Sotavankina Neuvostoliitossa. Suomalaiset NKVD:n leireissä talvi- ja jatkosodan aikana by Dmitri Frolov (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 565 Marxism-Leninismenabled Stalin to develop political assessmentsthat, however shoddy, reinforcedhis ruthlessnessin consolidatinghis own power. The cost of acknowledgingerrorwas apparentlytoo greatfor him to pay. Nonetheless it is hard to see how a more capable intellect could have made much difference.The Wehrmacht,having crushedthe equallywell-equippedFrench and thrown the Britishinto the sea, was not going to be deterred by a Red Army with inferior equipment and training whose military doctrines were those of a Civil War which had ended twentyyearsbefore. Fortunatelyfor the Soviet Union and for the rest of Europe Hitler'scognitive dissonance proved to be even greaterthan that sufferedby Stalin. London A. H. WALKER Frolov, Dmitri. Sotavankina Neuvostoliitossa. Suomalaiset NKJVD:n leireassa talvi-ja jatkosodan aikana.Bibliotheca Historica, 9I. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki, 2004. 280 pp. Illustrations.Tables. Notes. Appendices. English summary.Bibliography.Index. ?29.00 (paperback). DMITRI FROLOVis a Russianhistorianbased in Finlandwhose doctoral dissertation tackles,as the titlesuggests,the experienceof Finnishprisonersof war in the Soviet Union duringand afterthe Second WorldWar. This book makesa welcome addition to the researchliterature,particularlybecause it deals with the subject on the basis of an extensive survey of Russian archival material. Frolov's work in documenting both the organization and administrative practicesof Sovietprisoner-of-war-camps is commendable and, at points, even groundbreaking. His heavy reliance on Soviet sourcesdoes, however, create some problems. Frolov begins by surveying the official Soviet legal norms concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. He argues that the Soviet Union, while not subscribingto the internationalagreements on the treatment of prisoners of war, neverthelessdrew up a comparablelegislationof its own. Frolovgoes on to claim that, through the decrees of the Soviet government, some 'prisoner rights recognized by the world community were [...] enhanced towards greaterrespect for human rights'(p. 72, all translationsmine - OS). Here, as elsewhere, Frolov does not attempt to further analyse the obvious problem, namely the discrepancies, ever present in the Soviet state, between official norms and reality.All he does is to occasionallynote that the normswere not or could not alwaysbe adhered to. However, in a workgroundedso firmlyon Soviet official sources, a more thorough discussion of the worth of these sourcesas evidence would be necessary.As the Russianproverbgoes, 'bumaga is a bumaga, praktika ispraktika'. The book would undoubtedly have benefited from a more comparative approach, in which the Soviet material would have been made to stand systematically alongside the testimonies of Finnish prisoners of war. Not surprisingly,such reminiscencesusuallytell of a realityfar less complimentary to the Workers'and Peasants' State than the official version extracted from norms for prisonerrations or specificationsfor their medical care. 566 SEER, 84, 3, JULY 2006 Frolov has, nevertheless,unearthed importantnew informationconcerning the wartime actions of Soviet partisansin Finnish territory.To this day, the wanton cruelties of the partisans against the civilian population, including the destruction of whole villages and their inhabitants, remain a source of bitterness. The Soviet Union never admitted any wrongdoing, and presentday Russia has adopted the same unflinching line. Occasional demands for clarificationor war crimes charges against the survivingmembers of partisan groups known to have taken part in atrocitieshave met with official silence. Frolov convincingly documents some of the atrocities,but evidentlyfeels that he has to balance this disclosure by appealing to Soviet reports of cruelties committed by the Finns against Soviet prisonersof war (p. 132). This is beside the point. While there is no arguing againstthe fact that Finnishtroops were also guiltyof cruel, unjustand calloustreatmentof theircaptives,the methodical depravities of the partisans against civilians make this kind of tu quoquecomparison superfluous.Thus, Frolov's ultimate conclusion that both 'sides did not always follow [the principles ofl the Geneva agreement, but instead occasionally treated captives cruelly and even killed them' (p. I38), seems carefulto the point of timidity. Frolov'stext is translatedfrom a Russian original,and footnotes to Russian sourcesand literatureare given, as a rule, in Cyrillic.However, the translation often betrayslinguisticusagesalien to Finnish.It is the dutyof the translatorto check the terminologyand, if necessary,suggestalternativesmore in line with the targetlanguage. Perhapsthe most unhappy choice of termsin this sense is the use of the Soviet 'Great PatrioticWar' throughoutthe text. Frolov can be partly excused by the palpable difficultiesthe consistent naming of the wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union...