Talk:Russophobia

Scholarship or laundry list?

You would think there is material enough in serious scholarship on the history of Russophobia — for example, English school reader tales of a Russian family traveling by sleigh in winter being assaulted by a pack of wolves, where the parents toss their children off the sleigh one by one to satisfy the ravenous wolves to save themselves — that a serious and informative article could be written. That is not the article as it now stands. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We require the highest standards in reliable sources for articles like Mass killings under Communist regimes, it should be no different for this article. Perhaps if we set the bar higher for sourcing, such as only relying upon what is published in books rather than in the media, perhaps that may be the solution for this article. --Martin (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it kind of makes sense. Of course, Tsygankov is a book. Even a scholarly book. Scholarly books can also be biased, partisan etc. Currently, this article is a joke. It does not even consider the origin of the word (which was first used by Tutchev in a culture dispute within Russia). - BorisG (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

At least Tsygankov represents someone along a spectrum of scholarship, not sensationalist journalism. There's a clear distinction between Russophobia proper as opposed to "Russophobia" = "not caring for post-Soviet Russian government and state authorities." Where scholars contend that cynicism, skepticism, suspicion, and low expectations regarding the current Russian state constitute "Russophobia," e.g., Tsygankov, that should be treated in its own "post-Soviet era" section so as to not muddle the two. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say, as I proposed earlier, that aversion to the Russian Federation and aversion to ethnic Russians (specifically for the ethnicity, rather than for perceived loyalty to the Russian Federation) should be clearly separated.--Yalens (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We should also remember that historical Russophobia also includes a certain fear of empire, certainly as advocated by Tyutchev and Dostoyevski — although prior to today's era of globalization, I think there was a closer popular interchangeability of the Empire and the Russian, their being far away, mysterious, misunderstood, etc. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When there is consensus that a concept is neutral, then we can provide a "laundry list". Therefore the article Anti-Americanism is neutral, while United States and state terrorism is not. TFD (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The laundry list in the former suffers from many of the same issues as the laundry list here. It's also a poor comparison that is state-oriented, as there is no such being as an "ethnic American" who, for example, feeds their children to wolves to effect their own escape. A laundry list of "who denounces whom" is what it is, the topic is merely a nuance. There is nothing that makes that sort of list inherently neutral.

If you fervently believe such a list is essential in the case of this article, then I suggest we split this article with the laundry list becoming Incidents of alleged anti-Russian sentiment so as to not confuse that list with Russophobia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what TFD says is true-however, their certainly is no consensus that this page is "neutral", as evidenced by the neutrality tag at the top. And I don't really think eliminating the "laundry list" element would solve the problem either though. For me, its not so much "laundry list" as it is the POV aspect of the pages. The problem with these sorts of articles is that when they talk about negative feelings aimed at national groups, they fail to mention the origin of these sentiments, or paint them as irrational hatred that fell from the sky (or from Nazi propaganda in this case). Hatred of Romani may be racial, but hatred of Americans or Russians is instead political. The result is a set of hopelessly POV pages that paint an image of the tragic, unique victimhood of the nation being addressed. In this case, we also have a whole section of the page devoted to mourning the fact that Western media has a different POV (implicitly "wrong") from the (implicitly "right") POV that Russian media has (which of course just underlines the POV of the section). For the sake of not generalizing, there are actually a handful of exclusions among the Anti-x-ism/x-phobia pages , but many of them (including this one) follow this general rule of being POV pages mourning the victimhood of said nation. Sorry for the long post.--Yalens (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're a bit off on Estonians swallowing propaganda. They despised the Soviet Union after it invaded, quickly hated the Nazis (seen as liberators a week after the Soviet mass deportations), then fought the Nazis and the Red Army on two fronts simultaneously attempting to rid themselves of both. As long as the Russian Federation insists it liberated Estonia (ignoring that the USSR invaded Estonia first), I expect those feelings will continue to be visited upon the officials of the Russian Federation. Twenty years after the fall of the USSR there's no excuse to not be up to date on history. It's a myth that Nazi propaganda had any effect, that the Waffen SS supported Nazism or Hitler or Germany, etc. Feel free to visit my talk page for an off-article-talk chat.

On the other, definitely, ignoring sources of something provides no context or basis for understanding a phenomenon. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on how to handle the media wars other than splitting off the laundry list if we can reformulate into something more informative. Unfortunately, if, say, the "Latvia" section starts with "Latvians mistrust Russia because it has yet to acknowledge Soviet occupation", that's why XYZ Latvian advocates to rescind citizenships, that will quickly be tagged as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as that "why" was most likely not drawn by the source, e.g., a Russian news story isn't going to scream RUSSOPHOBE in its headline and then write, well, yes, we (as Soviets) did invade them, occupy them, deport them, and murder them. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Russophobia", is defined as an irrational fear of Russian people and culture, but as pointed out here in this critique of Tsygankov's writings, there is a tendency to level the charge of "russophobia" at critics of the present political course in Russia, even as Umland states, "much of the more competent criticism of current Russia comes from people who not only know and study, but actually like or even love the Russian people, culture and customs - not to mention the various Russians and half-Russians among the critics" --Martin (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Umland's piece is a great source to integrate into the article. On threads elsewhere, I've renewed my activity here to fill out historical aspects. In the end, the people on all sides are victims/products of their mutual history and current geopolitical posturing and conflict. The sooner the article discusses Russophobia in the appropriate context, not, for example, FeelSunny's one-sided litany against the Finns, the sooner it will be worthy of an encyclopedia. Umland is correct, the sooner Russia actually becomes democratic and comes to terms with the Soviet past, the sooner contemporary "Russophobia" will disappear. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Finnish section

This section is off-topic and is related to the Continuation War. Any connection to the topic of "Russophobia" appears to be purely WP:SYNTH. --Nug (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has responded here, I've removed the off-topic text[1]. --Nug (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, I reverted your revert.

Did you expect a say from me here, an answer to a question I never knew you asked? It could have been useful to write on my TP that you started a discussion. I do not watch all talk pages of the articles I ever edited.

Anyway, please could you refer to the 3o in the Talk:Human_rights_in_Estonia#POV_edits. The third party gave good advice to us both, and I really feel that we should pay attention to it. Why don't you read and then come here and edit the way you like. But this time, please, first discuss. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And events from the Continuation War is relevant to this article how? Why not add Operation Barbarossa too? --Nug (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Continuation War is off-topic. The historical roots (for example Greater Wrath) and modern polls and studies are more factual. See also the article in Finnish Wikipedia fi:Venäläisvastaisuus. Peltimikko (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Both operation Barbarossa and "continuation war" are relevant in the article about anti-Russian sentiment, to the degree they are connected with the anti-Russian sentiment. Nobody inserted any "excessive descriptions" of the "Continuation war" here. What was there in the article, and what I want to see there, and what matters in the Russophobia-related article, is:

• Local population of Finnish-occupied territories was divided into two groups, basing on ethnicity, ethnic Russians alone constituted absolute majority (95+%) of population called "non-relative" by Finns.
• "Non-relative" population was discriminated in wages, labor conditions, their civilian rights were restricted.
• Finnish government was planning to "resettle" "non-relative" population out of occupied zones.

All sources listed in the section.

If this should not be a matter of the article "Russophobia", please explain what it is then. If it was not about dislike of Russians living in their own land, then explain what was it. FeelSunny (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:SYNTH and your own personal opinion. Find a reliable source that explicitly links internment camps during the Continuation war to "Russophobia". --Nug (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you just need to see sources that ethnic discrimination against Russian was caused by Russophobia, I will provide them. Finnish policy on occupied territories is a pure racism, an ethnic discrimination in it's worst, and there are plenty of sources to prove this.

I will save here some sources and quotes that I plan to incorporate in the article later, and you're welcome to see and check. Some of sources are only available in Russian; but this is what you get in an article with such a topic. "This inter-war identity, it was claimed, had basically been characterized by widespread russophobia in Finnish society and the resulting depiction of the Soviet Union as Finland’s perivihollinen – the hereditary enemy.", "Russophobia, as Heikki Luostarinen notes, was “the notion that Finland and Russia cannot live in peaceful co-existence”, "The Russian enemy image filled all the criteria of being the "Other"... between the World Wars...This phenomena - Russanviha - the so-called hatred of Russians..." "Finnish war propaganda... concentrated on openly declared political Russophobia", "Russophobia during the Continuation war", "Estern Karelia ... question became politized and increasingly characterized by Russophobia... kinship of nations... " "turn the kindred population into "proper Finnish citizens"" "education ... school system... only available to children of nationals", "Finnish national emphasis ... when it came to religion", "rations of people belonging to kindred higher", "death rate in concentration camps 13.8%", "policy of separation was also reflected in the medical care of the population", "non-nationals paid half the wage of nationals", "inequality of treatment on the basis of nationality", "breach of the fundamental principle of humane treatment", "similarities between the German and the Finnish policy...Finns had issued orders which in fact discriminated Russian population", "The Finnish authorities drew a distinction between prisoners of war and internees of Russian ethnic origin... and kindred to the Finns" etc. Here: [2][3][4][5][6][7]FeelSunny (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to persist in this vein, the Finnish thread will need to greatly expand on who started it all. There's nothing like the Russian (Soviet) army preemptively attacking your homeland to breed fear and hatred. (As a parallel, the U.S. interned Japanese in camps after the attack by Japan.) And let's also go to the very birth of Finnish "Russophobia" with the prior forced Russification of Finns, etc. I do trust you'll be as editorially enthusiastic on expanding on why Finns had good reason to fear their bellicose and tyrannical neighbor. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think the website history.ru can be considered a reliable source per WP:RS for two of the cites listed. The other sources do not seem to directly link the internment of prisoners, but rather speak of "russophobia" in terms of war time propaganda used to boost the Finnish fighting spirit: "Thus he created such an "other", against whom it was not hopeless to fight, disregarding the materially overwhelming power of the Russians during the war". Using war time propaganda to boost the fighting spirit is not an uncommon thing during war, see for example the depiction of Germans as barbarians and savage Huns during WW1/WW2 or US wartime propaganda against the Japanese during WW2. I'm sure Red Army propaganda portrayed Germans in an equally low light. So your text is still off-topic. --Nug (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To FeelSunny: War time is war time and the subject of Finnish concentration camps is covered in the article East Karelian concentration camps (furthermore Soviets killed finnish civilians in illegal air strikes of civil targets, soviet partisans killed finnish civilians, finnish POWs very killed in inhuman prison camps etc. etc.). However, this article of Russophobia should cover two main issues: historical roots and nowadays attitudes (for example amnesty international reports). Peltimikko (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I believe that the policy of the government of Finland in and before the WWII was really Russophobic. There were not many governments in Europe that were willing to keep people in concentration camps because of their ethnicity. Finnish government was one of them. You can name any reasons that caused these racist policies, but we need to keep mention of the racism itself too.

And, to end (hopefully) the discussion on how camps were Russophobic, one more quote: "The death rate among prisoners rose as high as 30%, the hardest hit being the 'Great Russians', among whom the Jews were at first included, and who were treated the worst, along with political prisoners." "Koko maankin osalta on tietoja siitä, että venäläistä alkuperää olevia vankeja menehtyi eniten, Neuvostoliiton vähemmistökansallisuuksiin kuuluvia jo vähemmän ja vähiten suomensukuisia (P.Mikkola, 116-119). Tämä johtui tietoisesta kohtelun erilaistamisesta ruoka-annoksia myöten vankien etnisen taustan mukaan." - conscious discrimination of prisoners on ethnic grounds. Both quotes are by Finnish professor Heikki Ylikangas, from a work made for the Fin. government, here: [8].

I propose, to continue working on the section and reach some consensus on this:

• Nug, Vecrumba, Peltimikko - please add reasons you think led to the racist policies of the Finnish government, as all three of your posts above were about reasons,
• I will add links and sources from the list above and describe the Russophobic policies of the government more clearly and briefly.FeelSunny (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget tsarist Russification, Soviet threats and preemptive attacks, et al. Another case where if Russia and the Soviet Union had left well enough alone, there would be no "Russophobia." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Peters, if you have sources claiming concentration camps were influenced by the tsarist Russification, please feel free to add this.FeelSunny (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It would help if everybody was talking about the same thing. For example the quotes you were providing were handling the Soviet POW camps in Finland, not the concentration camps for civilians in East Karelia. --Whiskey (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@FeelSunny, no, what I am stating is that each historical instance of Russian threats and assault upon the Finnish people prompted its own fear and dislike of Russia. I believe that is generally described as cause and effect. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure how Finland could have institutionalized discrimination against Russians (that is what you are saying) or would have wasted the energy to bother, as, at least in the Russian empire, the ethnic Russian population of Finland was virtually nil. When Russification enforced Russian for state business, the Finns did rightfully see it as putting the (actually less than) 8,000 Russians in the entire country in charge of the total population of 2,700,000 (the other 2,692,000). I haven't researched how many Russians fled to Finland when the Bolsheviks took over. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Peters, sorry I think I need to be more clear on this: you are absolutely free to insert this mention of the Russian empire hurting feelings of Finns, if you have any reliable sources that claim this was the cause of the Russophobia of the Finnish government building concentration camps for ethnic Russian population on occupied land. It's just a matter of either OR and SYNTH or not, as usual.

This section of discussion was started by Nug claiming my point about concentration camps having something in common with Russophobia of the Finnish government was SYNTH. I responded with reliable sources and quotes above. Why don't you provide a pair of quotes that show that "each historical instance of Russian threats and assault upon the Finnish people" prompted creation of the Finnish concentration camps for ethnic Russians. This will save us all a great deal of time we can otherwise spend on discussions here. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In case you want to discuss about the concentration camps, please keep your quotes from that issue and do not use quotes concerning POW camps to further your point of view. They are two different places. --Whiskey (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

One interesting piece of discussion and a handful of sources can be found in [9]. --Whiskey (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey, your POW camps vs. concentration camps argument is false. First, these were exactly concentration camps, explicitly called so by the quoted source:[10] and many other. В 1941 году в районе Петрозаводска было создано шесть концлагерей. - In 1941 in the Petrozavodsk area, 6 concentration camps were created. Second, Finnish administration renamed these concentration camps to "transfer camps" at the final stage of the WWII by the Finnish administration to avoid responsibility. После ухудшения стратегического положения Германии в июле 1943 года в битве под Курском комендант военного управления Восточной Карелии решил переименовать заслуживающие дурную славу концлагеря в лагеря для перемещенных лиц. - After worsening of the strategic state of Germany in July, 1943, after the Battle of Kursk, military commandant of East Karelia decided to rename the infamous concentration camps to tran sfer camps. None of these camps was "different places" - all were just the very same institutions with barbwire where civilians of wrong ethnicity were used as a forced labor and died of hunger together with their kids from the picture. The book I quote is by Helge Seppälä, a Finnish military historian from Helsinki, and a regular officer in the past, born in 1924, and serving in the Finnish army in Karelia in 1942-44.FeelSunny (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you bother to read even a few sentences more from the sources you quoted, you'll notice that Ylikangas talks about POW camps. NOT about concentration camps.

Your quote: The death rate among prisoners rose as high as 30%, the hardest hit being the 'Great Russians', among whom the Jews were at first included, and who were treated the worst, along with political prisoners.

Let's show also the first sentence of the paragraph:Jews also died in Finnish POW camps. The death rate among prisoners rose as high as 30%, the hardest hit being the ‘Great Russians’, among whom the Jews were at first included, and who were treated the worst, along with political prisoners.

So Ylikangas writes about the POW camps. NOT concentration camps.

Your next quote: Koko maankin osalta on tietoja siitä, että venäläistä alkuperää olevia vankeja menehtyi eniten, Neuvostoliiton vähemmistökansallisuuksiin kuuluvia jo vähemmän ja vähiten suomensukuisia (P.Mikkola, 116-119). Tämä johtui tietoisesta kohtelun erilaistamisesta ruoka-annoksia myöten vankien etnisen taustan mukaan.

...And few sentences before showed from the same paragraph:Huippukautena vuodenvaihteessa 1941-1942 Suomen sotavankileirejä kansoitti 56.500 sotavankia. Vangeista kuoli suunnilleen kolmannes eli virallisten ilmoitusten mukaan likimain 18.700 miestä (Hanski, 72). Kuolleisuus oli suurinta talvikautena 1941-42. Vuonna 1942 vangeista menehtyi yli 15.000 (T.Mikkola, 114). Menehtymisen syiksi mainitaan tavallisesti aliravitsemus ja kehnot leiriolot. Monet vangit joutuivat aluksi pitkähköksi aikaa pelkkiin avoleireihin tai pahvitelttoihin ilman kelvollisia asumuksia (T.Mikkola, 56). Eri leirien ja eri kansallisuuksien välillä esiintyy kuolleisuudessa merkitseviä eroja (Lindstedt, 307; Seppälä, 84-86). Savonlinnan lähelle Aholahteen suomensukuisia kieliä puhuville heimovangeille perustetulla leirillä numero 21 jäi kuolleisuus vuonna 1942 alle yhden prosentin (Hallikainen, 53-54). Koko maankin osalta on tietoja siitä, että venäläistä alkuperää olevia vankeja menehtyi eniten, Neuvostoliiton vähemmistökansallisuuksiin kuuluvia jo vähemmän ja vähiten suomensukuisia (P.Mikkola, 116-119). Tämä johtui tietoisesta kohtelun erilaistamisesta ruoka-annoksia myöten vankien etnisen taustan mukaan. (emphasis mine)

"sotavankileirejä" = "POW camps". NOT concentration camps.

I was replying to NUG who asked me to show that Russophobia existed in Finland, and camps were connected to Finnish Russophobia. Yes, those sources were covering POW camps and discrimination of Russians there, as well as issues with discrimination of Russians elsewhere in occupied Karelia (please read the quoted text above). Do you think that concentration camps for ethnic Russians / "non-relatives" were not connected to Russophobia, like NUG thought so? If yes, I will add some quotes speaking about concentration camps specifically.FeelSunny (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Do You still claim those quotes were from the concentration camps? --Whiskey (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey, what is the point of this discussion, really?FeelSunny (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Duh! I never claimed that concentration camps were non-existent. I just wanted to point out that you try to use text Ylikangas has written about POW-camps to describe situation/policy in concentration camps, while those two camps were totally different things, be it administration, supply, legal standing, treaties etc. If you want to make claims about concentration camps, use texts which handle concentration camps. Not something else. --Whiskey (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the notice! I would:) FeelSunny (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

When I read the Finnish section and compare it to the other sections, I do consider it overblown and lacking relevant content. It should be cut to the third of it's current size and should include the events affecting Finnish views about Russia (Greater Wrath, Russification, Civil War, 1920s, Stalin's purges, Winter War, Finlandization). If someone has more to write, it should be done in a separate article, existing or a new one. --Whiskey (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to remove well sourced material covering the matter of the article. Just add relevant information to other sections, to make sure they give as much information as the Finnish one. FeelSunny (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This article has already passed the 50K border... see WP:SIZERULE. And the Finnish section is clearly lacking major issues, while adding this POW/concentration camp thing unbalances both this section and the whole article. It would be much more useful to use separate articles to describe the issue more thoroughly. --Whiskey (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, over 50k. And here's a thousand of articles over 150k, most with topics of much less scope. See no reasons yet why this article should be split. Do you think it's unreadable? Let's edit rather than just cut - I'm all for it.FeelSunny (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanest solution would seem to be to add '{{see_also|Finnish military administration in Eastern Karelia}}' to the Finnish section and then replace the current content with just what is currently placed under 'Modern anti-Russian sentiment in Finland' subheader and then expand that with other content (ie. references to Russification of Finland and such). After all camps are not what Russophobia in Finland is all about - currently it the Finnish section is mostly off topic. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are clear quotes from Helge Seppala in the next section supporting use of the picture, and directly connecting concentration camps with the racist policy of the Finnish government to ethnically cleanse the region. Thus, I provided reliable sources claiming camps were an instrument of an ethnic cleansing. I plan to remove the tag unless you provide any sources claiming concentration camps were not an instrument of ethnic cleansing.FeelSunny (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is only relevant to the camps, not to the Russophobia, which is the topic of this wikipage. No ethnic cleansing took place, it was merely planned (which did not take place) population relocation - common event during and after WWII by all parties. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"To make Padany a national settlement, all Russians were moved in Autumn, 1941 to the Svyatonavolotsky concentration camp" - Seppala, military historian, Finnish General Staff Leutenant-Colonel, author of many books on the war and a soldier of the occupying Finnish army. The ethnic cleansing of Russians in the Finnish-occupied Karelia did happen, and not just "was planned". And concentration camps were used for this ethnic cleansing. There's no justification for this tag, it just undermines credibility of the well-sourced section. P.S. And no, your statement "population relocation - common event during and after WWII by all parties" is factually wrong - only Nazis and Finns during the WWII were massively cleansing occupied lands of the local unwanted population with the use of concentration camps.FeelSunny (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Confining people to camps does not constitute an ethnic cleansing. Interning potentially hostile civilians is not same as ethnic cleansing. Population relocation, see Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) carried out by both Western Allies and Soviets, so it was carried out by all parties of the war. Do note that Finns only planned such, they did not actually perform it, unlike others. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the phrase: "To make Padany a national settlement, all Russians were moved in Autumn, 1941 to the Svyatonavolotsky concentration camp"? Russians sent to the concentration camp to make the settlement national? Is this not an ethnic cleansing with the use of concentration camps?FeelSunny (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Confining people to camps was not ethnic cleansing so I honestly fail to see what exactly you are after. And regardless, that does not change the rather important detail that it still fails to link Russophobia with the camps so it remains off topic matter (for this particular page). - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer, please answer these questions:

1. do you agree that the source says that ethnic Russians were sent to concentration camps to make the settlement national?
2. do you agree that people are sent to concentration camps involuntarily, i.e. they do not want to go?
3. do you agree that an ethnic cleansing is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas?FeelSunny (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not mean there would have been ethnic cleansing, first it only refers to single village/locality (no idea what or where Padany is) and notes that 'non-relative' people were moved out of there to a camp, not that they would have been moved permanently out of the location and relocated elsewhere - confining people to camps does not constitute an ethnic cleansing. Given that sizable portion of the people confined to camps (more than half) were already refugees they had nowhere else to go either. Yes I do, and Finns only planned to do that (not with violent of terror-inspiring part), that plan was never carried out. Unlike what Soviets and Allies did. Using something that never happened as basis for the logic for including the camps into the article does not seem to be of any use to any one. None of which has any relevance to the matter regarding camps and Russophobia. It would be helpful if you tried to keep the content of the page under its stated topic. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am planning to remove unsourced information from the section, those statements now with ^{[citation needed]} tags. I will try to find some sources for these statements before deleting them, and would really appreciate if somebody could help finding sources.FeelSunny (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

History and laundry list

The history section is woefully inadequate. The genesis of "Russophobia" in the Anglo-Russo geopolitical conflict is abundantly clear and is hardly treated at all. I did what was possible with what is there now. I also retitled the (contemporary) "claims" section to Russophobia—let's at least have "Russophobia" appear in sources cited whether or not they are considered partisan. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I also alphabetized (regions and) countries to remove the grotesquely POV ordering. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I also recommend a historical treatment of countries—after all, England, the primary progenitor of Russophobia, with 19th century English society described by contemporaneous observers as being in "paroxyms" of Russophobic fear—isn't even mentioned, rather proving the entire "...by country" section is nothing more than a "let's find any mud that sticks" list.

I suggest editors start working on the history of Russophobia (named as such in sources) by region or country as appropriate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that timeline approach is an interesting idea. Let's try and implement it here.FeelSunny (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"England, the primary progenitor of Russophobia, with 19th century English society described by contemporaneous observers as being in "paroxyms" of Russophobic fear—isn't even mentioned". Whoa there. What about the endless clashes between Russian and Poland centuries earlier, memorialised by Gogol in Taras Bulba for instance? I would think very carefully before even considering casting stones at any particular nation for allegedly being a "primary progenitor of Russophobia". In any case, to claim that "England" (or rather Great Britain) was "the primary progenitor of Russophobia", and to then amend the article to say "Widespread societal Russophobia has its roots in geopolitical competition between Russian and Great Britain" is very POV; and I wonder how much this is backed up by the given citation, which was originally provided by another editor who gave it no such import. This looks suspiciously to me like WP:SYN.

Plus, if Great Britain was such a nation of Russophobia, why is it that such British individuals as Rosa Newmarch at the turn of the 20th century spent so much time promoting The Five, and Tchaikovsky was awarded a doctorate at Cambridge? It seems likely to me that this so-called Russophobia was no more than a jingoistic passing phase during the Crimean War etc. And didn't the Russians themselves rather relish thinking themselves descendents from the supposedly barbaric Scythians? Hence Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and Prokofiev's Scythian Suite. Alfietucker (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

An evening's research has conclusively trashed the idea that "England" was "the primary progenitor of Russophobia". Please let's try not to be carried away by the half-baked theories of a single source (that's assuming it actually says what it was alleged to have said). btw, though I say so myself, it's rather gratifying to now have text which actually complements the illustration! Alfietucker (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Commentators at the time specifically attributed "Russopbobia" to both English society as a whole and to individual policy makers, authority figures (e.g., British officials in India), etc. There are plenty of sources for this. The phobia in English society was quite real. The English manifestation starting in the early 19th century is the direct antecedent of modern Russophobia. I'm sure that Ivan the Terrible was feared too, but for good reason; the point is that "phobia" is an unnatural fear; the definition at the beginning of the article is an open invitation for an unencyclopedic laundry list.

Exactly what do you maintain you have "trashed"? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Cain's book is convenient but right now it's there because it was already there, not because there aren't dozens of better sources. Unfortunately, most of the activity here has been regarding the laundry list of slights and offenses against Russians and Russia by country as opposed to working on an encyclopedic article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Commentators" - can we have some names/examples, please? If you know them, perhaps you can save some of my time by including these with citations in the article, rather than making broad sweeping statements. Unless and until you can provide concrete and credible examples, for all I know the commentators may be as reliable as a certain Polish general whose document was taken up by Napoleon (have you taken the time to look at the work I've already done to the article?). Alfietucker (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have, thanks for you contributions. I've been organizing sources chronologically for the 19th century and English/Russian conflict. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Dracula really about the Russians?

Hello. I'm just wondering if anyone here can vouch for Dr. Jimmie Cain's book Bram Stoker and Russophobia. I'm finding it remarkably hard to find much independent comment on-line about its content, which appears to be based on a doctoral thesis he submitted in Georgia State University back in 1996, Travelogues of empire: Bram Stoker's Dracula and The lady of the shroud. It seems distinctly odd to me that he didn't get it published until a good ten years later, and then by a publishing house less known for academic history books but more for such titles as The Halloween Encyclopedia, Horror Films of the 1970s and Werewolves of Wisconsin (see [11]). Anyway, for some reason it appears to be the main citation given in this article for the United Kingdom being home of Russophobia - a claim that appears untenable from the basic research I did last night. Besides, it does seem rather odd that if Stoker was indeed trying to write an anti-Russian parable, he should choose not a Slavic state or region (say, Bohemia) for its setting, but rather one that was predominantly associated with the Magyars.

Altogether I'm not sure that Cain's book seems a very sound source for any evidence of British Russophobia; but in fairness to the book, I wanted to check - can anyone confirm it actually does claim that a) Russophobia is a British invention; b) that Britain (to quote the Russophobia article text as it stands "exported [this propaganda] to other parts of the world"? Also to be fair, I will see if there is any more authoritative source for the latter claim (the first being patent nonsense, as I've discovered); if there is none, then I will strike this out from the article. Alfietucker (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you find many of the better more scholarly sources out there and add content to the article if you're interested. If your only contribution is to threaten to be a deletionist, perhaps you might find an article more to your liking. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a "deletionist", don't worry. I'll be sticking around for a while, and in case you haven't noticed, I have already added several scholarly citations, though alas none which back the thesis you originally proposed. That's not for want of trying to find some. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You might look for this chronology:

• Napoleon (1812...) and French publications
• defeat of Napoleon puts Russia on the royalty places to visit (goodness)
• European Russophobia develops as a geopolitical counter to keep Russia "in check"
• Anglo Russophobia is launched and honed over multiple geopolitical conflicts from Turkey to Afghanistan to India ("paroxyms" of panic of Turkomania and Russophobia)
• then there was decree to enforce of the Pale of Settlement, here's a quote, the English author quoted being described as being in the throes of his "Russophobia":

"Russia, who had outraged every Commandment of God, and every Law of Man, fills up with this last Atrocity the Measure of Iniquity. Russia having already, by such Crimes committed with Impunity, steeped the Nations of Europe in Infamy, by this last fills up the Measure and the Proof of their Degradation."

Trying and not finding... well, you know you can't prove a negative. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback - I'll check your references, but in the meantime may I observe: 1) you appear to be conceding that the French publications (highly influential and widely read as they were) predate the episodes of what has been called Russophobia in Britain (rather different from your earlier claim that "England" was the "primary progenitor of Russophobia"); 2) are you seriously suggesting that the Pale of Settlement was a benign and good thing which should have been applauded? I hope not, but if not what exactly is your point there? Alfietucker (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just identified the author of the quote starting "Russia, who had outraged [etc]" - David Urquhart, who was a Member of Parliament, only he was very much seen as a nuisance by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. He was actually recalled from his diplomatic activities as his pro-Turkish and anti-Russian fervour boiled over into his anti-Russian pamphlet England, France, Russia and Turkey; and he spent much of his time in parliament in *opposition* to the policies of the Prime Minister, in particular his foreign policy. So yes, Urquhart said some extreme statements of Russia, but his views were regarded as eccentric and were unsupported by the British establishment - a very different scenario to Napoleon's sponsorship of anti-Russian propaganda. That said, I can't say the Pale of Settlement issue reflected well on Russia's Tsarist government, and the mere fact it was attacked by Urquhart doesn't make it any more creditable. Alfietucker (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Another quote to leave you with (1919, "Russia, White or Red", Sayler)

"Fear of Russia has been the consistent attitude of every country in Europe ever since she emerged as a world power under Peter and Catherine in the eighteenth century. Distrust of the motives of the great white autocracy of the north and anxiety as to what pose her changing and irresponsible will would assume in the face of important crises have put Great Britain and France, Prussia, and later the German Empire, Austria and Turkey and Scandinavia, eternally on their guard. At one time they have sought her favor, and then within a few months they have patched up alliances to offset a possible change of heart on the part of the Bear.

"The Russian policy of all Europe, therefore, has been based on negative instead of positive motives. ..."

Try looking (Google books) for "Russophobia" prior to 1900 or "Russophobia" plus "Napoleon" for recent sources dealing with Russophobia in a historical context. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fall of Napoleon = beginning of Russophobia (Napoleon defeated at the hands of Russia as opposed to Napoleon defeated by the Russian winter and over-extension of his supply lines). I'll toss you an editorial bone. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We'll also need a section of the (re-)creation of "Russophobia" in post-Soviet discourse. But first things first. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

On Urquhart, as odd as he may have appeared, he needs to be taken in the context of the time, e.g., the Newport rising gaining wide rumor as a plot in which the Russian navy would invade England. The seed of geo-politically generated Russophobia started with Napoleon, but in terms of taking over societal perceptions, grew and matured in the multiple 19th century geopolitical conflicts between England and Russia. (Unfortunately in moving computers I seem to have lost the reference to the story in the 19th century English reader of a Russian family in a sleigh being chased by a pack of wolves, and just as the wolves were about to overtake the sled, the father tossed one of their children to the wolves to save themselves and the rest—and once the wolves caught up again, would toss another child.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on David Urquhart, but I've generally thought of him as more of a Turcophile (and a Circassophile) than a Russophobe- i.e. that he agitated for Britain to support Turkey in the Black Sea region because of his pro-Turkish/pro-Circassian views, rather than anti-Russian views. I also speculate that the fact that he was Scottish (rather than English), could have something to do with it, i.e. it would help him to identify with the plight of the Circassians (preserving their nation state, not unlike the various Scottish national heroes of lore). Notably, before being a supporter of (preserving) Circassian independence, he was a supporter of Greek independence (and I don't deny that he may have developed anti-Russian (Empire) sentiments, but I would hold that the cause for this was his pro-Circassian view of the region). But I suppose now we are getting off topic... --Yalens (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Making of a Russophobe: David Urquhart" - a book about him, [12], and here ISBN 0192802321, 9780192802323 called "the Britain's leading Russophobe".FeelSunny (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Phobia versus legitimate fear

As an example, Sweden was said to have a fear of Russia invading, citing the availability of compatible broad-gauge rail through Finland right to the Swedish border. Quite frankly, legitimate fears of invasion, legitimate fears of Russification policies (whether Tsarist or Soviet), low opinions of Russians, etc., do not automatically qualify as Russophobia. The lead offers a definition that any fear, legitimate or not, rational or not, against the state or against the ethnic group, qualifies as Russophobia. Let's please have someone provide scholarly sources for that contention. Absent of that, the only content appropriate for the article is whatever scholarly sources label "Russophobia"—in which case the specific fear(s) mentioned qualify. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"The thorough Russification of Finland did not begin until the present century and it is profoundly significant that it coincided exactly with the close of the war with Japan. Thwarted in the attempt to reach open sea in the east, Russia turned her attention with renewed vigor to the west. Finland is now a country governed by Cossacks. Finnish judges have been thrown into prison for daring to uphold the constitution guaranteed their country by the Czar. Finnish money has built the broad gauged railway and heavy iron bridges that can carry troops if need be directly from Petrograd to Tornea on the Swedish border. Small wonder that fear of Russia is in the Swedish blood and that the Muscovite is used as a bogey to frighten children."

For example, we might wish to label this Russophobia; however, unless another source calls this period of time (Finland being actively Russified after the end of war with Japan in 1905) one where Sweden was beset by Russophobia (this passage is from 1914, SCANDINAVIA AND THE WAR BY HANNA ASTRUP LARSEN), this does not qualify. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think since this is such a contentious topic, we ought to confine ourselves to sources that discuss "russophobia" as its main topic. See for example the book Russophobia in New Zealand, 1838-1908, clearly the remotely situated New Zealand's fear of Russian invasion was irrational, where as Finland certainly had a legitimate concern that cannot be described as "russophobia". --Nug (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

1838 coincides with the start of the first Afghan war, which fanned English fears of Russian designs on India. Not that a Russian naval base in India would be that much closer to spark fears of invasion of New Zealand, so I suspect this was sympathetic fear for the British Empire. (I haven't read the source, so this is a bit of surmising on my part.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Crimean War also contributed too. In Australia, Fort Denison was constructed to repel a possible Russian naval attack on Sydney. --Nug (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Crimean War was another one of those flash points between England and Russia. Of course, a naval attack would have been unlikely given—among other reasons—the Russian fleet lagged behind the competition in modernizing to steam power. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Legitimate fear" of any ethnicity is called racism. "Low opinions of Russians" are called racism. Manifestation and propaganda of such views is a crime in any country, in Estonia, Finland, Russia, Britain, you name it. This article deals with an "indiscriminate" fear, i.e. not just phobia of one man/ politician but fear of the nation and the ethnos as a whole. There can not be any "legitimate" fears of Arabs, Jews, Americans, Russians, Estonians, Finns etc. as a whole. This article in no way deals with Russification/ Polonization/ Ukrainization/ Communism, etc. It's about Russophobia, not anticommunism/ nationalism/ patriotism or whatever.FeelSunny (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Save the racist contentions. I'll have to find the source again that talks about "Russophobia" being resurrected, introduced into political dialogue, and manipulated by post-Soviet Russia itself and molded to be not a legitimate fear of Russian aggression and geopolitical ambitions, that is, of the Russian state, but painted out to be a virulent level of racism equivalent to anti-Semitism, just directed at Russians instead. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeating deletions of a sourced and relevant image

Peltimikko has tried deleting the picture from the article for four times by now: [13] [14] [15] [16].

At first, he/ she claimed the concentration camp picture/ section in general is irrelevant at all in the article about Russophobia. I quoted sources claiming Russiophobia was connected to the existence of concentration camps, and the ethnic policy of the Finnish government on the occupied territories. Then he/ she started to say the picture is "staged". It would be quite naive to think any of pictures of liberated prisoners of concentration camps could be made by the Nazi Germany or Finland in the end of the war. None was willing to picture their war crimes themselves, of course. That's why most of those pictures were made by the Allied forces liberating camps, at the time of liberation, or days later, while liberated prisoners were still in camps.

Auschwitz concentration camp liberated by the USSR: [17], [18]. Buchenwald camp liberated by the US: [19] [20] [21]. Bergen-Belsen concentration camp liberated by British: [22] [23]. Dachau concentration camp, liberated by the US: [24] [25].

None of these pictures is "staged". Where they picture prisoners, prisoners are right there where they stayed during the war. Where there are Jews, these Jews were not brought from somewhere, they were prisoners when liberated. Where there are children, these are also not brought from somewhere, they spent the war in the concentration camp.

So, Peltimikko, please stop deleting this image. It is a real depiction of the concentration camp prisoners, made in good faith, just like any other of the pictures above. FeelSunny (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Peltimikko, if you really are after "staged" pictures, take a look at this one: [26]. Children, well controlled by the Finnish guards and concentration camp authorities standing behind, all smile, posing to the Swiss correspondent. In my opinion, that's what people usually call "staged". FeelSunny (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Except the particular image Peltimikko removed that was taken by photographer/war correspondent Galina Sanko is known to have been staged. Kids playing on a street nearby abandoned, and empty, camp were requested by the photographer to pose behind the wires. [27] - image is quite telling as well. Should try to get actual reference to the article in question though. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on any credible sources? So far I only can see a single post on a forum, giving no links to sources of information on "staged". Guys, get serious already.FeelSunny (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources saying the people on the photo are real: [28] У автора была возможность побеседовать с находящейся в правой части снимка, тогда 9-летней девочкой Клавдией Соболевой, сейчас имеющий высшее образование Клавдией Нюппиевой. О мерах наказания, применяемых финнами, Клавдия Нюппиева рассказывала прямо, без прикрас. Финны при детях расстреливали заключенных, назначали телесные наказания женщинам, детям и старикам, невзирая на возраст... - Author had a chance to speak to a girl pictured on the right side of the photo, then a 9-year old girl, Klavdia. Klavdia Nuppieva described finnish punishments to the camp prisoners straightforwards. Finns shot prisoners in the presence of children, they practiced corporal punishments to women, children and old people, notwithstanding their age... - you see those people were not "brought from the street", they were real inmates of the concentration camp, photographed in the cam right after it's liberation.FeelSunny (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Are all these people ethnic Russians? Is the word Russophobia used by any sources? Are all and every war crime a result of a phobia? What about persons of dozens of ethnic groups oppressed in the Gulag? This is going beyond ridiculous. - BorisG (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the people on the picture? If yes, there are multiple sources quoted in the section above that explicitly claim that the reasons why Finland created the Karelia concentration camps, one of them pictured, was that Finland was going to use local ethnically-wrong civilians for forced labour and resettle them, cleansing the occupied region of "non-relative peoples". Ethnic non-relative peoples were in their absolute majority ethnic Russians (9 of each 10 "non-relatives"). Sources are above and in the article section for each claim. I can not guarantee that all people pictured are ethnic Russians. What I can source is that they all got to trhe concentration camp because they were thought to be ethnic Russians by Finns.

For all other questions, answers are: "Is the word Russophobia used by any sources?" - yes, many use this exact word in relation to Finnish government's policy on the occupied territories. "Are all and every war crime a result of a phobia?" - no, if you see any such claim in the article, please feel free to delete. "What about persons of dozens of ethnic groups oppressed in the Gulag?" - What about them?

Overall, thanks for your participation, and if you think you have any sources that claim Finland was not Russophobic during the WWII, please add them. FeelSunny (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Should Soviet air bombings against Finnish civilians, Soviet partisan attacks against Finnish civilians and/or bad treatment and high mortality of Finnish POWs consider as "Finnophobia" of Russians? Where we draw the line? Peltimikko (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Peltimikko, if you have something to present us about the picture or Finnish policy on occupied territories, please do. Otherwise, let's save everybody's time and not just post random things. FeelSunny (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In Sotilasaikakauslehti 11/2007, p. 44-45 there are descriptions of the background of the image by Galina Sanko. It notes that the image was already proven faked in 1970s though it was used for essentially propaganda purposes long after. For example Galina Sanko was supposed to accompany the advancing Soviet troops however she couldn't. She arrived only several days after. (quote, translated) "At Petroskoi (Petrozavodsk) the transfer camps were empty but Sanko did find a group of children playing on the street who she requested to pose next to the gate of one of the camps". Children on the image are real, and some of them (at least) even had been camp residents, however that does not change the fact that the image itself was staged. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Russophobia or not the camps are not related to the topic. If you go by the book the Finns were within their limits to move people, part of whom were already refugees and part of whom lived next to the front lines, into camps. Same goes with anti-partisan action. None of which relates to Russophobia. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, first the image has no relevance to the article in question and second it should be clearly noted (with cited reference) that it was staged propaganda photograph. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The concentration camp picture is a good illustration of Finnish Russophobia. If ethnic cleansing of Russians is not Russophobia, then I don't know what is. The picture is one of the best illustrations available for this article and should not be removed. Nanobear (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How does an image depicting an ethnic cleansing that never took place (population transfers were never started) prove anything with regards to Russophobia? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is questionable if those camps can be used to present Finnish Russophobia. Before the WWI the inhabitation of the area was over 90% Karelian/Finnish, but the building of Murmansk railroad lead to the influx of Russian population, railway builders, operators etc. After the revolution SU promised autonomy to Karelia, but already 1920 solely Russian inhabited eastern shores of Lake Onega was incorporated to the autonomous region. The railroad opened opportunies for industrialization, and the autonomous region suffered chronic lack of skilled workers, but contrary to the wishes of local government, Moscow sent almost only Russians to the region. On top of this, during the purges, Karelians and Finns were more heavily hit than Russians: Karelian ASSR lost 95% of it's Finnish population during the purges! These actions were not unknown in Finland, as many Finns had relatives in Russian Karelia and many leaders of the failed Finnish revolution had fled and settled to Karelian ASSR.

It was initially thought that the Russian population was settled to Karelian ASSR only to Russify the area, and that their removal back to Russia is justified. That thought soon collapsed when it was found (as also noted above), that there wasn't such a clean way to separate the people, so after the initial rush to create the camps - as Wanderer noticed, there were some people who had to be put to the camps (refugees and those living close to front lines, especially from the Svir valley and the vulnerable northern shores of Lake Onega) - there was a halt and then a gradual reduction of the number of internees. --Whiskey (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey, these camps were built to resettle ethnic Russians to some other area, outside of the future "Great Finland".

And it was not a case of some citizenship issue, not just forcing "illegal immigrants" out. No source claims Finns thought these people were "illegally brought into Finland" - because no source ever claimed that Petrozavodsk, Ladoga region and many other parts of Karelia where those people settled did not belong to Russia. That's why it's really difficult to claim any "illegal immigration" of Russians - into Russia. And camps were created for ethnic Russians, in the occupied Russian region.

It was a case of government cleansing an occupied region of an unwanted ethnos. A failed attempt, yes, but failed only because of the failure of the Nazi invasion into Russia. This goal of cleansing the land is well sourced by reputable sources. Overall, making all these claims without sources I have to respond to, moves all this discussion more towards a forum than a talkpage of an article. FeelSunny (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case it would be appreciated if you would answer to the sourced criticism instead of avoiding it. Also you seem to be missing the point that no one here is denying that camps existed. However what is disputed is that Russophobia would be the sole cause of the camps and/or population transfer - similar procedure like Allies (incl. Soviet Union) forced expatriate Germans to go through BTW, which does not constitute phobia - which was only planned, never put to action. Also in similar lines it is disputed if the camps or even the whole issue regarding Finnish military administration of East Karelia 1941-44 has any relevance to be presented in this article - after all there are several articles handling that (Finnish military administration in Eastern Karelia & East Karelian concentration camps). - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[...]what is disputed is that Russophobia would be the sole cause of the camps and/or population transfer[...] - And who says it was a sole cause? I say it was a cause, moreover, one of the few main resons for the creation of concentration camps, but show me the word sole in my posts. Need for forced labor and mass prisons for the unwanted population groups were also important reasons, why do you think I underestimate or overlook these?

it is disputed if the camps or even the whole issue regarding Finnish military administration of East Karelia 1941-44 has any relevance to be presented in this article - it is disputed by you and several other Finnish editors. I do respect your point of view, but you failed to provide a single source that contradicts any of the quotes above:

• "Finnish war propaganda... concentrated on openly declared political Russophobia",
• "Russophobia during the Continuation war",
• "Estern Karelia ... question became politized and increasingly characterized by Russophobia... kinship of nations... " "turn the kindred population into "proper Finnish citizens""
• "education ... school system... only available to children of nationals",
• "Finnish national emphasis ... when it came to religion",
• "rations of people belonging to kindred higher", "death rate in concentration camps 13.8%", "policy of separation was also reflected in the medical care of the population", "non-nationals paid half the wage of nationals", "inequality of treatment on the basis of nationality", "breach of the fundamental principle of humane treatment",
• "similarities between the German and the Finnish policy...Finns had issued orders which in fact discriminated Russian population".

What else exactly do you need me to source? That Mannerheim and Ruti themselves were Russophobes?

Here, please: "In its fifth fevered session it jolted stubborn, Russophobic President Risto Ryti out of office, gave his job to Finland's one indubitably strong man, stubborn, Russophobic Field Marshal Baron Carl Gustav Mannerheim." Time, Monday, Aug. 14, 1944, [29] FeelSunny (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Before you claim that U.S. was an enemy of Finland and the government controlled Time: The U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull congratulated the Finnish envoy on 3 October 1941 for the liberation of Karelia but warned Finland not to enter Soviet territory; furthermore, the U.S. did not declare war on Finland when they went to war with the Axis countries and, together with UK, approached Stalin in the Tehran Conference about acknowledging Finnish independence.FeelSunny (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided any which would actually link the camps, ie. internment camps, with russophobia, you could link the intent to move people but not the camps themselves. So as it stands the whole section regarding Finnish internment camps is off topic. All the issues you mentioned are of ethnic segregation, not of russophobia. Claimed russophobia of Ryti or Mannerheim has no relevance to East Karelia or to the camps. Again, none of the issues you mentioned provided any linkage between the camps and russophobia. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

you could link the intent to move people but not the camps themselves - Sorry, but do you understand you here claim that the policy of Russophobic Finnish leaders to perform of an ethnic cleansing of Russians of occupied Russian Karelia was not a manifestation of Russophobia, and would only count as such if I prove that tools used for this ethnic cleansing by the Finnish government in themselves were Russophobic? Is this really what you need to have sourced?

And here's what you call "segregation": “Each camp had a funeral team. Corpses were piled in sheds and then taken to the cemetery. Each mass grave could contain up to 40 corpses. Infants were dying particularly fast.” "The Finnish doctor, Kolehmaynen, instead of treating sick prisoners often took part in the torture of them. Childless Finnish widows, whose husbands had died in the war of 1939-40, were allowed to adopt children of Russian prisoners." "Segregation", huh? And an "adoption" as a result.FeelSunny (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And here's some other quotes: "Enimmillään siviiliväestöstä 27 % oli leireissä.(14)" "Lasten määrä oli lähes 50 % ja 20-30-vuotiaiden ryhmästä miehiä oli varsin vähän." So, concentration camps for children? Well, yes: "Niinpä suomalaisleirit olivat fasistileirejä, miten tahansa suomalaiset ne selittävätkään." "Ei mielellään haluta tunnustaa, että suomalainenkin on ollut paha ja heidän joukoissaan on ollut sotarikollisen tunnusmerkkeihin sopivia miehityssotilaita."FeelSunny (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is not necessarily a result of a phobia. Upon annexing the Kuril Islands from Japan, all Japanese were expelled. No one (sane) is claiming that this was because of a phobia against Japanese. Similarly, most Germans were expelled from Eastern Prussia. No phobia there. Also, the Finns wanted to remove non-Finns, not specifically Russians. They did not care whether they were Russians, Ukranians, Jews or Armenians. They hated Stalinist Soviet Union, not specifically Russians. - BorisG (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you wrongly evaluate Russian policy on Kurinls. Please name a single reputable source speaking of "ethnic cleansing of Kurils" conducted by Russians, and not Japanese. Probably, you just misinterpret the very term "ethnic cleansing". Repatriation of the Japanese citizens from Kurils was done in accordance with Japan and the US, and those Japanese citizens that wished to change citizenship and stay in the USSR, did so. Just check.

As to your "Finns wanted to remove non-Finns, not specifically Russians" - name one source about anti-ukrainism or anti-armenianism of the Finnish government, please. 9/10 sent to camps were ethnic Russians. All those sent to camps were planned to be cleansed from the future Great Finland.FeelSunny (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

None of which you posted had anything which would link camps with russophobia apart from your own perceptions. Claimed russophobia of the leaders does not equate that the camps would have been a manifestation of russophobia, like has been described, there were large groups of people who had no place to live other than camps, ie. refugees and persons evicted from the immediate vicinity of the front lines - which already means that there were large group of people in the camps with whom russophobia had nothing to do (not in the sense that camps would have been caused by it, you could say russophobia manifested itself in the camps as ethnic segregation, nothing else). There was no policy to perform ethnic cleansing since none of the related actions took place. At very worst you could call it as planned population transfer - which leaves it well short of what during and after WWII was often performed, even by the Allies. However, again, none of this relates to russophobia. Also, when you post quotes, it would be preferable that you also include the actual source, otherwise those remain nothing but your own writings. In other words there is nothing which would support keeping the camps in this article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer, I've posted links to sources so many times in this thread, that I got bored. Probably for once you could somehow dare and look them quotes up yourself? And maybe the very first result in any search machine would be exactly what you need. For all other things, I'll answer later.FeelSunny (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are none under this particular header. Could you please provide the sources? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Does any of the sources 35-39 mention the word Russophobia? I did not find it in the 35, and I cannot read Finnish. - BorisG (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, why don't you both next time, before asking me to spend time looking for sources, at least try and check the sources named in the article? Here, quotes from just one of the sources listed in the article, Helge Seppälä. Finland as an occupying nation: "Большинство русскоязычного населения, согласно изданному приказу, загнали в концлагеря, а в деревнях назначили старостами вызывавших наибольшее доверие людей. Использовали мирное население на разных работах без оплаты труда. Программа исходила из того, что Восточная Карелия окончательно остается за Финляндией. Чистка населения от инородных элементов вполне определенно указывала на запланированный расизм. Военное управление стало развернутым институтом власти." Please use the Google translate, or find a Finnish/ English translation, if you don't read Russian - there are ways to read this source. "Чистка населения от инородных элементов..." means "Cleansing of population from non-native elements indicated really clearly a planned racism". Then, "Русское население составляло большинство, или около 47 процентов, карельского населения было 39 процентов. Это неравенство было “исправлено” за счет заключения значительной части русского населения в лагеря. Политика оккупационных властей была явно расистская, и для людей в начале оккупации имело большое значение, к какой касте их отнесут. Находящиеся на свободе люди подразделялись на национальных и ненациональных, что означало на родственные финнам народы и на русских." - Russian population sent to camps due to "obviously racist policy of the occupational authorities". "Скрупулезность, с которой оккупационные власти относились к расовым вопросам, вызывает удивление. В отдельных случаях делали даже расовые обследования. Жителей Заонежья, Шуньгского полуострова подвергли обследованию на предмет их принадлежности к родственным финнам народам." - Racial examinations to make sure of what local population were. "Еще до начала вторжения Маннергейм издал приказ, на основании которого русское население следовало заключить в концлагеря. Приказ этот был в духе времени и издан еще раньше приказа “Меч в ножны”." - "Even before starting the war, Mannerheim issued an order according to which Russian population ought to be sent to concentration camps". "Чтобы сделать Паданы национальным селением, оттуда осенью 1941 года всех русских переселили в Святнаволоцкий концлагерь. Это перемещение было сделано по распоряжению Главного штаба, и его, как и многие другие, тоже объясняли военной необходимостью, но едва ли была надобность заключать людей в концлагерь." - "To make Padany a national settlement, all Russians were moved in Autumn, 1941 to the Svyatonavolotsky concentration camp". And so on. These are just some quotes from one source describing ethnic cleansings of ethnic Russians by Finns with the use of concentration camps. Now, please, stop spending your and mine time discussing matters that are covered in multiple sources named on this page, and in the article. FeelSunny (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, that the Bäckman Institute publishes their work rather tosses it out the window as a POV anything that makes the Soviets look like victims in WWII, the Russians today as victims of the Finns and Estonians, etc., etc., etc. pile of unencyclopedic axe-grinding advocacy. Feel free to write a blog based on anything Helge has written, but not WP content.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources claiming Helge Seppälä is not a reliable source?

From what I've found in two minutes, he's a Lieutenant-Colonel of the Finnish General Staff. He also was fighting during the war. And, the article I quoted was based on a book not at all published by any "Bäckman Institute" you talk about, - in fact it was written before any "Bäckman Institute" could have been created. Look it up: ISBN 9510124834, 9789510124833. P.S. Vecrumba, could you please check your facts better in the future, please remember it takes somebody's else time responding to your claims.FeelSunny (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And his latest work, Leningradin saarto 1941–1944: murhenäytelmän sävyttämä voitto (The Blockade of Leningrad 1941-1944: Tragic Shades of This Victory) is published by Bäckman, that is, the author and his works fit into the extremist agenda of SAFKA. Unreliable until there's a mainstream reputable academic source which deems any particular work you wish to cite as objective and reliable. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources that claim Seppala is unreliable, please? Or please stop spending our time.FeelSunny (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)