rape of Nanjing, so I don't know why you're mad about those happening and being worse than the Winter War by thousands of magnitudes. Shame on other people for suffering in tremendous unthinkable horrible amounts of ways.
Seriously, what is this, the pain Olympics??

'@sagas' Do you have many battles in mind that had same odds as Winter war? I sure as hell can't think a single one.

You are saying that I don't have perspective? Well let me put Winter war in perspective for you. It's like pasific ocean would be a dry land of great superpower, western neighbour of United states and it's population would be 22 billion people. Neither side has weapons of mass destruction. This other country is going to invade you and you will not receive help from NATO or nowhere else because they are so scared of this immense country that they are passing out. This other country has about 200 times more tanks than USA and they arrive violently and with masses. Oh yes, and their weapon technology is better than yours and they have lots of them.

I wonder what your brave nation would be doing, my guess is that you would surrender before they can even pour diesel in those tanks and if you would actually be ready to fight them to the last man, that what the outcome of that battle would be.

And I would guess that if you could, you would accept material help from Satan himself, kissing his hairy balls in humble gratitude. And let him use your country for air strikes. But you still would feel little uncomfortable to be called Satan's little minion.

'@real'-cool-cat
"Do you have many battles in mind that had same odds as Winter war? I sure as hell can't think a single one."

I have definitely heard of plenty through my readings, but I don't know if any of them showed such clear cases of moving the goalposts!

"You are saying that I don't have perspective?"

You do not have perspective.

"Well let me put Winter war in perspective for you. It's like pasific ocean would be a dry land of great superpower, western neighbour of United states and it's population would be 22 billion people. Neither side has weapons of mass destruction. This other country is going to invade you and you will not receive help from NATO or nowhere else because they are so scared of this immense country that they are passing out."

Do you have short term memory loss? Because I think you are already repeating the lie you did earlier about Finland receiving no foreign support.

"This other country has about 200 times more tanks than USA and they arrive violently and with masses. Oh yes, and their weapon technology is better than yours and they have lots of them."

Sounds a bit like the Revolutionary War. Thankfully the French helped us out and the Brits had lots of disadvantages that occupying armies tend to when in the home turf of even a weaker enemy.
Anyway, what was the point of this tangent? I think you're trying to suck me into your nationalist sentiment based thinking and make me stop actual thinking by making it personal. Well um, naw, no thank you.

"I wonder what your brave nation would be doing, my guess is that you would surrender before they can even pour diesel in those tanks and if you would actually be ready to fight them to the last man, that what the outcome of that battle would be."

I thought you said you weren't implying that Finns are brave human supermen?

"And I would guess that if you could, you would accept material help from Satan himself, kissing his hairy balls in humble gratitude. And let him use your country for air strikes. But you still would feel little uncomfortable to be called Satan's little minion. "

Ally = minion. Nobody has said Germany made Finland into a puppet state.

'@sagas' Okay, it seems that not only you keep forgetting what you are saying (to me, what you are implying is the same as saying, I grew up in the hoods where it was healthy to take the slightest hint fast), but also what I have said. I will now tell that you can stop your mindless babble and go sexual intercourse yourself and that I'm hereafter ignoring you.

Take this in any way you want, I'm sure you probably think you have now really showed me big time, and great if that makes you feel any better about your ill-behaviour. But just to state my mind, this is what I think of the origins of your arguments:

http://tinyurl.com/zcgv86o

Again, take this anyway you want. I just don't want to get from you all 99 of those, because then I am compelled to start singing. :D

'@real'-cool-cat
"to me, what you are implying is the same as saying, I grew up in the hoods where it was healthy to take the slightest hint fast"

.....
....what?

Race is an arbitrary and artificial concept. No racial group is more or less intelligent than others.

The only time that cranium size and shape are a factor in determining intellectual capacity is when the cranial vault is affected by an underlying neurological disorder like severe microcephaly or hydrocephalus in children and adults.
In newborn infants, severe microcephaly is a symptom of a severely damaged brain, since the brain is too underdeveloped to expand the cranial vault.

'As one Danish Jew in a camp said "We got crates with food, letters from our families, chocolate and candy, but the German guards always stole the cigarettes"'

You're welcome. Smoking kills. *ducks*

Beyond the whole Nazi Germany killing people, I can't see how any of it is really misguided. The Nordic race is clearly one of the most intelligent races. The problem is that due to political correctness we cannot have And honest conversation about race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2RVIi6M7oM

@rphb

It's not political correctness, it's simply that the rest of us don't agree with you.

@Astrid
Indeed.
Everyone knows that estonians are the best. :P
The north-germanics are too much tainted from excessive mediterranean EEF, since neolithic.

@rphb That you would suggest such a thing clearly contradicts that we Scandinavians are intelligent. We might be educated, have a constant input of information through media and a fondness for avenues of discussion. Superior intellignence as a race? That is however bullshit. We can as individuals, regardless of race, have people in the world of high education, with wide knowledge both general and specific. It is often a matter of oppertunity and infrastructure, cultural environment and peace. These are all factors that can be removed from the so-called race question. Racial superiority is an illusion of the weak minded.

@Torbk
"These are all factors that can be removed from the so-called race question."

You can't remove malaria (and other regional diseases) from the equation.
Different races are regionally superior.
Whether one would call that racism or not, that is debatable.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
"Different races are regionally superior."
Are you still at best "skeptical" that there are tons of black people in the US and Canada who their entire lives live just the same as you in places as cold or colder than Estonia lol. Because I found that adorable last time we argued on the subject. It is an objectively adorably belief.

@sagas
The local superiority might reveal itself only after a 1000 years.
After which most black people have naturally adapted and become white people.
Are they getting whiter already? If they are (and without mixed marriages), then they are adapting.
They are not fully adapted yet if they can't stand 100+C sauna and immediately after that +0C water.
We can continue the discussion after those afro-americans have hoisted at least as much ice swimming medals in world championships as have estonians.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
"After which most black people have naturally adapted and become white people."

This is astoundingly retarded for countless reasons, but let's explore the two most obvious.

1. The black people are already "adapted".
2. THE LOCALS AREN'T WHITE PEOPLE DINGUS. I'm not talking about Estonia I'm talking about Minnesota, you think the original locals are white? God, this more than most things reveals how psuedo-scientifical you are.

"Are they getting whiter already? "

NO. White skin is not some de facto adaptation to cold to begin with lolll.
Nevermind that the locals ARE.NOT.WHITE. Famed white ethnic group, the Sioux!

"They are not fully adapted yet if they can't stand 100+C sauna and immediately after that +0C water."

You literally think of human beings as Pokemon. Jesus christ you're sheltered from reality.

"We can continue the discussion after those afro-americans have hoisted at least as much ice swimming medals in world championships as have estonians. "

Nobody in North America does ice swimming let alone black people, so yeah what a currrazzzy coincidence that a collection of countries in north/east Europe who have this dumb sport are the ones who are good at it. This is a hilarious example of correlation being mistaken for causation right here.

@sagas
[ you think the original locals are white? ]

The blacks can compete with the native americans, for all I care.
Native americans practice saunas and ice swimming as well.
Next up - ice swimming blacks after a sauna.

[ White skin is not some de facto adaptation to cold to begin with lolll. ]

Well, the native americans are not black or brown either.
So some adaptation is still necessary.

If the blacks and reds adopt the lifestyle of the whites, then they inevitably eventually would become whites.
If you live like a worm, you become one, even if it takes tens of millions of years (as it did for whales).

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
"Native americans practice saunas and ice swimming as well."

Plains Indians did none of this stuff dingus, they lived like steppe nomads. lol at talking about native Americans as this huge single group, where groups who lived in the deserts of Mexico are apparently the same as groups who live in the Arctic circle. Yet being so insanely nationalistic in your own continent that Estonians are completely entirely unique snowflakes.

"Next up - ice swimming blacks after a sauna."

There is no sauna culture in the US. Other super insano cold areas also do not have sauna culture. This has nothing to do with being from or used to a cold place, and everything to do with your little Finnic northwest Europe area developing that practice.
This is like me insisting that urban environments aren't real urban environments without good Jazz music. It's the same level of nonsense.

"Well, the native americans are not black or brown either."

They are in fact pretty brown lol. The ones in Minnesota certainly are.

"So some adaptation is still necessary."

There has I think never ever been a scientific theory put forth that pale skin has anything to do with temperature. Come on, this isn't hard at all champ. Even Humon made a comic about the reason.

"If the blacks and reds adopt the lifestyle of the whites,"

Indians are not actually "red" and no one refers to them as such anymore. And what the sexual intercourse is a "white lifestyle". I thought Estonians were special snowflakes, are you now saying you live exactly the same as Greeks and the Irish or whoever else? Other parts of Europe have zero shit to give your stupid sauna obsession. Even cold parts. None of this has anything to do with race.

"then they inevitably eventually would become whites."

Genetics and physical traits are pretty much literally magic to you aren't they. Here's the 411, pale skin is largely an adaptation to areas with low amounts of sun. And other mixed local dietary and environmental factors over the course of a long ass time. The US in general gets more sun than Europe, let alone your part. Regardless of temperatures. Yes crazy man, these are different things. Have you taken an Earth Science class EVER?

@sagas
[ Plains Indians did none of this stuff dingus, they lived like steppe nomads. ]

You should check again.
According to google search: siouan sweat lodge is a thing.
Was also at aztec and olmec and other mesoamerican peoples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_lodge

"The ancient Mesoamerican tribes of Mexico, such as the Aztec and Olmec, practiced a sweat bath ceremony known as temazcal as a religious rite of penance and purification."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_lodge#Similar_structures_and_rites_in_other_cultures

[ Yet being so insanely nationalistic in your own continent that Estonians are completely entirely unique snowflakes. ]

Estonians are not unique.
Estonians are the ancients.

[There is no sauna culture in the US. ]

We aready established that there is.

[ Other super insano cold areas also do not have sauna culture. ]

They do.

[ They are in fact pretty brown lol. The ones in Minnesota certainly are. ]

That kind of brown is usually called red, not brown.

[ And what the sexual intercourse is a "white lifestyle". ]

The lifesrtyle that brings about light skin.
You know, like brown bears and polar bears.

[ I thought Estonians were special snowflakes, are you now saying you live exactly the same as Greeks and the Irish or whoever else? ]

I am not saying that.
I am saying that estonians best represent ancient europeans - be it irish or basque.
Greeks have always been more mixed (circum-mediterranean) and thus a borderline case.

[ And what the sexual intercourse is a "white lifestyle". ]

Living in an environment similar to the environment of the whites the way whites live.

[ Here's the 411, pale skin is largely an adaptation to areas with low amounts of sun. ]

Except that it isn't.
The arctic native peoples are a bit more dark - their lifestyle and environment is a bit different from the whites whites.

[ And other mixed local dietary and environmental factors over the course of a long ass time. ]

Yes, as I have said repeatedly.

[ The US in general gets more sun than Europe, let alone your part. Regardless of temperatures. ]

Which is why native americans have their own adaptations, including their own skin colour palette.

Have you taken an Earth Science class EVER?

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
"[There is no sauna culture in the US. ]

We aready established that there is."

No sorry there's not. You clearly have little to no idea how marginal and barely existent the native american population is across the US. We're not Mexico where Spanish culture meshed with native, native culture was pushed aside and wiped out pretty much fully by the European colonizers and pioneers. We didn't inherit sweat lodges from any tribe, they're (like most Indian things) a tourist display for non-natives on reservations or near them. And no major amount of immigration occurred from sauna having Europe. The only place such things show up is bath-houses and clubs like that which are uncommon to say the least, and not even used in the way Finns and Finn Jrs (Estonians) use them.
So point being, the whole comparison as attempt to prove anything about black Americans is retarded.

"They do."

Cool, show me all the sauna culture among Siberian peoples from the Mongols upward. Also even asserting saunas imply cold culture is completely wrong. You yourself are busy asserting Meso-American sauna use....do you have any idea how hot and sweaty Meso-America is just like on a normal day outside?? Parts are even straight up tropical rainforest lol.
So if saunas code for winter ubermensch to you, I guess Mayans are also such people.

"That kind of brown is usually called red, not brown."

I understand Estonian textbooks are not necessarily up to date on anthropology, but yeah no one calls natives "red" anymore and haven't for quite a while. Either way, they damn well aren't pale lol.

"The lifesrtyle that brings about light skin."

Describe this lifestyle.

"I am not saying that.
I am saying that estonians best represent ancient europeans - be it irish or basque.
Greeks have always been more mixed (circum-mediterranean) and thus a borderline case."

Hey look, another pile of imaginary psuedo-science. From you?? I'm shocked, shocked!

"Living in an environment similar to the environment of the whites the way whites live."

Europe does not, and never has had, a uniform climate, vegetation, average temperature, or really anything absolutely at all. Not all Europeans for instance live in depressing bogs like Estonians do.

"The arctic native peoples are a bit more dark - their lifestyle and environment is a bit different from the whites whites."

Because there are other factors, in every environment, dingus. For starters arctic people are not that much more dark on the whole. And even as they are, it should be very easy for you to see the actual theories anthropologists and genetic scientists have about this, and not loony quacks like yourself.

"Which is why native americans have their own adaptations, including their own skin colour palette."

This dude is literally from like 1910. NATIVES ARE NOT ACTUALLY RED.

@sagas
[ We didn't inherit sweat lodges from any tribe, they're (like most Indian things) a tourist display for non-natives on reservations or near them. ]

Regardless, you are what you eat and where you live and what you do.

[ Cool, show me all the sauna culture among Siberian peoples from the Mongols upward. ]

The mongolian cloud houses.

yaranga and polik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaranga

[ You yourself are busy asserting Meso-American sauna use....do you have any idea how hot and sweaty Meso-America is just like on a normal day outside?? ]

Below the human tolerance limit of the wet bulb temperature.

[ So if saunas code for winter ubermensch to you, I guess Mayans are also such people. ]

I guess you missed the fact that olmecs (pre-mayans) had sweat houses.

[ I understand Estonian textbooks are not necessarily up to date on anthropology, but yeah no one calls natives "red" anymore and haven't for quite a while. Either way, they damn well aren't pale lol. ]

Sure.
Skin colour palettes of whites and reds are overlapping.

[ Describe this lifestyle. ]

The lifestyle of europoids.

[ Hey look, another pile of imaginary psuedo-science. ]

Quite the contrary.
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2014_Nature_Lazaridis_EuropeThreeAncestries.pdf
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.ee/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.ee/2012/04/so-whos-most-european-of-us-all.html

[ Europe does not, and never has had, a uniform climate, vegetation, average temperature, or really anything absolutely at all. ]

Nor does Europe have to have one uniform climate.
That is why science uses climate zones and hardiness zones and biotope zones. For dummies.

[ Not all Europeans for instance live in depressing bogs like Estonians do. ]

Which is why estonians are representatives of ancient europeans, not merely representatives of ancient estonians.
Bog and snow and ice adaptation calls for relatively large and flexible feet - and estonians have that. The bigfoot.

[ NATIVES ARE NOT ACTUALLY RED. ]

Semantics.

@ThorsomeTarmukas Are you trying to imply that we mongoloids are somehow less intelligent than caucasians because we have malaria?
Wow, not the first time I have heard someone from a Baltic country saying stuff that sound so... well... I'm lost for words.

@Backwater
No.
But it is speculated (concerning afro-africans) that the adaptations to many tropical disease vectors might come at the expense of intelligence. Everything is a tradeoff. So, yes.
(edit. Yes to the detrimental effect of tropical diseases to the average intelligence; however that statement tells nothing about the absolute comparison with the caucasians)

Mongoloids have had input from neanderthals and denisovans and perhaps other hominids who all have had to adapt for colder climate (esp in the mountainous areas) than that in sub-Saharan Africa.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
That is not actually speculated by anyone but internet racists.

'@Backwater'
Look here pal. I'll have you know that your inferior monkey people with their ancient storied civilization know nothing of the higher civilized intelligent discourse of the noble Europeans.
Such as the Estonians. Oh yes subhuman, the ESTONIANS. Where do I even start?

A well heeled nation of bog dwelling alcoholics who didn't have the written word until the 13th century. Whose cities and towns were almost without exception founded by the various colonizing overlords that took over their bogs in that same century.

Whose incredible golden path through history starts in the high days of being disorganized tribal woods dwellers eating fish, herding deer, worshipping random crap, and probably also having sex with reindeer.

Next comes that illustrious 13th century through 20th century period of being a wet cold patch of mud, toothless peasants, and trees passed around by German knights, Swedes, and Russians on their way to conquer actual important places.

And finally the earthshaking foundation of the first actual Estonian state of any kind after Russia shat the bed and fell apart. Lingering on a few years and probably most of the world not noticing they even became independent. Being taken back again by Russia. Then being taken again by Germany, with a little too much cooperation in killing Jews to just call it compliance. Back again into being Russia's front door closet. And then wiggling out when Russia once again shat the bed and fell apart, into the major world player we know them as today.

Yes even the little children know Estonia as "Did you make that one up?",
or "Isn't that the place in Dilbert?",
to "Just how many ex-Yugoslav republics are there??",
and of course "Crappy Finland".

So the next time you in your *snort* rice hat ride your *haha* oxen to the river, and you see a Russian in an adidas jacket squatting and throwing cigarette butts at pigeons while speaking slurred Finnish?

That my friend.... is an ESTONIAN. And you should bask in the light of what a higher order of human looks like.

@sagas @Backwater

> A well heeled nation of bog dwelling alcoholics

On par with any other european nation with similar alcoholic problems.

Bogs are relevant only in the sense that in most of Europe the original bogs have been excavated and peat burned, making the bogs into agricultural lands - at least until the soils wither out and need replenishment in the form of peat soil. And that is one item that has made Estonia an interesting target for some European countries, notably for the Netherlands.

> who didn't have the written word until the 13th century

There were written words. For agricultural bookkeeping. And for dynamic hunting during the stone ages.
But it would be extremely simplistic to believe that contracts could only be validated and verified in written form.

> Whose cities and towns were almost without exception founded by the various colonizing overlords...

Wrong again.
All the towns that joined the Hanseatic League had existed long before the arrival of the benevolent overlords.
Tallinn (Iru and Kalevan), Tartu (Tarbatu), Viljandi, Vana-Pärnu, Narva.

Not to mention that several other settlements later on got the town status as well.
And for example bronze-age Võhma settlement had an estimated population size that would place it at 2nd position in present day Saaremaa island (the island was at least 20% smaller back then due to post-glacial isostatic rebound).

So you see, the "founding effect" in this particular instance meant a stamp of the Lübeck Law or the Riga city law.
And not even additional "cultural enrichment", because all the trade houses had already been present well before the arrival of the overlords.

> the high days of being disorganized tribal woods dwellers eating fish, herding deer, worshipping random crap, and probably also having sex with reindeer.

Wrong again.
Stone age tribes had their own states whose designation (vald / valta) also means a tributary or a watershed, one being the other.

And since the iron age, Estonian counties formed a loose confederation without any central government (besides the annual parliament events). That confederation existed for 12 centuries without any internal power grabs. There has also never been war between Estonia and Finland.

> German knights, Swedes, and Russians on their way to conquer actual important places.

Wrong again.

The largest post-viking silver hoards have been unearthed from Estonia.
Even Stalin could not resist attacking from Moscow to Berlin via Estonia and Finland.
Stalin spent much less troops against Japan than it spent against Estonia.

As for the rest ... LOL.

@Torbk Totally agree with you Torbk . What makes people superior is what they do and how they do it, always pursuing the truth, good, and welfare of everybody . I visited Europe for first time last year, a couple of countries there. I gotta say Iceland impressed me for how good they were with me as a foreign :O, one guy from Iceland helped me to see Auroras, because that was a dream of life to me, for free, I am still impressed , how they are good and help each other and such level of reliability and trust. Since then, I have the nordic countries always on my prayers ;). I really don't know if being this good and kind comes from their race, but probably it is more related to the culture... but... anyways, I feel a bond for them .

'@rphb'
The entire concept of this, try though it might to pretend otherwise, is based on "Hey look at how first world we are so obviously blah blah blah". That every goddamn civilization that gets on top ever has done some variation of. Stupid tribal monkey headed thinking that dresses up in pretty science gowns and smarty person intellectual glasses. There is no Nordic race, and the people in your part of the world are not magical supermen because of IQ tests and currently being rich.
The Romans thought you were dumb noble savages who lived in huts, and if you had introduced badly understood Darwin to them they'd be creating the same bullshit and talking about how naturally of course the Germanic is a tough strong but stupid people unlike us blah blah blah.

@rphb
What do you mean by Nordic race? Because white people are Nordic, but Sami people are even more Nordic. They have very different cultures and different facial structures, but which one is the Nordic race? White people first came from farther down Europe, so actually the Sami are the first and primary Nordic race. And if you want to include both, you're going to have to bring in Korea too, because the Sami get a lot of their facial structure and genetics from Korea and that region. Are Brits part of the Nordic race? Because a chunk of them came from Vikings but an equal chunk came from the French, and some more from the Spanish.
If you just mean "white people", think again of the Sami before you say "Nordic race". Skin color is about Vitamin D absorption, not intelligence. If you're talking about a culture being intelligent, that has nothing to do with race as people of all colors can be raised in cultures of any kind and adapt perfectly. The Nordic countries are very advanced places, but it has literally absolutely nothing to do with race. It has to do with geography, farm-able land, domesticated animals, being high on the food chain, lack of natural disasters, many options for agriculture, and the temperate zone. i recommend the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" if you want to learn more about why certain regions advanced more than others.

@rphb The "clearly" part is not very scientific.

@rphb Nordic society is good just like all reports tell to us, but what do you think about this kind of development ? Looks pretty scary or ?

German far-right children's camp in Sweden
"The school-age children are drilled for a week. Wearing uniform-style outfits and sporting traditional hairstyles, they take part in flag ceremonies, physical exercise and other activities at a remote location in the forested Småland province. Expo and Kvällsposten have documented the German organization "Sturmvogel" and their camp week in Sweden."

http://expo.se/2016/german-far-right-childrens-camp-in-sweden_7139.html
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/german-right-wing-extremist-youth-camp-in-sweden/
http://www.dailystormer.com/nazi-boyscouts-organize-summer-camp-in-sweden/

Sweden has a pretty dark chapter on racial biology as well with the State Insitute for Racial Biology operating between 1922 and 1958. The most noteworthy atrocities include forced castration of gypies, among others.

@Teddia
I'm unsure how many other nations had forced castration on "lesser" races, but over half U.S. states did. It trips me up to think about it. How could anyone do that to another living person. This is one of the U.S.'s darker moments in a history you already need a high powered flashlight to navigate: http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

'Murica: Land of the free, home of the brave (unless you're African, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Hispanic, any type of Asian, Eastern European, Native American, or any combination of the above mentioned)

@MandalMotors Let's not forget the Irish when they started to come in larger numbers...

Greenland peoples look like Asian?. So I can be local peoples there.. Only if I'm smart enough
with their native language

@Zuperkrunch I've seen that in many places, and I am still confused if this is a stereotype or not.

I don't think you can measure intelligence in a racial group, since the fluctuation between individuals is much, much superior player to that of race groups.

@Vexillo Or the fact that racial groups are incredibly arbitrary to begin with.

@JanValentine Not really. Some characteristic combinations are consistent with certain geographical areas. Not exactly precise but still accurate.

@Vexillo Broad physical groups don't make for good genetic ones. There are plenty of "races" found in subsaharan Africa alone. And then there's India, which screwed around with the original classifications.