In the book "The fate of prisoners of war - Soviet prisoners of war in Finland in 1941-1944" the causes of high mortality in Finnish prisoner of war camps are being investigated. Researcher Mirkka Danielsbakka argues that the Finnish authorities did not aim to exterminate prisoners of war, as happened, for example, in Nazi Germany, but, nevertheless, the starvation of soldiers who surrendered was the result of the actions of those responsible for the conditions in the camps.
- About 67 thousand Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner, most of them in the first months of the war
- Over 20,000 soldiers of the Red Army died in Finnish captivity
- The mortality rate in the Finnish camps was about 31%
- For comparison, 30-60% of Soviet prisoners of war died in German camps, 35-45% of German prisoners of war died in Soviet camps, the death rate of Finnish soldiers in Soviet camps was 32%, 0.15% of German prisoners of war died in American camps, and in British camps, the death rate of German prisoners was 0.03%
- There were 2 organizational camps in Finland (in Nastola near Lahti and in Naarajärvi near Pieksämäki) and camps numbered 1-24
- There were special camps for officers, political peoples related to the Finns and for prisoners who were considered dangerous.
- The camps were located in all regions of the country, as well as in the occupied territories of Karelia, with the exception of Lapland, where the Germans had their camps
- Over 10 thousand prisoners worked on farms in October 1942
- Starting in 1943, most of the prisoners worked on farms, first in the summer, then all year round.
Young Finnish historians are actively working to eliminate the "blank spots" of Finnish history. The topic of Soviet prisoners of war has been studied quite well, but a holistic academic study on this topic has not been written until recently.
During the war of 1941-1944, which in Finland is called the "Continuation War" (the name implies that the war of 41-44 is a logical continuation of the one unleashed by the USSR in 1939 winter war), about 67 thousand soldiers of the Red Army fell into Finnish captivity. Approximately one in three of them, that is, over 20 thousand people, died in Finnish camps - a figure comparable to the death rate in German, Soviet and Japanese prisoner of war camps.
But Finland during the war years was not a totalitarian country, like Nazi Germany or the communist USSR, but a Western democracy. How, then, did it happen that the losses among the prisoners were so great?
The young Finnish historian Mirkka Danielsbakka is looking for an answer to this question. In his recently published book, The fate of prisoners of war - Soviet prisoners of war 1941-1944”, (Tammi 2016) she states that Finland tried to comply with international legal norms regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, and prisoners who ended up on Finnish farms, as a rule, survived, and many even recalled the time spent in Finnish peasant farms. Nevertheless, starvation became the fate of so many Soviet soldiers who surrendered.
A prisoner sweeps a street in Vyborg, September 7, 1941 Photo: SA-kuvaThe obvious contradiction between the memories of contemporaries about the good attitude towards prisoners of war and the undeniable fact of high mortality was the main impetus for Danielsbakk to write first a doctoral dissertation, and then a popular science book.
“I was very interested in a phenomenon that could be called “evil that happens without anyone's intention” or “unintentional evil”, in contrast to the evil that took place in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union,” says Danielsbakka.
As she writes in her book, in Finland no one denies the fact of high mortality among Soviet prisoners of war, but there is still no consensus on the causes of this phenomenon. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was a tragic coincidence or the result of a deliberate policy.
According to Danielsbakk, there is no simple and unambiguous answer to this question. She argues that the Finnish authorities did not aim to exterminate prisoners of war, as was the case, for example, in Nazi Germany, but, nevertheless, the starvation deaths of soldiers who surrendered were the result of the actions of those responsible for the conditions in the camps.
The central question of the study could be formulated as follows: "what was the" path to evil "for those who allowed such a large number of deaths in prisoner of war camps"?
Psychosocial factor contributed to high mortality
Traditionally, when discussing the high mortality in Finnish camps, factors such as food shortages in the first war winter of 1941-1942 are mentioned, as well as the unpreparedness of the Finnish authorities for such a large number prisoners.
Danielsbakka does not deny this, but she also draws attention to such factors of human existence that are difficult to measure and concretize, such as the psychology, biology and sociology of man, his tendency to self-deception and categorization. All this contributed to the fact that the attitude towards the prisoners became inhumane, and they began to be regarded not as unfortunate neighbors deserving compassion, but as a dehumanized mass.
Prisoners of war, Rautjärvi station, 4/8/1941 Photo: SA-kuva According to Danielsbakk, it is war that is the environment that removes the usual restrictions of generally accepted moral norms from a person and pushes him to actions that he did not plan. It is war that makes a cruel punisher out of an ordinary “normal person”, who is able to contemplate the suffering of another indifferently and even with gloating joy.
Why, then, was there no such high death rate among prisoners of war in the camps in Great Britain and the USA, where those responsible for the conditions in the camps also acted in war conditions?
- The way prisoners were treated on Finnish farms is comparable to the attitude towards prisoners in similar conditions, for example, in the UK. There is no big difference here. But in Finland, unlike Britain, there was an extremely negative attitude towards Russians, the so-called hatred of Russians, “ryssäviha”. In this respect, Russia was a "convenient enemy" for Finland, and it was easy for military propaganda to create the image of an enemy. The fact that the prisoners were treated as a mass reduced the degree of empathy for them, and this is where the impact of the environment is clearly manifested, says Danielsbakka.
The clearly negative attitude towards the Soviet Union and Russians that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s, as well as during the war years in Finland, had deep roots in the history of complex relations between Finland and Russia. It reflected distrust and fear of the eastern neighbor, who invaded Finland in 1939, as well as the bloody events of the civil war of 1918, negative memories on the policy of Russification within the Russian Empire, and so on. All this contributed to the formation of a negative image of the “Russian”, which was partially identified with the image of the terrible and vile “Bolshevik” (for the few Finnish fascists, the “Judeo-Bolshevik”).
At the same time, Danielsbakka recalls that a tough nationalist, xenophobic and racist ideology was not uncommon in those years. The most "successful" in this matter, of course, were the National Socialists in Germany, but such Western democracies as Great Britain and the USA had their own "sore points". As Danielsbakka writes, for example, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill watched with indifference as "the unfortunate people of Bengal" starved to death.
The food shortage argument is not entirely valid
Food shortages are traditionally cited as the main reason for the high mortality rate in Finnish camps. The dependence of Finland on the supply of grain and food from Germany, which used them as an instrument of pressure on the Finnish authorities, is indicated. Proponents of this theory will not fail to recall that the civilian population did not eat their fill that winter either.
Mirkka Danielbakka believes that such an explanation for the high mortality among Soviet prisoners of war is only partly correct. In many ways, hard work led to high mortality, to which prisoners were driven with poor food.
Prisoners of war building dugouts, Nurmolitsy, Olonets, 26.9.41 Photo: SA-kuva “The food shortage argument is a good argument, all right. The prisoners of war were the last in the food supply chain. Food shortages also affected other closed institutions, such as psychiatric hospitals, where the death rate also rose. But the Finnish authorities could influence the death rate, whether 10 or 30 percent of prisoners die. Malnutrition was the cause of death, but the bigger reason was hard work. The Finns, in general, understood this in the winter of 41-42, when the prisoners began to die from complete exhaustion. For this reason, I believe that food shortages are not the only or main cause of high mortality. Yes, it was part of the reason, but if it were the real reason, then we would have increased mortality among the civilian population.
In his book, the author cites the following figures for comparison: during the war years, at least 27 people died of starvation in Finnish prisons (prisoners), and 739 people died in the Nikkil mental hospital alone in Sipoo, many of them from starvation. In general, the mortality rate in municipal asylums reached 10% during the war years.
The decision to return prisoners from farms to camps turned out to be fatal for many in the first military winter.
The peak of mortality in the camps occurred at the end of 1941 - the beginning of 1942. It was during this period that most prisoners were kept in camps, while before that, in the summer and autumn of 1941, and after that, from the summer of 1942, most prisoners worked and lived on Finnish farms. Fatal for the prisoners was the decision of the Finnish authorities in December 1941 to return the prisoners from the farms to the camps. This decision was largely made out of fear of undesirable changes in the attitudes of front-line soldiers and the civilian population. It turns out that the Finns in the first military autumn began to treat prisoners of war too positively!
- At the end of 41, they began to think that the presence of prisoners of war on farms had a demoralizing effect on the mood of Finnish soldiers at the front. They feared the emergence of relations between prisoners and Finnish women, and they spoke with condemnation that the prisoners were treated too softly. This was written, for example, in Finnish newspapers. But there was no real reason for such fear. There was no evidence of the danger posed by the prisoners. All in all, it was a strange period. Already in the spring of 1942, prisoners were again sent to farms to help the peasants in the spring field work, and after that many prisoners lived on farms all year round.
POWs work on a farm near Helsinki, 10/3/1941. Photo: SA-kuva Already during 1942, the death rate in the Finnish camps declined sharply and never returned to its previous levels. The turn for the better was the result of several circumstances, says Mirkka Danielsbakka.
- The first is that the war dragged on. When they went to war in the summer of 1941, they thought that it would end quickly, by autumn, but this did not happen. Already by the beginning of 1942, thoughts began to arise that the war would not end with the final defeat of the Soviet Union, and in Finland they began to prepare for a long war. The defeat of the Germans in Stalingrad was the final confirmation of this. After that, the Finns began to prepare for the future and for what Soviet Union will always be there. International pressure also played a role. In Finland, they began to think about how negative news will affect the reputation of the country. The threat of a typhus epidemic in the spring of 1942 also played a role in improving the situation of prisoners of war. This led to the fact that the Finns refused to move prisoners from one camp to another. After all, it was in such situations that the condition of the prisoners deteriorated sharply. Also, the change in the situation on the front, namely the transition from the offensive phase to trench warfare, and the sharp reduction in losses among the Finnish soldiers associated with this, led to the fact that the Finns no longer thought that the enemy deserved harsh treatment, says the researcher.
A prisoner of war and a Finnish soldier are playing on the roof of a lice disinfection booth to prevent a typhus epidemic, the village of Koneva Gora, Olonets, 19.4.1942. Photo: SA-kuva The International Red Cross intervened in the situation in the camps in 1942. Marshal Mannerheim personally wrote a letter to the organization in early March 1942 asking for help. Even before the letter, in January 1942, the prisoners received parcels from the Red Cross, which contained, in particular, food and vitamins. In the spring of the same year, aid began to flow through the organization, but it must be admitted that its volume was never significant.
It is noteworthy that since the Soviet Union did not provide information about captured Finns in their camps through the International Red Cross and did not allow visits by representatives of the organization to them, Finland decided that there was no need to do the same on the basis of reciprocity. In general, the Soviet authorities showed no interest in helping their prisoners through the Red Cross, since, according to the then Soviet wartime laws, being captured was generally considered a crime.
Secret executions of prisoners? Unlikely, say Finnish historians
But were hunger and hard work the only reason for the high mortality in the Finnish camps? What role did violence and illegal executions play in this? Recently, the issue of possible mass secret executions of Soviet prisoners of war in Finnish-occupied Karelia was raised in Russia. The media wrote, in particular, that in the Sandarmokh forest near Medvezhyegorsk, where there are secret burials of victims of mass political repressions of 1937-38, there may also be mass graves of Soviet prisoners of war who were in Finnish captivity during the war years. In Finland, this version is not considered plausible, and Mirkka Danielsbakka is of the same opinion.
- It is very difficult to find reliable accurate information about this. The researcher Antti Kujala studied the illegal shootings of prisoners of war and concluded that approximately 5% of the deaths of prisoners of war were the result of such actions. This, of course, is also a lot, but much less than, for example, in Nazi Germany. There is a possibility that there were more unreported deaths than the 2-3 thousand reported in Finnish studies, but events after the war, such as Supreme Court verdicts and the actions of the Allied Forces Control Commission, do not suggest that there were much more violent deaths. . For this reason, I consider the version of secret executions of Soviet prisoners of war in Karelia unlikely. Theoretically it is possible, but in practice it is unlikely.
Where can I find information about relatives who were in Finnish captivity during the war years?
The prisoner of war file is currently located at the National Archives. Information about relatives can be requested by e-mail: [email protected]
The main part of the requests is carried out on a paid basis.
Information about Soviet prisoners of war who died in captivity during the Winter War and the Continuation War and about civilians who died in camps in eastern Karelia can be found in the virtual database created by the National Archives “The fate of prisoners of war and internees in Finland in 1935-1955. » . The information is in Finnish, a guide to information retrieval is provided on the Russian page of the database.
On the website of the Photo Archive of the Armed Forces of Finland SA-kuva-arkisto you can get acquainted with photographs of the war years. Among them are many photos of prisoners of war. When searching, use the word sotavanki or plural sotavangit.
Both sides did not forget about those who did not return from combat missions. So, for example, on July 17, 1940, the Plenipotentiary Representation of the USSR in Finland requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Finland with a request to inquire about the fact that pilot M.I was among the prisoners of war Maksimov, who "landed on the Gulf of Finland" on February 21, 1940. A similar request was also contained in an appeal dated November 25, 1940 regarding the pilot N. A. Shalin, who made an emergency landing on the Finnish side on March 8, 1940. But it was not possible to find out what happened to these pilots, apparently, over time or due to the lack of witnesses. Both requests from the Soviet side that we have cited contain a short and unambiguous note from the Finnish authorities: "There is no information about the capture." This was handed over to the Soviet commissioner. One of the special issues to which Soviet investigators paid quite a lot of attention was the issue of beatings and bullying of Red Army soldiers in captivity. Former prisoners said that they were mocked not only by Finnish guards, but also by some of their own comrades in captivity. In the opinion of interrogators, "prisoners of war from among the Karelians" were especially raging. Political reports noted: “The former junior commander, now a prisoner, Orekhov, having been captured, was appointed foreman of the barracks, he mercilessly beat prisoners of war ... Didyuk, a Karelian, was an interpreter, beat prisoners of war ... Gvozdovich from the city of Kalinin, was the head of the chamber, beat his own, took away Soviet money, lost it at cards, bought himself a commander's tunic from a captured commander<...>". And there are a lot of such testimonies. But still, it was not a system. By no means all Karelians were traitors. It is worth considering the circumstances under which this information was obtained. It can be said with certainty that they really enjoyed some privileges as a "friendly nation "(according to the Finnish classification). And since many understood the Finnish language, they were appointed senior barracks, translators and assistant guards. Operational work continued in the Yuzhsky camp. By June 1940, there were 5175 Red Army soldiers and 293 commanders and political workers transferred Finns In his report to Stalin, Beria noted: "... among the prisoners of war, spies and 106 people suspected of espionage were identified, members of the anti-Soviet volunteer detachment - 166 people, provocateurs - 54, mocked at our prisoners - 13 people, voluntarily surrendered - 72 "For the Chekists, all prisoners of war were a priori traitors to the Motherland. Senior Lieutenant of the 18th Infantry Division Ivan Ru Sakov recalled these interrogations as follows:<... xx="" frets="" deutschland.="" i="" de="" jure="" facto="" sota="" imil="" ill="" lliiiji="" bjfy="">0-1"*. /^//^^uleg^o yR/osMods*.* % # his /r zAnnouncement of a lecture at the hospital for prisoners of war in Kokkola Captured Finns Karelian Front. 1943 National Archives of the Republic of Karelia Kristo Siikonen. Died in the USSR Winter war. From the collection of D. Frolov Announcement of a lecture in the hospital for prisoners of war in Kokkola Camp of the UPVI of the NKVD of the USSR, Borovichi. RGVA Captured Yuho Yaiuku. Died in captivity 8. 8. 42. MMNA. Captured Finnish pilot ensign Teuvo Piiranen. Photo from the collection of Carl-Frederick Geust General Kirpichnikov being interrogated in Finland Announcement of a lecture at the POW hospital in Kokkola. P
Per diem internationalist
To
The story of the submariner Sergei Lisin, whom the Finns have long called their most important Soviet prisoner of war, is extremely remarkable. In Soviet books, it was described in a standard way: "a concentration camp, hunger, bullying by Finnish guards." In fact, it wasn't quite like that.Golden wrist watch Longines submariner Sergei Lisin noticed in 1938, in a store on the Champs Elysees in Paris. He then went to Spain to fulfill his "international duty". A group of Soviet sailors were taken to the Pyrenees in a roundabout way. First, on the ship "Maria Ulyanova" from Leningrad to Le Havre. From there by train to Paris. Then by express to the border with Spain. Then - on the relay to Barcelona. They spent several hours in Paris. It was enough just to walk around the center. Lisin saw the clock in a smart display case. They lay on a cream cushion in an elegant box. He could not buy them then - there was no money. Decided to take it on the way back.
29-year-old Don Sergio Leon, as his Spanish comrades called him, spent half a year in the Republican fleet and managed to serve as a first mate on two submarines. It was not possible to sink anything, but military campaigns, emergency ascents and dives, maneuvers in dangerous places were enough. The Soviet military experts who commanded the Spanish submarines received good combat practice. It was useful to them later.
The “internationalist volunteers” returned back to the Soviet Union the same way they had come. Only in Paris this time we were delayed for a week - the consular department took a long time to draw up the documents. First of all, Diego Vensario (Sergey Lisin now went with such documents) bought a watch with the saved daily allowance, and then went on the standard tourist route: Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Montmartre...
Fast and cheeky
During the Great Patriotic War, Lisin commanded the S-7 boat. He fought desperately, one might say, brazenly.
One afternoon he surfaced in the Narva Bay and fired on a railway station and one of the factories from an onboard 100-mm gun. The German coastal batteries did not have time to uncover, and the "seven" had already plunged and slipped into the bay. Some researchers claim that this was the first such attack during the Great Patriotic War. Then Lisin repeatedly approached the mouth of the Narova and repeated his number.
On another occasion, S-7 surfaced opposite the Finnish coastal observation post in the Pavilosta area and, without having time to let anyone come to their senses, sank the Kothe transport with a torpedo.
A few days later, S-7 attacked the Finnish steamship Pohjanlahti. It was not possible to hit him with a torpedo, the commander missed. We decided to fire cannons. The main, 100 mm, immediately jammed, and the fire from the small 45 mm was ineffective. But the stubborn Lisin caught up with the ship and fired at it until it turned it into a sieve and let it sink to the bottom. Then it turned out that the Pohjanlahti was not transporting military cargo, but ordinary potatoes. But in that war, no one figured out before the attack what the enemy ship was carrying.
In addition to desperate courage, the S-7 commander had several signature features - masterly overcoming multi-stage minefields, the most difficult maneuvers in shallow water, evading torpedo attacks and incredible tactical cunning.
Trap
S-7s were repeatedly hunted down and fired upon, bombarded with depth charges and driven into minefields. But every time she managed to get out unscathed. But fate could not be escaped.
The submarine died absurdly. In October 1942, the "seven" scoured the Aland Islands in search of prey. On the evening of October 21, she surfaced to recharge the batteries and ventilate the compartments. She was immediately spotted by the hydroacoustics of the Finnish submarine "Vesihiisi" (fin. - "water"). The Soviet submarine was brightly illuminated by the full moon and was a good target. "S-7" was shot with torpedoes almost point-blank. The boat sank in a couple of minutes.
Only those who were on the upper bridge survived: Captain 3rd Rank Sergei Lisin and three sailors. With hooks they were pulled out of the water onto the deck of the Vesikhiisi. The prisoners were dressed in dry clothes, splashed with alcohol and thoroughly searched. At that moment, someone removed the gold Parisian Longines watch from the commander's hand.
Water
Perhaps in the story of the death of "S-7" there was a betrayal. Vesikhiisi commander Olavi Aittola told his Soviet counterpart that he had long been waiting for his appearance in this area, in the South Kvarken Strait, as he knew the exact time of the S-7's departure from Kronstadt and followed all its movements. Either the Finns managed to get the radio cipher codes, or an informed spy was sitting at the headquarters of the Baltic Fleet. In any case, two more Soviet submarines were soon sunk in the same area, and this can hardly be called an accident.
Unfortunately for Sergei Lisin, in the Aland Sea he encountered a real sea wolf. Olavi Aittola was one of the first Finnish submariners and, for sure, the most skilled and titled. Back in 1941, as commander of the Vesikko submarine, he sank the Soviet steamship Vyborg with torpedoes. Then he set up a lot of impenetrable minefields in the Baltic. For successful actions during the war, he was awarded Finnish, Swedish and German orders.
After the attack on S-7, Lieutenant Commander Aittol was promoted - given an extraordinary rank and taken to a position, first in the main operational group of the fleet, and then in the General Staff. They did not call Aitoll otherwise than the pride of the Finnish fleet.
POW Kettunen
In Soviet military literature, the captivity of Captain 3rd Rank Lisin and his comrades is described as if in carbon copy: concentration camp, hunger, bullying by guards, liberation in 1944. The S-7 commander himself did not particularly talk about his stay in Finland. The full protocols of Lisin's interrogations, although they were transferred to the Soviet side, are still in the special depository and have never been published.
Details, rather amusing, appeared quite recently. Finnish researcher Timo Laakso found the memoirs of a Finnish naval intelligence officer, senior lieutenant Jukka Mäkel, who led the Lisin case. Mr. Laakso shared his memoirs of the investigator with the family of the Russian submariner.
Lisin at first pretended to be a navigator officer during interrogations. But then he was shown a Soviet newspaper with a photograph of "the Baltic hero, submarine commander Sergei Lisin." I had to confess. The Finns were very proud that they were able to capture such an important person.
Yukki Myakelya recalled that Lisin “for a long time was our most significant prisoner ... For his achievements, he received the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. He received this title recently, at the time when he was taken prisoner, and he himself did not know about it. We told him about this, and it can be assumed that this news brought him great joy.
The attitude towards the prisoner was emphatically polite. Lisin was kept not in a camp and not in a cell, but in a decent room in the officer's guardhouse of the famous Katayanokka prison complex (now a hotel has been set up in the prison). He was looked after by a sergeant of the commandant's platoon, a former sailor of the merchant fleet. Lisin sometimes somehow spoke English with him and thus learned the news.
“As an interrogator, he was the most difficult person who visited us during the entire war ... We nicknamed him Kettunen (from Kettu - “fox”), which was a translation of his last name into Finnish and reflected his character traits.”
The investigator noted that during interrogations Lisin-Kettunen skillfully cunning and dodging. He pretended to be ready to cooperate, but gave out information no more valuable than that contained in standard marine textbooks and instructions for submariners. The Finnish counterintelligence officers quickly realized that nothing could be extracted from the prisoner, and they closed the investigation. He was about to be escorted to the camp, when the Germans intervened. They demanded from their allies to transport the Soviet commander for interrogation to Germany. What the Finns happily did and forgot about Lisin. But in vain!
Returned to the Finns without an escort
In Berlin, Lisin-Kettunen was placed in a special prison for important prisoners. Many legends subsequently circulated about his stay in Germany. According to one of them, in the spring of 1943, in the Bristol Hotel in Berlin, he was given a meeting with General Andrei Vlasov, who persuaded him to cooperate with the Germans. According to another, once Lisin was taken for a conversation directly to Hitler. There is no documentary or witness evidence for this.
It is authentically known that Werner Baubach, the former naval attache of Germany in the USSR, conducted interrogations in the Reich's naval intelligence. And then Lisin continued to act according to the Finnish scheme - he answered confusedly and verbosely, filling up the Germans with obvious facts. Within a few days, German naval intelligence did not know how to get rid of him.
Senior Lieutenant Jukka Mäkelä fell into tetanus when one day the captain of the port of Turku called his office and said that a Russian officer had just arrived from Germany on the steamer Gotenland (Gotenland) (!). He allegedly showed up at the administration and insistently asked to contact the prison in Helsinki.
“He assured me that he knew me and that he had important business with me. This seemed like a total fantasy to me. "What is the prisoner's name?" I inquired. "Yes! Wait a minute! He is standing next to me. His surname is Lisin.
A few hours later, the "returner" was already sitting in his room in Katajanokka and was telling how he had "bred the Germans" for two months.
“Telling, Kettunen could not hide a mocking smile and mischievous brown eyes. He carefully considered the position that was formed from the fear of torture. And he applied it to the Germans: he is a prisoner of the Finns and belongs to the Finns. First, you need to deal with him in a businesslike manner. Secondly, he has no time to stay in Germany. Finnish naval intelligence has questions for him every day - technical and related to terminology. How will they cope without him if he is away in Germany?
Lisin's personal propaganda had results. The attitude towards him was impeccable, and since Kettunen talked endlessly about his belonging to the Finns, he quickly got tired of the Germans and they sent him to Turku on the next merchant ship. Even without a convoy.”
Liberation
The cunning Russian submariner was soon transferred to officer camp No. 1 in Köuliyo. After some time, there were unrest, and Sergei Lisin was recognized as one of the instigators. Now really hard times have come - hunger, beatings, punishment cell for any offense. Lisin-Kettunen, however, did not change his principles - he behaved independently, demanded respect and, despising all "degrees of intimidation", categorically refused to go to any work.
Despite the ostentatious insubordination of the camp administration, the Finns did not give the obstinate prisoner to the Germans. Although they repeatedly demanded him again for interrogations. Until the last day of the war, Finnish naval intelligence was proud of their unusual ward, and investigator Jukka Mäkelä wrote quite friendly words about him.
“I have memories of Lisin as a good officer and competent ship commander. Although he talked about both during interrogations, it was clear that he did not give out all the information.
box with pillow
Finland withdrew from the war on September 19, 1944, when an armistice with the USSR was signed in Moscow. Sergei Lisin was released from the camp on October 21, 1944. He was in captivity for exactly two years. Day to day. After his release from the Finnish camp, he was placed in a domestic camp for three months - in the NKVD special camp in Podolsk, for a special check.
By by and large, nothing good shone for him - the attitude towards those who were in captivity was then simple: right, wrong - welcome to the Gulag. But Lisin was lucky again.
Firstly, the protocols of his Finnish interrogations were in the hands of the special officers, from which it became clear that he did not betray his homeland. Secondly, influential acquaintances interceded for the S-7 commander. When Lisin's wife, Antonina Grigorievna, was informed that her husband was alive and was being checked by the NKVD, she turned to an old family friend, a high-ranking officer of the People's Commissariat of the Navy. He helped the submariner get out of the camp.
The case ended with a full rehabilitation and restoration in rank with the return of all awards.
Captain 3rd rank Olavi Aittola also went through a test - from 1944 to 1947, a control commission worked in Finland under the leadership of Zhdanov. He managed to avoid arrest and repression. In the late 40s, Aittola retired and went to work in the film industry. I have been on business trips to the USSR many times. He kept a photograph of Sergei Lisin at home, but never talked about his victory over S-7, or about the war in general. With orders and regalia after the Second World War, he appeared in public only once - when in 1973 his first boat, Vesikko, was raised to eternal parking in Helsinki.
Sergei Prokofievich Lisin had almost nothing left in memory of his military adventures. Only the star of the Hero of the Soviet Union, a couple of orders and a receipt and a box with a cream pillow from the Longines store in Paris. The Finns never returned the gold watch to him.
How did the Soviet-Finnish war begin and when did it end?
After secession from the Russian Empire in 1917, Finland could not find a common language with its revolutionary neighbor. Periodically, the problem of disputed territories arose, Finland was pulled over to their side by both the USSR and Germany. As a result, this resulted in the so-called Winter War. It lasted from November 30, 1939 to March 13, 1940. and ended with the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty. The Finns lost part of their territory along with the city of Vyborg.
A year later, in 1941, the armed forces of Suomi, who had become an ally of Nazi Germany, set off to conquer their native and not so lands. The “continuation war”, as it was called in Finland, began. On September 19, 1944, Finland withdrew from the war with the USSR and began hostilities against Germany.
Reference
The submarine fleet of the USSR in the Baltic during the war
Baltic submariners destroyed 144 enemy vehicles and warships (torpedo and artillery attacks, as well as explosions on exposed mines are taken into account). The losses of the Soviet submarine fleet for the period from 1940 to 1945 amounted to 49 submarines (exploded by mines, sunk by the enemy, blown up by crews, missing) .
Igor MAKSIMENKO
The events described in the book cannot leave the reader indifferent. The Karelian front, wounds, Finnish captivity, escapes, penal camps, foremen and elders bathing in blood - how could yesterday's schoolboy survive all this? Genuine geographical names, names and dates turn the story into a unique historical document.
Beit Nelly Media, Israel, 2013, 224 pp., tv. cover, ISBN 978-965-7386-84-2
book review: http://www.arielonline.tv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2544:recagu&catid=67:2009-07-31-16-32-33&Itemid=118
My father did not like to talk about the war. In response to questions, he became silent, sullen and irritable. Watching films about the war, he said: “Not so. All wrong. All wrong". His friend from the front, Yevgeny Smirnov, visited our house more than once. It was strange for me, as a child, to see two grown men quietly crying in the kitchen. I knew not to disturb them.Father's name was Ilya Agulyansky. He volunteered for the front when he was 17.The division of the People's Militia was surrounded on the Karelian front. Breaking through to her, almost completely died.After another battle, my father woke up with a wound to his stomach and legs in a wagon carrying him to Finnish captivity.Life takes us forward to new shores. Having already become an officer in the Israeli Navy and the father of a soldier, I can imagine what it means to be wounded at the age of 17 to be captured, far from home, from my military unit, in the hands of drunken guards and brigadiers and elders bathing in blood, without the slightest opportunity send a message to family.For the first time I passed this terrible story through myself, typing my father's memoirs under dictation.The memoirs have not been published. Publishers kicked the manuscript back. For some reason, it was impossible to write about the war with Finland. And the father himself could not continue to work on the text, again and again returning to the pictures of hell.Only forty years later I considered myself in the right to literary process and publish this material.The book is called: "I was in Finnish captivity."I was in Finland at the very place where my father and his comrades escaped.
“They ran suddenly, without saying a word. We hid behind the bushes, looked around and rushed to the east. They ran for a long time, silently, afraid to turn around. Early midges swooped in, climbing under the overcoats, into the mouth and ears.
Stop! Drop your weapons! I will shoot! - was heard from behind.
The chain in gray overcoats was moving towards us. The shutters clicked. Shots rang out.
Turning around, I saw the face of an elderly soldier. A moment was enough - to feel: he was shocked by the sight of exhausted fugitives in torn Red Army overcoats.
We frantically ran forward. The legs began to get stuck in the swamp. The stinking goo stuck to the boots. The bumps began to come across less frequently. A bubbling swamp swayed ahead.
Seis! Suo tempya! - was heard from behind. We understood: wait, ahead of the swamp.
Stopped. The swamp instantly sucked up to the knee. The Finns who ran up grabbed Ageev and me and dragged us onto a big bump. A tall soldier took a thick rope from his belt, made a loop and threw it to Ananyev. The noose fell, touching the shoulder of the prisoner, who had already sunk to the chest. Brown porridge gurgled bloodthirsty around.
Ota! Ota (grab) - shouted the Finns.
He shook his head. Now the Siberian was absolutely free.”
Leon Agulyansky
THE WAY HOME
No war can last forever. One day, the moment comes when the shots stop and the representatives of the opposing sides sit down at the negotiating table. But not only political and territorial issues must be resolved by the high contracting parties, each of them also bears responsibility for their citizens, who, by the will of circumstances, found themselves in prisoner of war camps. After all, no matter how hard it is in captivity, a person always has a glimmer of hope that the state remembers him and that day and hour will come when he will return home. This belief helped the prisoners of war to go through the torments of being in the camps.
Questions concerning the conditions of detention, registration, medical care and labor use of prisoners of war in camps during the Winter War and the Continuation War were discussed above. Some aspects of political work with prisoners of war and the possibility of realizing their spiritual needs in captivity were touched upon. Now the time has come to put an end to the history of the stay of Finnish and Soviet prisoners in camps in the USSR and Finland and to consider issues related to their repatriation
The activities of the commission for the post-war exchange of prisoners of war. 1940
On March 12, 1940, an agreement was signed between the Soviet Union and Finland on the cessation of hostilities. However, some complications immediately arose: despite the truce, separate groups of Finnish servicemen who did not have time to retreat beyond the line of contact of the troops were taken prisoner by units of the Red Army. Such actions continued, according to some reports, until April - May 1940. After the ceasefire, the Red Army captured at least 30 soldiers of the Finnish army, and at least three soldiers and commanders of the Red Army voluntarily went over to the side of the Finns.
As we remember, both states generally adhered to the 1907 Hague and 1929 Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War. In accordance with these international legal instruments and the domestic legislation of both countries, the peace treaty included a provision providing for the return of all prisoners of war to their homeland as soon as possible.
On April 8, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Vyacheslav Molotov notified the authorized government of Finland, Juho Kusti Paasikivi, of the consent of the Soviet side to the creation of a Mixed Commission for the exchange of prisoners of war between the Soviet Union and Finland.
"Mr. Paasikivi
Plenipotentiary of the Government of the Republic of Finland
Mr Commissioner,
I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agrees to the following procedure for the mutual return of prisoners of war - Soviet citizens and Finnish citizens:
1. The return of prisoners of war will begin on April 15 of this year and must be completed as soon as possible.
2. The transfer of the seriously wounded or seriously ill, whose state of health does not allow transportation from one place to another, will be carried out as these persons recover; the parties shall immediately inform each other of the lists, indicating the names and surnames of these persons.
3. Prisoners of war who have committed any kind of punishable acts are also subject to immediate return.
4. For the practical implementation of the return of prisoners of war in the city of Vyborg, a mixed commission of three representatives of the USSR and three representatives of the Republic of Finland is established.
5. The above-mentioned commission has the right to send its representatives to the places to facilitate the speedy departure of prisoners of war to their homeland.
6. The Mixed Commission will establish regulations for its work, determine through which border points the return of prisoners of war will take place, and establish the procedure and conditions for the evacuation of prisoners of war.
Accept, Mr. Plenipotentiary, the assurances of my highest consideration for you.
/AT. Molotov/".
The task of this intergovernmental body included: 1) approval of the regulations for its activities; 2) determination of border points through which the return of prisoners of war will take place; 3) establishing the procedure and conditions for the evacuation of prisoners of war.
To facilitate the speedy departure of prisoners to the USSR and Finland, the commission was empowered to send its representatives to places of detention of prisoners of war. However, the exchange of prisoners went quite smoothly and without complications, in connection with which neither the USSR nor Finland considered it expedient to control the dispatch of prisoners of war on the spot and were satisfied with the lists provided by both sides.
However, not all Soviet prisoners of war sought to return to the "gentle embrace" of their homeland. Throughout the Finnish captivity, Soviet fighters and commanders were offered to stay in Finland or leave it after the end of hostilities, referring to the fact that prisoners in the USSR would still be shot. The emigrants painted enticing pictures of life in free Finland before the Red Army soldiers.
“... Pop said that after 5 years of farm work you will receive citizenship. You will be given 4 cows, a house, land, 3 horses with the payment of their cost in installments. Those who do not want to stay in Finland can go to any other country.”
Those who did not want to return to the USSR wrote petitions. The characteristic features of the appeals and petitions of prisoners of war addressed to the Finnish authorities are, firstly, the desire of those who wrote to prove that they were ideological opponents of the regime existing in the Soviet Union: (“Being a citizen of the USSR, living there from the day of my birth, I have been in understanding the political system in the USSR, I did not share and do not share my personal convictions and views with the state-political system of the USSR,> (A. Semikhin's petition) 5. Secondly, references to the promises of the Finnish government and the Red Cross to send them to any other country, or leave in Finland. Thirdly, the fear that death awaits them in the USSR as traitors to the motherland, and they appeal to the humane feelings of the Finns (“If you dare that I’m not here, I ask you to beat it for revenge if in the race they will always kill but at least I will not suffer there in prison<…>
I only thought that if I was lucky to go to Finns, then how long I will live, I will accept and thank all the Finnish Government and all the people<…>
But please don't send Mine to the U.S.S.R." (petition of N. Gubarevich) 7 .
Here are some examples of such requests and petitions (spelling and style preserved. - D. F.).
“To the Finnish Red Cross Society from Russian prisoners of war who did not return to their homeland.
Petition.
In March of this year, before the exchange of prisoners, we were offered, through representatives of the Red Cross and the Finnish military authorities, the right not to return to our homeland, and conditions were offered along with this. And they promised to send to another country according to our desire. We, being somewhat averse to the Soviet government, willingly took advantage of the offer. But 5-6 months have passed since then, and today, 21/VIII-40, to our misfortune, we are still within the walls of prison and no one undertakes to predict our fate.
In addition, we lost our homeland and citizenship and thus found ourselves completely helpless. But despite all this, we have not yet lost our human appearance and we are still living beings, and therefore we resort to the Red Cross Society to an organization that fairly protects human life and its interests. And we earnestly ask for your intervention and your petition to the Finnish government to release us from prison.
Where to determine the place of residence, we can not ask anything now and trustfully entrust you and the Finnish Government.
We earnestly ask you not to refuse the request on behalf of all prisoners
/Groshnitsky/
In May 1940, prisoners of war compiled a list of those who refused to return to the USSR and handed it over to the Finns.
“A list of prisoners who do not want to return to the USSR.
1) Gorbuyanov, Vasily A. soldier
2) Grammar Konstantin D.
3) Erofiev Dmitry D.
4) Nikolai Zavitskov.
5) Zubaev Makar.
6) Ivankov Vasily T.
7) Kadulin Zakhar V.
8) Ksenontov Nikolai K.
9) Kumeda Anton T.
10) Ladovsky Alexey F.
11) Lugin Alexander T.
12) Malikov Alexander T.
13) Malyastrov Vasily P.
14) Mezgov Andreevich I.
15) Popov Stepan I.
16) Nikolaev Yakov A.
17) Rakhmanin Ivan S.
18) Svetsov Ignat A.
19) Utarev Khalidulla.
20) Fucking Matveev (? - D. F.) TO.
21) Shadagalin Selim.
22) Shemna Mikhail V.
23) Yablonovsky Andrey I.
However, no decision was made at their request until August 1940. Then they wrote a second petition:
"His Excellency!!!
Prime Minister of Finland
From Russian prisoners of war who did not express their desire to return to Russia
Petition.
We would like to inform Your Excellency that in March of this year, before sending the Russian prisoners/captives to their homeland, we were offered, through the Finnish military authorities and through the organization of the Red Cross, the right to stay in Finland or leave for another country of our choice, along with this we were promised a number of conditions.
Having sufficient hatred for our government (Soviet), we met with great joy the proposal of the Finnish Government not to return to our homeland, in the hope of soon arranging our lives under the protection of the just Laws of Finland or another country. But five to six months have passed since then, and on August 8, 1940, we are still within the walls of the prison, and no one dares to predict our fate and what awaits us tomorrow. To whom, even today, we are experiencing attitudes towards us that in our face they only see their enemies, who came along with the war to plunder Finland. Although this is true, we ask you to believe that we are less to blame for this, that the state and F. government are to blame for this. And that we ourselves suffered more than the Finnish people in this, which made us turn away from our homeland and abhor the Soviet government. And therefore, considering all of the above and our suffering in prison, we earnestly ask you to draw the attention of Your Excellency and the Finnish government to release us from prison. To determine our place of residence to leave in Finland or to send to another state, we rely on Your mercy and as Your Excellency and the Finnish government will please.
We kindly ask you not to refuse the request. By authorization from 23 Russian prisoners of war
1) Gromitsky,
2) Gorbunov,
3) Xenophon.
And we also earnestly ask you to answer our petition as soon as possible, because many of our experiences depend on this.
The Soviet prisoners of war who remained in Finland spent quite a long time in the camps and prisons of the country, waiting for their fate to be decided. During the War of the Continuation, some of them worked as translators, orderlies, and doctors in prisoner-of-war camps (Karvia, Kemi, Kokkola, and others).
The place of work of the Mixed Commission for the exchange of prisoners of war, both sides determined the city of Vyborg. Three representatives from each of the parties were delegated to the commission. Even before the start of the meetings, the USSR and Finland agreed on some nuances of the return of prisoners. Firstly, the transfer of seriously wounded or seriously ill prisoners of war, whose health condition does not allow transportation from one place to another, will be carried out as these persons recover. At the same time, both sides were to immediately transfer to each other lists indicating the names and surnames of these prisoners. Secondly, the Soviet side urgently demanded the immediate transfer of prisoners of war who had committed different kind criminal acts. I think, most likely, the USSR was afraid that these prisoners would refuse to return to the Soviet Union after serving their sentences in Finland. In practice, during the work of the Mixed Commission, this issue was raised both directly and indirectly several times. Thirdly, the USSR and Finland agreed that the return of prisoners of war should be completed as soon as possible.
Initially, in accordance with Molotov's note, the work of the commission was to begin on April 10, and the first batch of prisoners of war was transferred on April 15. But by mutual agreement, the start of the activities of this intergovernmental body was postponed for more late deadline- 14th of April. It was on this day that the first meeting took place. The commission from the Finnish side included: General Uno Koistinen, Lieutenant Colonel Matti Tijainen and Captain Arvo Viitanen. The Soviet side was represented by brigade commander Evstigneev (representative of the Red Army), captain of state security Soprunenko (head of the UPVI of the NKVD of the USSR) and representative of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (NKID) Tunkin. Thus, the USSR delegated to work in the commission representatives of those structures that, by the nature of their activities, were closely connected with prisoners of war. The army captured the soldiers of the Finnish army, the UPVI was responsible for their maintenance in camps and reception centers, and the NKID regulated the international legal aspects of the reception and repatriation of Finnish prisoners.
Due to the fact that the commission worked on Soviet territory, the USSR assumed most of the expenses for its maintenance. On April 14, 1940, brigade commander Yevstigneev sent a telegram to Moscow asking him to transfer 15,000 rubles to maintain the headquarters of the commission. The report on the work of the commission noted that the members of the Soviet delegation received 30 rubles a day for food and 15 rubles for travel expenses. For five breakfasts (250 rubles each) for the representatives of the Finnish delegation, 1250 rubles were allocated.
The mixed commission for the exchange of prisoners of war between the USSR and Finland carried out its activities from April 14 to April 28, 1940. During the work, six meetings were held - April 14, 15, 16, 18, 27, 28, 1940, at which attempts were made to resolve the following issues:
The procedure for the transfer of prisoners of both armies;
Return of prisoners of war of the Finnish army captured after 12 noon on March 13, 1940, that is, after the cessation of hostilities;
Making inquiries about the missing;
Terms of transfer of sick and wounded prisoners of war.
At the first meeting of the commission, both sides exchanged data on the number of prisoners of war held on their territory. The Soviet Union announced 706 Finnish prisoners of war, and Finland about 5395 Soviet prisoners. At the same meeting, the members of the commission set the approximate dates for the transfer of prisoners. The Soviet Union announced that it was ready to repatriate 106 Finnish prisoners of war on April 16 and 600 on April 20. The Finnish side undertook to transfer the Soviet prisoners of war within the established time limits:
April 25 - all other prisoners of war, except for the sick and seriously wounded, who were to be transferred as they recovered.
At the fifth meeting of the commission (April 27, 1940), the parties also agreed on the timing of the return of the last category of prisoners of war. The first transmission was to take place on May 10. According to the commission's estimates, the Finnish side could return to the USSR a group of 70-100 people, the Soviet Union - about 40 Finnish sick and seriously wounded prisoners of war. The next exchange was scheduled for May 25, when all other prisoners whose health condition allowed transportation should be transferred. As can be seen from the above figures, both sides did not yet have complete information about the exact number of prisoners of war in their possession. But the data was refined, and by the time the Mixed Commission ceased its work, the parties already had more complete and accurate information on the number of prisoners of war.
In addition to the exchange of prisoners of war, the commission was engaged in the search for missing soldiers of the Red Army, Finnish soldiers, officers, foreign volunteers who served in the Finnish army, as well as civilians.
Before the last, sixth meeting of the Mixed Commission (April 28, 1940), brigade commander Evstigneev received a lightning telegram signed by Dekanozov. In particular, it noted several points to which the Soviet delegation should have paid special attention:
1. In accordance with the principles of international law of the 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War and the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, require the Finnish side to return all personal documents, personal property and money of Soviet prisoners of war;
2. Return to the USSR all prisoners of war under trial, investigation, in prisons and other places of detention;
3. To achieve the inclusion in the minutes of the meeting of the facts of the use by the Finnish side of Soviet prisoners of war in defensive work in Finland;
4. Demand from the Finns a certificate of all Soviet prisoners of war who have not yet returned, died and did not want to return to the USSR.
It is also worth noting that in the course of the work of the commission and the exchange of prisoners, issues related to the return of personal property and funds seized from prisoners at reception centers and in prisoner of war camps in the USSR and Finland were resolved. The Soviet side stated that the following were taken from Russian prisoners of war in Finland:
money - 285,604.00 rubles;
passports - 180;
Komsomol tickets - 175;
party documents - 55;
trade union tickets - 139;
military tickets - 148;
work books - 12;
hours - 305;
identity cards - 14.
In addition, during the exchange of prisoners of war in the USSR, 25 former Soviet prisoners were transferred as part of one of the groups, who stated that 41,374 Finnish marks were confiscated from them in Finland. Most likely, judging by the special equipment and equipment taken from them, some of them were members of sabotage and reconnaissance groups, agents of the reconnaissance department of the North-Western Front. This is also confirmed by the Red Army soldiers who returned from Finnish captivity:
“When we were being prepared to be sent home, we saw our paratroopers… 21 people dressed in Finnish uniforms… These comrades asked to be handed over to us so that we could tell our government about them…”
On May 14, 1940, a telegram was sent to the captain of state security Soprunenko from the Leningrad Military District signed by the head of the LVO, brigade commander Yevstigneev and the commissioner of the LVO RO, battalion commissar Gusakov:
“I ask for your order on admission to the interrogation of prisoners of war who returned from Finland, former agents of the intelligence department of the North-Western Front and the armies, who were detained in Finland at various times when they went to carry out special operations. assignments, which is extremely necessary to find out the reasons for the failure and take into account shortcomings in training. Major comrade is sent to conduct the survey. Pomerantsev. Reason: Telegraph order of the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the divisional commander comrade. Proskurov.
The Finnish side, in turn, stated that personal property was taken away from Finnish prisoners of war on the territory of the USSR - watches, gold rings, feathers, etc. in the amount of 160,209 Finnish marks and money of 125,800 Finnish marks. In total, in the amount of 286,009 Finnish marks. On April 21, 1940, the senior political instructor Shumilov, the Soviet commissioner of the commission, handed over to the Finnish side 19,873 marks 55 pennies. Thus, each of their Finns at the time of captivity had to have an average of about 150 marks. However, despite the fact that, according to the instructions existing in the USSR, personal belongings, currency and valuable items were to be registered and stored, more than one hundred thousand Finnish marks mysteriously disappeared in the depths of the NKVD. However, it is not known whether the money ended up in the NKVD or the marauders, or whether the Finns overestimated the amount of things taken from them. It is also worth noting that the Finnish side transferred to the USSR before the end of the work of the Mixed Commission only a small fraction of the personal belongings taken from Soviet prisoners of war. Unfortunately, researchers do not have accurate information about the return of the rest of the property to Finnish and Soviet prisoners of war after the Winter War.
Homecoming Organization (Winter War)
The main exchange of prisoners was carried out at the Vainikkala station. During this time, 847 Finns returned to their homeland (20 remained in the USSR) and 5465 Soviet soldiers and commanders (according to V. Galitsky - 6016).
Speaking about Soviet prisoners of war during the Winter War, it should be noted that the problem of relations between the Soviet state and its compatriots who were captured went through several stages. Russian empire in the 19th and 20th centuries, it signed all the major conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. At the same time, important attention was paid to their own soldiers and officers captured by the enemy. Those who returned home were greeted as heroes. After the 1917 revolution, the situation gradually began to change. Russia announces its withdrawal from the war, but the problem of prisoners remains. The Soviet state declared responsibility for the fate of prisoners of war, and already in April 1918, in accordance with the decree of the Council of People's Commissars, the Central Commission for Prisoners and Refugees (Centroplenbezh) was created under the People's Commissariat for Military Affairs.
In July 1918, at the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the delegates adopted "a greeting to Russian prisoners of war who are in various places." This document instructed all provincial councils to create special departments for organizing assistance to prisoners, which were to conduct their work in close contact with Tsentroplenbezh. The departments were to immediately begin collecting bread and essentials to send them to prisoners of war. Moreover, the Council of People's Commissars, in its resolutions of November 16, 1918, May 18, 1919, June 9, 1920 and August 5, 1920, appointed monetary compensation to Russian prisoners of war of the First World War and soldiers of the Red Army and Navy who returned from enemy captivity. Financial assistance was also provided to family members of the prisoners.
However, the Civil War made its own adjustments, and despite the fact that the RSFSR guaranteed humane treatment of prisoners of war, regardless of state and nationality, this provision was not always respected. The extremely fierce nature of the war, in which both sides suffered colossal losses, and the uncompromising nature of the political struggle often made it impossible to observe the most elementary norms for the treatment of prisoners of war. Both Reds and Whites allowed massacres and torture of prisoners.
Since the mid-1920s, an atmosphere of general distrust, suspicion and spy mania has developed in the USSR. All this was naturally reflected in the Criminal Code of the USSR in relation to prisoners of war. Since the 1920s, articles providing for liability for surrender have appeared in Soviet criminal law. In this case, the military personnel of the Red Army and the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Fleet were subject to the actions of Articles 58 and 193 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, which provided for the death penalty with confiscation of property for treason - espionage, the issuance of military and state secrets, escape abroad, crossing on the side of the enemy and the invasion of the territory of the USSR as part of armed gangs. Members of a serviceman's family were also repressed if they knew about his intentions, but did not bring it to the attention of the authorities. In this case, they were sentenced to up to five years with confiscation of property. The rest of the family members were deprived of voting rights and were subject to deportation to remote regions of Siberia for a period of five years.
In more detail, similar actions committed by military personnel were prescribed in Article 193 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, which provides for punishment for military crimes. In accordance with this article, military crimes were acts directed against the established order of military service, committed by servicemen and persons liable for military service in the reserve of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army, as well as citizens who were in special teams formed in wartime to serve the rear and front.
Encircled privates and junior commanders during the Winter War were often charged with "arbitrarily leaving a unit or place of service", "escape from a unit" or "unauthorized leaving a unit or place of service in a combat situation" (Article 193-7-193-9). Officers and political workers were subject to Article 193-21 - "unauthorized deviation of the chief from the orders given to him for the battle, in order to promote the enemy."
Article 193-22 provided for execution for unauthorized abandonment of the battlefield, refusal to use weapons during the battle, surrender and defection to the side of the enemy. There was a clause here: "surrender, not caused by a combat situation." Thus, it was understood that there were some circumstances, such as injury, etc., in which captivity was not considered as a criminally punishable act. But in reality, everything turned out to be wrong. Even a wound often did not entail exemption from responsibility for surrender.
Criminal liability, or rather, execution, was provided for in Article 193-20: “Surrender to the enemy by the head of the military forces entrusted to him, leaving to the enemy, destruction or rendering unusable by the head of the fortifications entrusted to him, warships, military aircraft, artillery, military depots and other means warfare, as well as the failure of the chief to take appropriate measures to destroy or render useless the listed means of warfare when they are in imminent danger of being captured by the enemy and all means have already been used to preserve them, if the actions specified in this article were committed in order to promote the enemy ... "
You can still list the parts and paragraphs of Article 193 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR for a long time, but the result will be the same: in most cases it provided for “the highest measure of social protection with confiscation of property” for committed misconduct.
Analyzing Article 193, one can come to an interesting conclusion: by providing for harsh penalties for the surrender of Red Army soldiers, at the same time, it made the situation of foreign prisoners of war more secure. Thus, paragraph 29 (paragraphs A and B of this article) provided for imprisonment for up to three years or the application of punishment in accordance with the rules of the disciplinary charter of the Red Army for "ill-treatment of prisoners, or associated with special cruelty or directed against the sick and wounded, and equally negligent performance of duties in relation to the indicated sick and wounded by persons who are entrusted with their treatment and care for them. These are, in brief, the main provisions of the articles of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR concerning punishments for war crimes, if captivity can be considered a crime at all. But the accusatory bias was inherent in the Soviet legislation of that time. After the end of the Winter War, almost all former Soviet prisoners of war were sentenced to imprisonment in forced labor camps of the Gulag system by the decision of the Special Meeting of the NKVD of the USSR. Thus, initially the Soviet state considered its citizens who were in enemy captivity as criminals.
From the moment they crossed the state border line, former Soviet prisoners of war were interviewed and interrogated by special groups of military interrogators, consisting of political officers. Analyzing the “Acts of the sanitary condition of prisoners of war, reports about conversations with them and information about the number of selected valuables and documents by the Finnish authorities”, we can distinguish several main groups of questions that were clarified with particular care from former Soviet prisoners:
1. Norms for the food supply of Soviet prisoners of war in Finland, food for prisoners in camps and prisons.
2. Treatment of Soviet prisoners of war in camps, places of temporary detention and prisons in Finland by civil and military authorities.
3. Anti-Soviet work with prisoners of war.
4. Identification of traitors and traitors to the Motherland from among the Soviet prisoners of war.
5. Finding out the names and surnames of Soviet prisoners of war who did not want to return to the USSR after the end of hostilities.
6. The mood of the prisoners of war who returned to the Soviet Union.
Further events developed as follows on April 19, 1940, by the decision of the Politburo (signed by Stalin), all prisoners returned by the Finnish side were ordered to be sent to the Yuzhsky camp of the NKVD of the USSR (Ivanovo region), previously intended for the Finns. “Within a three-month period, ensure thorough implementation of operational-Chekist measures to identify among the prisoners of war persons processed by foreign intelligence, dubious and alien elements and voluntarily surrendered to the Finns, with their subsequent bringing to justice.” From the moment of crossing the state border with former Soviet prisoners of war, operational work began.
Information about "defectors" was obtained from prisoners of war. "Prisoner of war Mikhet<…>knows the name of the tanker who surrendered along with the tank, without resistance. Or: “Junior Lieutenant Antipin ... stayed and changed into Finnish clothes, sent to an unknown destination. He agreed to write memoirs. Gradually, on the basis of such testimony, the names of the defectors were clarified. On June 6, Soprunenko sends to Moscow "a list of people who were held captive in Finland and refused to return to the USSR."
On the basis of interrogations in April 1940, the USSR presented Finland with a list of its prisoners of war held on its territory, out of 99 names. However, the Finnish authorities stated that they had 74 prisoners of war. Of these, Finland handed over 35 people to the Soviet side. The corresponding document of the Finnish side contained the following figures:
RETURNED
Russians 33 people
Belarusians 1 pers.
Georgians 1 person
Armenians 1 pers.
Jews 1 pers. ·
Latvians 1 pers.
Bulgarians 1 pers.
Komi 1 person
Total 39 people.
NOT RETURNED
Ukrainians 21 people.
Tatars 2 people
Uzbeks 2 people
Bashkirs 1 person
Olonets and southern 1 pers.
Tver 1 pers.
Ingrians 1 pers.
Poles 1 pers.
Total 35 people.
Thus, Finland was in no hurry to hand over non-Russian prisoners of war. The Russians were transferred faster. Apparently, there were fears that the USSR would insistently demand the extradition of the Russians.
However, a curious addition was made in the document regarding persons not included in this general list of prisoners of war returned by Finland:
“In addition, about 30 Russian defectors who will not be returned because the prison officials promised them that they would not be returned. Captain Rask announced them on 15/4-40, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (inaudible) 16/4 prisoners were sent to Kokkola.
That is, there were at least 30 more people in Finland who not only did not want to return to the USSR, but who were promised that they would not be extradited to the Soviet authorities. However, this did not bother the Soviet authorities. They stubbornly made every effort to return them to their homeland. In particular, on November 18, 1940, the Finnish Mission received a request "to bring to the attention of the Government of Finland that the Soviet side insists on the return to the Soviet Union of the 20 prisoners/prisoners of the Red Army who remained in Finland."
The Finns did not respond to this demarche. But these requests of the USSR did not stop. He insisted on the extradition of those who did not wish to return to their homeland. And despite the fact that some Soviet prisoners of war several times submitted petitions to various state authorities in Finland to be left there, most of them were under pressure Soviet authorities was repatriated to the Soviet Union. At the same time, some of them were simply exchanged for Finnish citizens who remained in the USSR
The last such exchange took place on 21 April 1941. Then private Nikifor Dmitrievich Gubarevich, who lived in Belarus before the Winter War, was in the prison of Mikkeli since March 21, 1940, despite the fact that he filed a petition for not sending him to the USSR four times, was exchanged for a Finnish citizen merchant Yuri Nikolay Nieminen.
But only with the beginning of the continuation war, the fate of the 20 Soviet prisoners remaining in Finland was decided. Colonel S. Isakson, head of the Stavka organization department, and Major Tapio Tarianne, head of the government department, informed the Foreign Ministry that since the mentioned Soviet prisoners of war “did not express a desire to return to the USSR in an organized prisoner of war exchange after the war of 1939-40, they are no longer prisoners, located in Finland. They should be treated as foreign citizens residing in the country, about which the Government gives an order. At the same time, in response to the possible reproaches of the USSR regarding its national security, the document emphasized in advance: "The Headquarters also declares that none of them can be used for defense purposes."
After the exchange of prisoners of war ended, the state authorities of both Finland and the USSR made a lot of efforts to investigate the circumstances of the disappearance of military personnel and their further fate on the territory of the warring countries. Both sides did not forget about those who did not return from combat missions.
So, for example, on July 17, 1940, the Plenipotentiary Representation of the USSR in Finland requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Finland with a request to inquire about the fact that pilot M. I. Maksimov was among the prisoners of war, who on February 21, 1940 “landed on the Gulf of Finland” . A similar request was also contained in an appeal dated November 25, 1940 regarding the pilot N. A. Shalin, who made an emergency landing on the Finnish side on March 8, 1940. But it was not possible to find out what happened to these pilots, apparently, over time or due to the lack of witnesses. On both of our requests from the Soviet side, there is a short and unambiguous note from the Finnish authorities: "There is no information about the capture." This was handed over to the Soviet commissioner.
One of the special issues to which Soviet investigators paid quite a lot of attention was the issue of beatings and humiliation of Red Army soldiers in captivity. Former prisoners said that they were mocked not only by Finnish guards, but also by some of their own comrades in captivity. Particularly raged, according to interrogators, "prisoners of war from among the Karelians." Political reports noted: “The former junior commander, now a prisoner, Orekhov, having been captured, was appointed foreman of the barracks, he mercilessly beat prisoners of war ... Didyuk, a Karelian, was an interpreter, beat prisoners of war ... Gvozdovich from the city of Kalinin, was the head of the chamber, beat his own, selected Soviet money, lost it in cards, bought himself a commander's tunic from a captured commander<…>". And there are many such indications. But still it was not a system. By no means all Karelians were traitors. It is worth considering the circumstances under which this information was obtained. It is safe to say that they did enjoy some privileges as a "friendly nation" (according to the Finnish classification). And since many understood the Finnish language, they were appointed senior barracks, translators and assistant guards.
Operational work continued in the Yuzhsky camp. By June 1940, there were 5175 Red Army soldiers and 293 commanders and political workers transferred by the Finns. In his report to Stalin, Beria noted: “... among the prisoners of war, spies and 106 people suspicious of espionage were identified, members of the anti-Soviet volunteer detachment - 166 people, provocateurs - 54, mocked at our prisoners - 13 people, voluntarily surrendered - 72 ". For the Chekists, all prisoners of war were a priori traitors to the Motherland. Senior Lieutenant of the 18th Infantry Division Ivan Rusakov recalled these interrogations as follows:
“... The investigators did not believe that most of us were captured in the environment ... He asks:
I am shell-shocked and frostbite, - I answer.
It's not an injury.
Tell me, am I guilty of being captured?
Yes, guilty.
What is my fault?
You swore an oath to fight to the last breath. But when you were taken prisoner, you were breathing.
I don't even know if I was breathing or not. I was picked up unconscious...
But when you woke up, you could spit in the Finn's eyes to get shot?
And what's the point in that?!
To not disgrace. The Soviets do not surrender."
After investigating the circumstances of the capture and behavior in captivity, 158 people from among the former prisoners of war in the camp were shot, and 4354 people who did not have sufficient materials to hand them over to the court, but were suspicious due to the circumstances of the capture, were sentenced to imprisonment by the decision of the Special Meeting of the NKVD of the USSR in forced labor camps for five to eight years. Only 450 former prisoners who were taken prisoner wounded, sick and frostbitten were released from criminal liability.
Finnish prisoners of war
The repatriation of Finnish prisoners of war began in accordance with the deadlines set at the meetings of the Mixed Commission. On April 16, 1940, the first batch of 107 Finnish prisoners of war crossed the state border line. On the same day, Deputy People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Chernyshov, who, as we recall, supervised the work of the UPVI, ordered the preparation of Finnish prisoners of war held in the Gryazovets camp for shipment to Finland. In accordance with this order, brigade commander Evstigneev sends a lightning telegram to the head of the 3rd department of the headquarters of the Leningrad Military District, brigade commander Tulupov, with the following content:
“I ask you to transfer 600 Finnish prisoners of war from the prisoner of war camp to Gryazovets, apply for Echelon to the station. Gryazovets of the Northern Railway on the basis that by 9.00 20.4.40 he should be on the border line at the Vainikkala station, on the Vyborg-Simola railway. The escort and food supply of Finnish prisoners during transportation to Vyborg was entrusted to the camp management.
Two days later, on April 18, 1940, Evstigneev ordered, no later than April 24, to transfer all healthy Finnish prisoners of war in the hospital in Borovichi to the Sestroretsk reception center for subsequent transfer to their homeland. By April 23, a convoy from the NKVD troops was waiting for the Finns in the military hospital in Borovichi, and on railway station- four heating wagons, which were supposed to deliver them by seven o'clock in the morning on April 26 to Vyborg station. The hospital management was instructed to provide the prisoners with food for the journey at the rate of four days. As part of this group transferred to Finland under the terms of the peace treaty, there were 151 people from the Finnish army.
It is also worth noting that, in accordance with the “Temporary instruction on the work of the NKVD points for the reception of prisoners of war” dated 12/29/1939 and Chernyshov’s order, the echelon with prisoners (20 wagons) from the Gryazovets camp, in addition to the convoy, was accompanied by the head of the camp, the heads of the special and accounting departments and an employee sanitary department of the camp - paramedic. On the road, each prisoner of war was given a dry ration. It included: 3 kg of bread, herring or canned food - 700 g, tea - 6 g, sugar - 150 g, soap - 100 g, shag - 1 pack, matches - 2 boxes. As we can see from the above figures, the amount of food given to the Finns on the road exceeded the norms for the release of food to prisoners of war, established by the Economic Council under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on September 20, 1939. On April 20, 1940, a group of prisoners of war from the Gryazovets camp in the amount of 575 people was handed over to the Finnish military authorities.
The direct exchange of prisoners of war was carried out on the border one kilometer east of the Finnish railway station Vainikkala. From the Soviet side, it was carried out by Captain Zverev and senior political instructor Shumilov, and from the Finnish side by Captain Vainyulya.
On May 10, 1940, the Soviet side, in accordance with the agreements adopted, handed over to Finland five people of Swedish volunteers, servicemen of the Finnish army, who were kept in the Gryazovets camp of the NKVD: three officers, one sergeant and one private. And on May 16, 1940, the head of the UPVI Soprunenko sent an order to the head of the Sverdlovsk UNKVD to immediately send, accompanied by an escort and medical personnel, three Finnish prisoners who were being treated in the Sverdlovsk hospital.
Analyzing the documents related to the activities of the Soviet-Finnish commission for the exchange of prisoners of war, it should be noted that its work took place without any special complications. On June 9, 1940, the chairman of the intergovernmental commission for the exchange of prisoners of war, brigade commander Evstigneev, summing up the results of its activities, presented the "Report on the work of the mixed commission for the exchange of prisoners of war between the USSR and Finland." In this document, in particular, it was noted that the exchange of prisoners of war took place on the following dates: the transfer of Finnish prisoners of war took place on April 16, 20 and 26, May 10 and 25, June 7, 1940, and the reception of Soviet prisoners of war - on 17, 20, 21, 22 , April 23, 24, 25 and 26, May 10 and 25, June 7, 1940.
838 former prisoners of war of the Finnish army were transferred to Finland and 20 expressed a desire not to return to their homeland. Among the prisoners of war transferred to Finland were:
Command staff - 8 people,
Junior command staff - 152 people,
Ordinary - 615 people.
Among the wounded prisoners of war who were in hospitals on the territory of the USSR:
Command staff - 2 people,
Junior command staff - 8 people,
Ordinary - 48 people.
However, despite the fact that the commission finished its work in April, the exchange of former prisoners of war and civilian internees continued throughout the interwar period of 1940-1941. Both sides repeatedly sent inquiries to each other, trying to establish the fate of the missing. However, it is quite obvious that the USSR did not transfer all its citizens to Finland after the end of the Soviet-Finnish military conflict of 1939-1940, since back in the 50s, Finns captured during the Winter War returned to their homeland.
Work with returnees from captivity (Winter War)
And finally, the former Finnish prisoners of war crossed the new line of the state border and ended up in Finland. The captivity is over. But the Finnish soldiers, returned under the terms of the peace treaty, did not immediately get home. First, they had to pass a check at the filtration points for former prisoners of war. Unlike the Continuation War, when all the prisoners were concentrated in the Hanko camp, after the Winter War there was no single place for filtration checks. Most of the former Finnish prisoners of war were interrogated in Helsinki. However, testimonies were taken from the Finnish prisoners transferred in the autumn of 1940 - in the spring of 1941, for example, in Imatra, Kouvola, Mikkeli and other places.
From the moment of crossing the state border line, conversations and interrogations were conducted with the former Finnish prisoners of war by special groups of military interrogators. There are several main questions that were clarified with special care from the soldiers and officers of the Finnish army who returned from captivity.
1. Circumstances of captivity.
2. Treatment of prisoners of war at the time of captivity.
3. Conditions for escorting and guarding during transportation to places of temporary and permanent accommodation of prisoners.
4. Conditions of detention in camps and reception centers for prisoners of war.
5. Norms of food supply of prisoners in the USSR, nutrition of Finnish prisoners of war in prisons of the NKVD of the USSR.
6. Medical care in camps and hospitals on the territory of the Soviet Union.
7. Personal property and money confiscated from prisoners of war.
8. The use of photographs of Finnish prisoners of war in the leaflet propaganda of the Red Army.
9. Conditions for conducting and content of interrogations of prisoners conducted by employees of the NKVD.
10. Recruitment of Finnish prisoners of war by the state security agencies of the USSR.
11. Propaganda work with the Finns in the camps and reception centers.
12. Propaganda work of the Finnish communists among prisoners of war.
13. Finding out the names and surnames of Finnish prisoners of war who did not want to return from the USSR after the end of hostilities.
14. Finding out the names and surnames of defectors.
15. Armament and quantity of the enemy army.
16. Treatment of Finnish prisoners of war in camps, places of temporary detention and prisons by civil authorities.
17 The mood of prisoners of war who returned to Finland.
The above list is not official, it is compiled by me based on the most frequently asked questions. It is quite natural that in some protocols of interrogations he is presented in full, in others - only selectively. However, it does give an idea of what Finnish military interrogators were most interested in.
After investigating the circumstances of the capture and behavior in captivity, 35 people of former Finnish prisoners of war returned to Finland from the USSR were charged on suspicion of spying for the USSR and treason. 30 former prisoners of war were convicted by the court and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment - from four months to life. Most of those convicted received a term of six to 10 years in prison. Five people were released due to insufficient evidence against them.
The information obtained from interviews with former Finnish prisoners of war was used by the Finnish military and civilian authorities for various purposes, but mainly in the development and planning of a propaganda campaign on the eve and during the Continuation War.
Return to the homeland of prisoners of war Continued
In September 1944, the continuation of the war, which had lasted almost three and a half years, ended. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Finland signed a truce. Many people were waiting for this event, but especially Finnish and Soviet prisoners of war who were in the camps of the USSR and Suomi.
From the book World War II. (Part II, volumes 3-4) author Churchill Winston SpencerCHAPTER SEVENTEEN Home to Troubles After the unsuccessful attempt to seize the port of Tunis in December, the strength of our initial thrust in Northwest Africa was used up, and the German High Command was able to temporarily restore the situation in Tunisia. Refusing
From the book In the Hell of Stalingrad [The Bloody Nightmare of the Wehrmacht] author Wuster WiegandCHAPTER 4 Home Vacation My vacation was about to come up, because later, around Christmas, fathers of families were given vacations. It suited me. Leave cannot be postponed during the war. Seize the opportunity when it is, otherwise you may not wait for it. My
From the book History crusades author Kharitonovich Dmitry EduardovichWay home On October 9, 1192, Richard sailed home, leaving a memory of himself in the Arab lands for a long time. But the king failed to return quickly. A storm tossed his ship into the northeast corner of the Adriatic Sea. Richard changed clothes and changed appearance. He decided, accompanied
From the book In the Siberian camps. Memoirs of a German prisoner. 1945-1946 author Gerlach HorstThe Way Home November 27, 1946 arrived, the day we had been waiting for since our arrival here. We knew it was the end when we heard the order: "Pack camp supplies for the road." I put my old blanket in a pile of others. It was not easy to say goodbye to him; it
From the book Victory in the Arctic author Smith PeterChapter 7. The sailor returned home Despite the safe arrival in Arkhangelsk, the difficulties and worries of the surviving transports of the PQ-18 convoy were by no means over. They never got rid of the threat of air attacks. All work to unload the transports and prepare them for the return
From the book Great Conquerors author Rudycheva Irina AnatolievnaThe last way home ... And in eternity "Velmy is unhealthy" the prince reached the Russian lands, and soon, having reached Nizhny Novgorod and having spent a little time there, he went to Gorodets. Here Alexander stopped at the Fedorovsky Monastery. The people and monks accompanying him saw how
From the book Gross Admiral. Memoirs of the Commander of the Navy of the Third Reich. 1935-1943 the author Reder ErichCHAPTER 22 Spandau—and the Return Home Almost immediately after the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg pronounced its sentence, it was carried out. Although the regime of detention during the process was quite severe, now it has become even more stringent. To
From the book Napoleon in Russia and at home [“I am Bonaparte and I will fight to the end!”] author Andreev Alexander RadievichPart III The Lion's Way Home On September 2, Kutuzov's army passed through Moscow and entered the Ryazan road. Kutuzov made two crossings along it and suddenly turned left, to the south. With a quick flank march along the right bank of the Pakhra River, the army crossed to the old Kaluga road and
From the book Crouching in the Deep. fighting British submariners in World War II. 1940–1945 by Young EdwardChapter 7 HOME! We arrived at Algiers Bay on Christmas morning in 1942, dressed in white tropical uniforms and eager to see a new exotic country. Squinting from the scorching sun, we looked at the white town houses and villas scattered on the hillsides. Soon
From the book The Road Home author Zhikarentsev Vladimir Vasilievich From the book St. John's Wort of Melville Bay by Freihen PeterChapter 9 HOME If you look at the map, the islands of Bryant and Toma are located very close to each other. This means that the bird's eye line distance is not so great. But, unfortunately, we are not birds and could not fly from one island to another, and although we walked on ice,
From the book Gross Admiral. Memoirs of the Commander of the Navy of the Third Reich. 1935-1943 the author Reder ErichChapter 22. Spandau - and the return home Almost immediately after the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg pronounced its sentence, it was carried out. Although the regime of detention during the process was quite severe, now it has become even more stringent. To
From the book Reporting from the Front Line. Notes of an Italian war correspondent on the events on the Eastern Front. 1941–1943 author Malaparti CurzioChapter 16 God Returns Home Olshanka, August 12 This morning I saw God return to his home after twenty years of exile. A small group of elderly peasants simply opened the doors of the barn where the sunflower seeds were stored to announce: “Come in,
From the book Under the Russian Flag author Kuznetsov Nikita AnatolievichChapter 21 Home By evening we left Golchikha, the weather was fine all the way down the river, at night we saw a couple of fires on the shore along the way - probably the fishermen were camping there, and on the morning of September 6 we returned back to Dixon. The navigator completed the transfer of provisions to others
Sun skirt: types and how to wear it Black sun skirt with a T-shirt how to wear
Ground bird cherry Ground bird cherry cook
Own business: production of chips
How to care for your skin in spring Face masks in spring
Seizures in the corners of the mouth: causes and treatment in adults and children