Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

Beware "political science" papers produced by THINK TANKS, when you don't know for certain who is PAYING them to think!

For example:

"Acceptance of this idea, amending the United States Constitution to allow for popular election of United States Senators, was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests."

SO?

When was this again?

When was this 17th Amendment ratified?

And did it upset any precious balances that Madison might have put in place, way back in 1787?

Based on the evidence, anyway?

Or is this information above here that was taken directly from the Annotations to the United States Constitution really just an opinion, while this THINK TANK Report above is fact?

And who wants to go back to those old days, in the years just before the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified by the American people, who Madison did believe in; years in which the "leaders" of the people themselves were totally untrustworthy, much as they are again, right now, today?

[Livyjr]

Center for the Study of the Presidency - 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up

"James Madison and the Role of Republicanism, Federalism, and Checks and Balances in the United States"

http://www.geocities.com/crgeidner/madison.html
___________________

Christopher R. Geidner
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, Ohio
___________________

From his compelling argument for America's republican form of government to his vigorous defense of its divided and federal systems of governing, James Madison brought to the United States of America some of its most important attributes.

At the same time, however, many of the significant details of his conceptions have suffered in the 212 years since the Constitution's ratification.

Looking at Madison's ideas on each of the three branches of the national government and the role of the people and states in its organization, the substantial value and timeliness of his arguments are quickly apparent.

Madison’s understanding of America’s government rested upon a strong belief in the people, in general, and an even stronger belief in the people’s chosen representatives.

A major part of his analysis and persuasion in The Federalist Papers was that one of the Constitution’s greatest gifts to democracy was that it controlled the "public passions" of the people through its use of republican and federalist principles and co-equal branches.

Changes or proposed changes in each of those three branches, however, act to increase the influence of public passions upon America.

I wonder if "Jemmy" Madison saw this crowd coming?

U.S. Supreme Court

THE KU KLUX CASES, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); 110 U.S. 651

'THE KU-KLUX CASES.' Ex parte YARBROUGH and others.

March 3, 1884

[110 U.S. 651, 652]

Henry B. Tompkins, for petitioners.

Sol. Gen. Phillips, for respondent.

MILLER, J.

Stripped of its technical verbiage, the offense charged in this indictment as that the defendants conspired to intimidate Berry Saunders, a citizen of African descent, in the exercise of his right to vote for a member of the congress of the United States, and in the execution of that conspiracy they beat, bruised, wounded, and otherwise maltreated him; and in the second count that they did this on account of his race, color, and previous condition of servitude, by going in disguise and assaulting him on the public highway and on his own premises.

If the question were not concluded in this court, as we have already seen that it is by the decision of the circuit court, we entertain no doubt that the conspiracy here described is one which is embraced within the provisions of the Revised Statutes which we have cited.

That a government whose essential character is republican, whose executive head and legislative body are both elective, whose numerous and powerful branch of the legislature is elected by the people directly, has no power by appropriate laws to secure this election from the influence of violence, of corruption, and of fraud, is a proposition so startling as to arrest attention and demand the gravest consideration.

If this government is anything more than a mere aggregation of delegated agents of other states and governments, each [110 U.S. 651, 658] of which is superior to the general government, it must have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends, from violence and corruption.

If it has not this power, it is left helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, open violence and insidious corruption.

The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument often heard, often repeated, and in this court never assented to, that when a question of the power of congress arises the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it.

The brief of counsel before us, though directed to the authority of that body to pass criminal laws, uses the same language.

Because there is no express power to provide for preventing violence exercised on the voter as a means of controlling his vote, no such law can be enacted.

It destroys at one blow, in construing the constitution of the United States, the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed.

This principle, in its application to the constitution of the United States, more than to almost any other writing, is a necessity, by reason of the inherent inability to put into words all derivative powers,-a difficulty which the instrument itself recognizes by conferring on congress the authority to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers expressly granted, and all other powers vested in the government or any branch of it by the constitution. Article 1, 8, cl. 18.

We know of no express authority to pass laws to punish theft or burglary of the treasury of the United States.

Is there therefore no power in congress to protect the treasury by punishing such theft and burglary?

Are the mails of the United States, and the money carried in them, to be left at the mercy of robbers and of thieves who may handle the mail, because the constitution contains no express words of power in congress to enact laws for the punishment of those offenses?

The principle, if sound, would abolish the entire criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and the laws which confer that jurisdiction. [110 U.S. 651, 659]

It is said that the states can pass the necessary law on this subject, and no necessity exists for such action by congress.

But the existence of state laws punishing the counterfeiting of the coin of the United States has never been held to supersede the acts of congress passed for that purpose, or to justify the United States in failing to enforce its own laws to protect the circulation of the coin which it issues.

It is very true that while congress at an early day passed criminal laws to punish piracy with death. and for punishing all ordinary offenses against person and property committed within the District of Columbia, and in forts, arsenals, and other places within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, it was slow to pass laws protecting officers of the government from personal injuries inflicted while in discharge of their official duties within the states.

This was not for want of power, but because no occasion had arisen which required such legislation, the remedies in the state courts for personal violence having proved sufficient.

So, also, has the congress been slow to exercise the powers expressly conferred upon it in relation to elections by the fourth section of the first article of the constitution.

This section declares that 'the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the congress may at any time make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing senators.'

It was not until 1842 that congress took any action under the power here conferred, when, conceiving that the system of electing all the members of the house of representatives from a state by general ticket, as it was called,-that is, every elector voting for as many names as the state was entitled to representatives in that house,- worked injustice to other states which did not adopt that system, and gave an undue preponderance [110 U.S. 651, 661] of power to the political party which had a majority of votes in the state, however small, enacted that each member should be elected by a separate district, composed of contiguous territory. 5 St. 491.

And to remedy more than one evil arising from the election of members of congress occurring at different times in the different states, congress, by the act of February 2, 1872, 30 years later, required all the elections for such members to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in 1876, and on the same day of every second year thereafter.

The frequent failures of the legislatures of the states to elect senators at the proper time, by one branch of the legislature voting for one person and the other branch for another person, and refusing in any manner to reconcile their differences, led congress to pass an act which compelled the two bodies to meet in joint convention, and fixing the day when this should be done, and requiring them so to meet on every day thereafter and vote for a senator until one was elected.

In like manner congress has fixed a day, which is to be the same in all the states, when the electors for president and vice-president shall be appointed.

Now, the day fixed for electing members of congress has been established by congress without regard to the time set for election of state officers in each state, and but for the fact that the state legislatures have, for their own accommodation, required state elections to be held at the same time, these elections would be held for congressmen alone at the same time fixed by the act of congress.

Will it be denied that it is in the power of that body to provide laws for the proper conduct of those elections?

To provide, if necessary, the officers who shall conduct them and make return of the result?

And especially to provide, in an election held under its own authority, for security of life and limb to the voter while in the exercise of this function?

Can it be doubted that congress can, by law, protect the act of voting, the place where it is done, and the man who votes from personal violence or intimidation, and the election itself from corruption or fraud? [110 U.S. 651, 662]

If this be so, and it is not doubted, are such powers annulled because an election for state officers is held at the same time and place?

Is it any less important that the election of members of congress should be the free choice of all the electors, because state officers are to be elected at the same time? Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 .

These questions answer themselves; and it is only because the congress of the United States, through long habit and long years of forbearance, has, in deference and respect to the states, refrained from the exercise of these powers that they are now doubted.

But when, in the pursuance of a new demand for action, that body, as it did in the cases just enumerated, finds it necessary to make additional laws for the free, the pure, and the safe exercise of this right of voting, they stand upon the same ground, and are to be upheld for the same reasons.

It is said that the parties assaulted in these cases are not officers of the United States, and their protection in exercising the right to vote by congress does not stand on the same ground.

But the distinction is not well taken.

The power in either case arises out of the circumstance that the function in which the party is engaged or the right which he is about to exercise is dependent on the laws of the United States.

In both cases it is the duty of that government to see that he may exercise this right freely, and to protect him from violence while so doing, or on account of so doing.

This duty does not arise solely from the interest of the party concerned, but from the necessity of the government itself that its service shall be free from the adverse influence of force and fraud practiced on its agents, and that the votes by which its members of congress and its president are elected shall be the free votes of the electors, and the officers thus chosen the free and uncorrupted choice of those who have the right to take part in that choice.

This proposition answers, also, another objection to the constitutionality of the laws under consideration, namely, that the right to vote for a member of congress is not dependent upon [110 U.S. 651, 663] the constitution or laws of the United States, but is governed by the law of each state respectively.

If this were conceded, the importance to the general government of having the actual election-the voting for those members-free from force and fraud is not diminished by the circumstance that the qualification of the voter is determined by the law of the state where he votes.

It equally affects the government; it is as indispensable to the proper discharge of the great function of legislating for that government, that those who are to control this legislation shall not owe their election to bribery or violence, whether the class of persons who shall vote is determined by the law of the state, or by the laws of the United States, or by their united result.

*******

In the case of U. S. v. Reese, so much relied on by counsel, this court said, in regard to the fifteenth amendment, that 'it has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of congress.

That right is an exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'

This new constitutional right was mainly designed for citizens of African descent.

The principle, however, that the protection of the exercise of this right is within the power of congress, is as necessary to the right of other citizens to vote as to the colored citizen, and to the right to vote in general as to the right to be protected against discrimination.

The exercise of the right in both instances is guarantied by the constitution, and should be kept free and pure by congressional enactments whenever that is necessary.

The reference to cases in this court in which the power of congress under the first section of the fourteenth amendment [110 U.S. 651, 666] has been held to relate alone to acts done under state authority can afford petitioners no aid in the present case.

For, while it may be true that acts which are mere invasions of private rights, which acts have no sanction in the statutes of a state, or which are not committed by any one exercising its authority, are not within the scope of that amendment, it is quite a different matter when congress undertakes to protect the citizen in the exercise of rights conferred by the constitution of the United States, essential to the healthy organization of the government itself.

But it is a waste of time to seek for specific sources of the power to pass these laws.

Chancellor KENT, in the opening words of that part of his Commentaries which treats of the government and constitutional jurisprudence of the United States, says:

"The government of the United States was created by the free voice and joint will of the people of American for their common defense and general welfare".

"Its powers apply to those great interests which relate to this country in its national capacity, and which depend for their protection on the consolidation of the Union".

"It is clothed with the principal attributes of political sovereignty, and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness." 1 Kent, Comm. 201.

It is as essential to the successful working of this government that the great organisms of its executive and legislative branches should be the free choice of the people, as that the original form of it should be so.

In absolute governments, where the monarch is the source of all power, it is still held to be important that the exercise of that power shall be free from the influence of extraneous violence and internal corruption.

In a republican government, like ours, where political power is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger.

Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours [110 U.S. 651, 667] has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources.

If the recurrence of such acts as these prisoners stand convicted of are too common in one quarter of the country, and give omen of danger from lawless violence, the free use of money in elections, arising from the vast growth of recent wealth in other quarters, presents equal cause for anxiety.

If the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils,-if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint,-then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.

The rule to show cause in this case is discharged, and the writ of habeas corpus denied.

[Livyjr]

I wonder if "Jemmy" Madison saw this crowd coming?

U.S. Supreme Court

THE KU KLUX CASES, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); 110 U.S. 651

'THE KU-KLUX CASES.' Ex parte YARBROUGH and others.

March 3, 1884

[110 U.S. 651, 652]

Henry B. Tompkins, for petitioners.

Sol. Gen. Phillips, for respondent.

MILLER, J.

In a republican government, like ours, where political power is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger.

Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours [110 U.S. 651, 667] has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources.

If the recurrence of such acts as these prisoners stand convicted of are too common in one quarter of the country, and give omen of danger from lawless violence, the free use of money in elections, arising from the vast growth of recent wealth in other quarters, presents equal cause for anxiety.

If the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, - if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint, - then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.

SO!

1884!

What is that, now, some 121 years ago?

"IF the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, - if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint, - then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE COMBINATIONS OF THOSE WHO RESPECT NO RIGHT BUT BRUTE FORCE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND UNPRINCIPLED CORRUPTIONISTS, ON THE OTHER!"

The United States Supreme Court speaks out!

And what it describes way back then is what we have now!

Can you imagine that?

Back in 1884, there were actually intelligent people, here in OUR America, and they had the vision to see more than 100 years into THEIR future, to see right into the very heart of where we are now, today, in OUR America, after this just-concluded presidential race in November of 2004, where Karl Rove reigns SUPREME as the MAN BEHIND THE THRONE in OUR American "presidential" politics, while "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" DeLay controls the House of Representatives, through money!

How about that?

And speaking of combinations of those who respect no right but brute force, and those who are unprincipled corruptionists, up in Rensselaer County, in the corrupt EMPIRE State of New York .........

[jeffmoskin]

SO?

When was this again?

When was this 17th Amendment ratified?

And did it upset any precious balances that Madison might have put in place, way back in 1787?

Based on the evidence, anyway?

Or is this information above here that was taken directly from the Annotations to the United States Constitution really just an opinion, while this THINK TANK Report above is fact?

And who wants to go back to those old days, in the years just before the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified by the American people, who Madison did believe in; years in which the "leaders" of the people themselves were totally untrustworthy, much as they are again, right now, today?

The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913

[Livyjr]

The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913!

Thank you, jeffmoskin!

SO!

1913!

HHHmmmm!

That's a while ago, now, isn't it?

More than a few minutes, anyway, or at least, I think so!

SO?

What is not right, then, here in OUR America today?

A defective citizen body, perhaps?

We don't know anymore what it is that we are citizens of?

Or have we all become so ignorant, that absolutely nothing matters anymore, so long as we can get 3,000 channels on the latest cable offering from whoever is cheapest?

[jeffmoskin]

Thank you, jeffmoskin!

SO!

1913!

HHHmmmm!

That's a while ago, now, isn't it?

More than a few minutes, anyway, or at least, I think so!

SO?

What is not right, then, here in OUR America today?

A defective citizen body, perhaps?

We don't know anymore what it is that we are citizens of?

Or have we all become so ignorant, that absolutely nothing matters anymore, so long as we can get 3,000 channels on the latest cable offering from whoever is cheapest?

"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. (shouting) You've got to say, 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!'"

- Howard Beale, the "mad prophet of the airwaves"

Network - - 1976

[Livyjr]

"I don't have to tell you things are bad."

"Everybody knows things are bad."

- Howard Beale, the "mad prophet of the airwaves"

Network - - 1976

And I guess I have to come back and say, jeffmoskin, that I wonder if now, today, we really know anything at all, since we are literally barraged with so much B*** S*** on a minute-by-minute basis, that we cannot get a moment's peace to even consider where we might be, in life, here in OUR America, which likely is not OURS, at all, anymore, and may not have been since 1884, or maybe 1913, or certainly, 2004!

This essay that I posted, above, for example!

I "caught" it because I was researching around for quotes and comments by James Madison, back in the days of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and when I read that essay, while I strongly "disagreed" with its central premise, still, I posted it, because it is representaive of "something" here in OUR America that I am still unable to clearly articulate, but which can certainly be called the "B***S***" factor that seems to predominate life, here in OUR America today, for truth be told, jeffmoskin, nobody listened to Howard Beale!

He's a madman, don't you know, so what does he know?

Now, as to this essay above, that I am dealing with right now, that was allegedly a prize-winning essay, the 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up, to be exact, for something here in OUR America called the "Center for the Study of the Presidency", and the author himself, to win this "prize" had to make, to me, anyway, a demonstration that he doesn't know our own American history since 1787!

SO?

What then is that?

In 1787, James Madison was a relatively young man, with almost no experience whatsoever of "Government in the Republican Frame", because there was none to study, at that time!

Prior to 1776, James Madison was a loyal subject of a KING, a monarch, and that is what he knew!

And by 1776, he, and others, knew that the form, or frame of English government was no longer suitable, here in OUR America, which, of course, at that time, was a pretty small place, with maybe 3 million inhabitants on the east coast, and that was that!

NOW .....

In the calendar year 2005, I am still reading Madison, and probably will for some time to come, because I have an interest in that period in OUR nation's history, but you know what?

James Madison, in the end, was like me, a human being with ideas, and that is that!

James Madison did not know what was "good" for America back in 1787!

All he knew was what was bad!

And so, he didn't "PUT INTO PLACE" any precious balances, at all!

What he attempted, instead, was to give us safeguards to prevent another King George and a bootlicking Parliament from being able to tyrannize us, as had been the case in OUR America from what, 1758, or so, onwards to 1776!

In fact, a lot of the Constitution goes against some of his personal goals, or thoughts, or desires, and a lot of what is in the Constitution comes as much from the dissent, as from Madison, himself, and that is not uncommon knowledge, and yet, here is a college student winning some award for not knowing basic American history!

SO?

What the hell is going on here, in OUR America?

We finally got that particular "triggering" floor built onto our own American version of the Tower of Bable, so that now, absolute gibberish is the TERRA LINGUA, here in OUR America?

And if you speak five or ten different versions, or dialects of it, as masters like Scott McClellan can do, in the space of five or less seconds to boot, you can get a high-paying government job as a White House SPOKESBOY ......

[Abu Beacon]

And if you speak five or ten different versions, or dialects of it, as masters like Scott McClellan can do, in the space of five or less seconds to boot, you can get a high-paying government job as a White House SPOKESBOY ......

Back in the 40's and 50's Edgar Bergen and his alter ego, his wooden " dummy ", Charlie McCarthy were really big on the radio.

Everybody loved Charlie McCarthy. The sponsors even cooked up a romance and pending marriage between Charlie and Marilyn Monroe.

Of course, Charlie only vocalized Edgar Bergen's thoughts.

So my question is - How come everybody thought Charlie was really cute, but hardly anyone feels that way about Scott McClellan?

They both had the same job.


A.B.

[Livyjr]

So my question is - How come everybody thought Charlie was really cute, but hardly anyone feels that way about Scott McClellan?

They both had the same job.

A.B.

Boy, you must be an old-time Roosevelt Democrat, or something, Mr. A.B., because you just have a plain-speaking way about you, and that is a fact!

If Scottie "BOY" McClellan were to try emulating your style, well, I might not be so insulted by him thinking I am so ignorant as the person that he is aiming at, and Scott McClellan is just too smarmy by half, for me!

Charlie McCarthy was a wise guy, and that is one thing; while Scott McClellan is an *******, and that is quite another.

The former is sometimes considered cute, while the latter?

Too smarmy, by half, indeed!

[Livyjr]

And I guess I have to come back and say, jeffmoskin, that I wonder if now, today, we really know anything at all, since we are literally barraged with so much B*** S*** on a minute-by-minute basis, that we cannot get a moment's peace to even consider where we might be, in life, here in OUR America, which likely is not OURS, at all, anymore, and may not have been since 1884, or maybe 1913, or certainly, 2004!

This essay that I posted, above, for example!

Now, as to this essay above, that I am dealing with right now, that was allegedly a prize-winning essay, the 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up, to be exact, for something here in OUR America called the "Center for the Study of the Presidency", and the author himself, to win this "prize" had to make, to me, anyway, a demonstration that he doesn't know our own American history since 1787!

SO?

What then is that?

Center for the Study of the Presidency

1020 Nineteenth Street, NW - Suite 250
Washington, DC 20036

Ph: 202-872-9800 | Fax: 202-872-9811 | E-mail: Center@thePresidency.org

[Livyjr]

Center for the Study of the Presidency

1020 Nineteenth Street, NW - Suite 250
Washington, DC 20036

Ph: 202-872-9800 | Fax: 202-872-9811 | E-mail: Center@thePresidency.org

Mission

The Center for the Study of the Presidency seeks to further the understanding and functioning of the American Presidency and its related institutions and, thereby, to educate, illuminate, and inspire leaders of tomorrow.

History

The Center for the Study of the Presidency is a non-partisan and non-profit organization.

Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower's 1969 (?) call for programs on the American Presidency for "students old and young," its founders included Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, a historian and Chancellor of Long Island University, who became the first President of the Center, and Arthur T. Roth, Board Vice Chair at Long Island University, who became the first Chairman of the Center's Board of Trustees.

For most of its existence, the Center has focused on educating young leaders.

As part of the Center Fellows Program, Dr. Hoxie brought students to Washington, DC to learn about the policy process and the history of American government.

While the Center retains its original purpose through the continuation of the Fellows Program and the award-wining Presidential Studies Quarterly, the Center has undergone several important changes.

In 1999, the Center moved to its present location in Washington, DC where it also gained a new president, Dr. David M. Abshire.

With new leadership and expanded headquarters, CSP has increasingly engaged in programs that study, inform, and advise the federal government.

Center Initiatitives

The Center brings together experts from government, academia, and the corporate world on key issues facing the Presidency.

Although program inititiatives change from time to time, all Center activities rest largely upon the following four pillars:

Presidential Leadership

Organizing for Leadership

Executive-Legislative Relations

Public Service

end quotes

I always find it interesting that WE, THE PEOPLE, are left out of these discussions, which favor ONLY THE CORPORATE INTERESTS IN OUR AMERICA, while ignoring those of us, its citizens!

And oh ho hum, we are happy to be excluded!

More time for video games, don't you know!

[Livyjr]

Mission

The Center for the Study of the Presidency seeks to further the understanding and functioning of the American Presidency and its related institutions and, thereby, to educate, illuminate, and inspire leaders of tomorrow.

History

The Center for the Study of the Presidency is a non-partisan and non-profit organization.

Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower's 1969 (?) call for programs on the American Presidency for "students old and young," its founders included Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, a historian and Chancellor of Long Island University, who became the first President of the Center, and Arthur T. Roth, Board Vice Chair at Long Island University, who became the first Chairman of the Center's Board of Trustees.

For most of its existence, the Center has focused on educating young leaders.

As part of the Center Fellows Program, Dr. Hoxie brought students to Washington, DC to learn about the policy process and the history of American government.

While the Center retains its original purpose through the continuation of the Fellows Program and the award-wining Presidential Studies Quarterly, the Center has undergone several important changes.

In 1999, the Center moved to its present location in Washington, DC where it also gained a new president, Dr. David M. Abshire.

With new leadership and expanded headquarters, CSP has increasingly engaged in programs that study, inform, and advise the federal government.

Staff Biographies

David M. Abshire - President and Chief Executive Officer

David M. Abshire is President and CEO of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Vice Chairman of the Board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., which he co-founded in 1962, and served as its chief executive for many years.

In July 2002, he was elected President of the Richard Lounsbery Foundation of New York.

In 1962, Dr. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke founded the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Over the past 40 years, the strategic, long-range, and anticipatory analyses of CSIS have had an impact on policymakers and business community leaders around the world.

More recently in 1983-1987, he was Ambassador to NATO where, in reaction to the threat posed by Soviet SS-20 missiles, he was the United States point man in Europe for deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles.

It was this NATO success that convinced the Soviets to sign the historic INP Treaty and withdraw their missiles.

Ambassador Abshire initiated a new conventional defense improvement effort so that NATO would not have to rely heavily on nuclear weapons.

For this, he was given the highest Defense Department civilian award - its Distinguished Public Service Medal.

Dr. Abshire served as Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations from 1970-1973 and later as Chairman of the U.S. Board of International Broadcasting.

He was a member of the Murphy Commission on the Organization of the Government, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the President's Task Force on U.S. Government International Broadcasting.

During the transition of government in 1980, Dr. Abshire was asked by President-elect Reagan to head the National Security Group, which included the State and Defense Departments, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

He has also served on the Advisory Board of the Naval War College and on the Executive Panel of the Chief of Naval Operations.

In 1987 he served as a Special Counselor to President Reagan with Cabinet rank, to coordinate the Iran-Contra investigation and had authority to meet with the President alone.

He has received the John Carroll Award for outstanding service by a Georgetown University alumnus; the Distinguished Graduate Award of the United States Military Academy; the 1994 U.S. Military Academy's Castle Award; the Gold Medal of the Sons of the American Revolution; the Baylor Distinguished Alumni Award; the Order of the Crown (Belgium); Commander de l'Ordre de Leopold (Belgium); the Medal of the President of the Italian Republic, Senate, Parliament and Government; Grand Official of the Order of the Republic of Italy; Order of Diplomatic Service Merit Heung-In Medal (Korea); the insignia of the Commander, First Class, Order of the Lion of Finland; in 1999 the Order of the Liberator (Argentina); and in May 2001, the Order of the Sacred Treasure God and Silver Star (Japan).

In addition to the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, he was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal.

In 2002, the Abshire-Inamori Academy on Leadership was established at CSIS.

In addition to numerous journal, magazine and newspaper articles, Dr. Abshire is the author of five books:

The South Rejects a Prophet, 1967;

International Broadcasting: A New Dimension of Western Diplomacy, 1976;

Foreign Policy Makers: President vs. Congress, 1979;

Preventing World War III: A Realistic Grand Strategy, 1988; and

Putting America's House in Order: The Nation as a Family, with Brock Brower.

He is editor of Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency: Seventy-Six Case Studies on Presidential Leadership, 2002, and author of CSP publications: The Character of George Washington, 1999; and Lessons For The 21st Century: Vulnerability and Surprise December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001.

He is contributing editor to Vietnam Legacy, 1976; Détente: Cold War Strategies in Transition,1964; and The Global Economy, 1990.

He has also co-edited National Security, 1963 and edited The Growing Power of Congress, 1981.

He is founding editor of The Washington Quarterly.

Dr. Abshire was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1926.

He graduated from Baylor School in 1944, received his bachelor's degree from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1951.

In the Korean War, he served as a platoon leader, company commander, and a division assistant intelligence officer.

He received the bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster with V for Valor, Commendation Ribbon with medal pendant, and Combat Infantry Badge.

He was awarded his Ph.D. in History from Georgetown University in 1959 with honors (Gold Key Society).

He received a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Theological Seminary in 1992 and a Doctor of Civil Law, honoris causa, from the University of the South in 1994.

[Livyjr]

Staff Biographies

David M. Abshire - President and Chief Executive Officer

He has received the insignia of the Commander, First Class, Order of the Lion of Finland .....

Order of the Lion of Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Lion_of_Finland

There are three official orders in Finland: the Order of the Cross of Liberty, the Order of the White Rose of Finland and the Order of the Lion of Finland (Suomen Leijonan ritarikunta).

The President of Finland is the Grand Master of all three orders.

The orders are administered by boards consisting of a chancellor, a vice-chancellor and at least four members.

The orders of the White Rose of Finland and the Lion of Finland have a joint board.

The Order of the Lion of Finland was founded on September 11, 1942.

It was introduced in an effort to preserve the prestige of the Order of the White Rose of Finland, which could have been diminished if granted too frequently, and to facilitate the awarding of honours for various types of merit.

The Lion of Finland is awarded for civilian and military merit.

The ribbon for all classes of insignia is dark red.

The President of Finland wears the Star of the Order of the Lion of Finland.

Classes

The classes of the Order of the Lion of Finland are:

Commander Grand Cross of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Commander, First Class, of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Commander of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Pro Finlandia Medal of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Knight, First Class, of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Knight of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Cross of Merit of the Order of the Lion of Finland

[Livyjr]

Order of the Lion of Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Lion_of_Finland

There are three official orders in Finland: the Order of the Cross of Liberty, the Order of the White Rose of Finland and the Order of the Lion of Finland (Suomen Leijonan ritarikunta).

The President of Finland is the Grand Master of all three orders.

The Office of the President of the Republic of Finland

http://www.tpk.fi/eng/institution/order_of_the_lion.html

HISTORY - THE HISTORY OF THE ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD

The institution of knighthood stems from the holy orders that the Catholic Church established in the Middle Ages.

The word 'order' (from the Latin ordo) then meant a closed circle, the members of which were bound by certain obligations and swore to observe a set of rules.

During the crusades, the rules governing monastic orders were extended to the soldiers who, once in the Holy Land, established various religious-military orders to ensure the safety of pilgrims and the sick and to further the battle for Christianity.

Some of the most renowned medieval orders of knighthood were the Templars (1118->), the Hospitallers (1113->) and the Order of Teutonic Knights (1198->).

ORDERS OF MERIT

The institution of knighthood was transformed when the French bourgeoisie began to reward members of the Third Estate, first for distinguished service on the field of battle and later for civilian achievements.

Thus a new category of orders was created: orders of merit.

The first of them, the French Legion of Honour, was established in 1802 and got its system of rank in 1805.

The Legion of Honour is a mixed order, that is, it admits members for both military and civil achievements.

Orders exclusively for military achievement were soon founded alongside the mixed orders of merit.

The Finnish Order of the Cross of Liberty, established in 1918, is one such order.

There are also entirely civilian orders of merit, for instance those for distinction in the arts and sciences, orders conferred by royal courts and orders for women.

Orders of merit are no longer the exclusive right of the nobility or elite, and new classes of rank have been introduced: knight grand cross, commander and knight.

Modern orders of merit tend to have five classes: grand cross; grand officer or commander, first class; commander, officer or knight, first class; and knight or chevalier.

FINNISH ORDERS

There are three official orders in Finland: the Order of the Cross of Liberty, the Order of the White Rose of Finland and the Order of the Lion of Finland.

The President of Finland is the Grand Master of all three orders.

The orders are administered by boards consisting of a chancellor, a vice-chancellor and at least four members.

The orders of the White Rose of Finland and the Lion of Finland have a joint board.

[jeffmoskin]

Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower's 1969 (?) call for programs on the American Presidency for "students old and young," its founders included Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, a historian and Chancellor of Long Island University, who became the first President of the Center, and Arthur T. Roth, Board Vice Chair at Long Island University, who became the first Chairman of the Center's Board of Trustees.

By 1969, Dwight D. Eisenhower had been dead for eight years.

And you say this Organisation is about the study of HISTORY???

[Livyjr]

Order of the Lion of Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Lion_of_Finland

The Order of the Lion of Finland was founded on September 11, 1942.

Continuation War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Continuation War was fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II; from the Soviet bombing attacks on June 25, 1941, to cease-fire September 4, 1944 (on the Finnish side) and September 5 (on the Soviet side).

The United Kingdom declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941, but didn't participate actively.

Material support from, and military cooperation with, Nazi Germany was critical for Finland's struggle with its larger neighbour.

The war was formally concluded by the Paris peace treaty of 1947.

Relative strengths of Finnish, German and Soviet troops at the start of the Continuation War in June 1941.

The Continuation War (jatkosota in Finnish, fortsättningskriget in Swedish) is so named because the Finns view it as a continuation of the Winter War (November 30, 1939, to March 12, 1940).

Seen from a Russian perspective, it was merely one of the fronts of the Great Patriotic War.

The war was, however, considered separate from the World War by Finland and the Soviet Union – an understanding not quite appreciated by the political leadership in Nazi Germany, Finland's chief supporter.

Introduction

Although the Continuation War was fought in the periphery of World War II and the engaged troops were relatively few, the history of this war is intriguing as it challenges much of the conventional wisdom on the World War, and the popular theory that democratic countries don't wage war against each other.

Technically, war was declared.

In practice it was trivial.

There was no engagement between combatant troops.

During the conflict, Finland acted in concert with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union, which in turn was allied with Britain and, for most of the period, the United States.

Democratic Finland's association with Nazi Germany was, and remains, controversial in the European democracies threatened and occupied by the Nazis.

It was only as a last resort to protect herself from Soviet aggression.

Memories of the 1939 Winter War with the Soviets, and the inability of the Allies to support the Finns were the motivation for the alliance with Nazi Germany.

The issue was less controversial in Finland, and in hindsight a relatively broad Finnish consensus asserts that the Finns as a people would most likely not have survived the war without cooperating with Nazi Germany.

While conventional wisdom among Finns who grew up in the 1960s–70s depicted the Continuation War as a Finnish mistake, the Collapse of the Soviet Union led to access to Soviet sources revealing the Kremlin's firm determination to put all of Finland under Soviet rule.

The same people who in the 1970s were convinced of Finland's guilt for the Great Patriotic War nowadays assert that there was really nothing Finland could have done to avoid the Winter War and the Continuation War — at least not in the last years before the wars.

Major events of World War II, and the tides of war in general, had significant impact on the course of the Continuation War:

Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) is closely connected to the Continuation War's beginning.

The Allied invasion of France (Battle of Normandy) was coordinated with the Soviet major offensive against Finland (June 9–July 15, 1944), leading to a five week long alliance between democratic Finland and Nazi Germany (June 26 to August 4, 1944).

The subsequent US/Soviet race to Berlin brought about the end of the Continuation War by rendering Northern Europe irrelevant.

Aims of war

Finland's main goal during World War II was, although nowhere literally stated, to survive the war as an independent country, capable of maintaining its sovereignty in a politically hostile environment.

Specifically for the Continuation War, Finland aimed at reversing its territorial losses under the March 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty and by extending the territory further east, to guarantee the survival of the Finnic brethren in East-Karelia — thus in effect aiming at creating a Greater Finland, as advocated by vociferous right-wing groups.

Finland's exertion during the World War was, in the former respect, successful, although the price was high in war casualties, reparation payments, territorial loss, bruised international reputation and subsequent adaptation to Soviet international perspectives.

The Soviet Union's war goals are harder to assess due to the secretive nature of the Stalinist Soviet Union.

Intelligence, as interrogations of POWs, clearly indicated military control of all of Finland's territory as the immediate military goal in both the Winter War and the Continuation War.

This is congruent with a (postulated) Russian long-term strategic goal of securing ice-free harbours at the Atlantic and the North Sea.

The Soviet Union of the 1930s was however a militarily weak power, and it can be argued that all of her policies up to the Continuation War are best explained as defensive measures (however by offensive means): the sharing of Poland with Nazi Germany, the annexation of the Baltic states and the attempted invasion of Finland in the Winter War can all be seen as elements in the construction of a security zone between the perceived threat from the capitalist powers of Western Europe and the Communist Soviet Union – similar to the post-war establishment of Soviet satellite states in the Warsaw Pact countries and the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance concluded with post-war Finland.

Accordingly, after Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa, June 22, 1941), the Red Army's attack on Finland, harbouring not yet unleashed German forces, can be seen as a pre-emptive or preventive attack aiming to protect Russian civilians and troops: through control of Finland's territory, the threat against Leningrad (i.e. the old imperial capital Saint Petersburg) and the important harbour in Murmansk was to be fended off.

Background

Before World War II

Although East Karelia has never been part of Finland, a majority of its inhabitants were Finnic people; and cultural ties, trade, and cross-border marriages were common before World War I and Finnish independence.

Indicative of this is that the majority of poems in the Kalevala were collected from the backwaters of East Karelia where Swedish and Slavic influences have been lowest.

So it was no surprise that after the independence was declared, voices arose advocating the annexation of East Karelia in order to rescue its inhabitants from Bolshevist oppression.

Immediately after the Civil War in Finland a group of enthusiasts formed two military expeditions, Aunus and Viena expeditions, to drive the Bolshevist Russian army from East Karelia, but they were defeated and the expedition had to return Finland.

Thus in the Treaty of Tartu, the Petsamo region was incorporated into Finland instead of East Karelia.

The idea lived still in the Akateeminen Karjala-Seura (Academic Karelia Society, AKS), the most influential university student organization before World War II, where numerous contemporary and future political and economic figures participated, as members or alumni.

Official Finland raised the question of East Karelia several times in the League of Nations, demanding a similar referendum for the future of the region as had been arranged in Saarland, Silesia and Schleswig.

The Soviet Union countered these demands by forming the autonomous Republic of Karelia 1923.

In non-leftist circles, Imperial Germany's role in the "White" government's victory over rebellious Socialists during the Civil War in Finland was commemorated, although the majority of them preferred Britain or the Scandinavian countries over Germany.

The right extremist Lapua Movement was created to finally make an end to the communists, and it saw the contemporary brand of European democracy as too soft on Communism, and considered Fascist Italy as a model how left extremism should be eradicated.

The Lapua Movement lost its support base due to its illegal methods employed against moderate politicians, and it was banned in 1932 after a failed rebellion in Mäntsälä.

The right wing extremism continued to live in Isänmaallinen Kansanliike (Patriotic People's Movement, IKL) which had 14 seats out of the 200 representatives in the Finnish parliament.

After the Nazi Party took power in Germany, IKL became a strong supporter for an alliance with the "New Germany", which cracked down on all open Communist activity in Germany.

The security policy of independent Finland turned first towards a cordon sanitaire, where the newly independent nations of Poland, the Baltic Republics and Finland should form a defensive alliance against Russia, but, after negotiations collapsed, Finland turned to the League of Nations for security.

Contacts with the Scandinavian countries were also nurtured, but questions about the control of Ahvenanmaa (Åland) and minority languages in Finland and northern Scandinavia prevented success.

In 1932, Finland and Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact, but even contemporary analysts considered it worthless.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Winter War

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact clarified Soviet–German relations and enabled Soviet pressure against the small Baltic republics and Finland, allegedly in order for the Soviet Union to better her own strategic position in Eastern Europe in preparation for a possible widening of the war.

The Baltic republics soon gave in to Soviet demands of bases and troop transfer rights, but Finland continued to refuse.

As diplomatic pressure had failed, it came time to use arms, and on November 30, 1939, the Soviet Union began an invasion of Finland — the Winter War.

The Winter War produced in Finns a rude awakening to international politics.

The condemnations of the League of Nations and countries all over the world seemed to have no effect on Soviet policy.

Sweden allowed volunteers to join Finnish army, but did not send regular troops or its air force, and in the end did not allow Franco-British troop transfer through its region.

France and Britain promised to send combat troops, but when their plans were examined, only a small fraction of those were destined for Finland.

To the right wing extremists, it was a shock to notice that Nazi Germany did not help at all, but even blocked all material help from other countries as well.

The Moscow Peace Treaty, which ended the Winter War, was perceived as a great injustice.

It seemed as if the losses at the negotiation table, including Finland's second largest city, Viipuri (Vyborg), had been worse than on the battlefield.[1] ( http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd.htm )

A fifth of the country's industrial capacity had been lost.

Of the twelve percent of Finland's population who lived there, only a few hundred remained, the remaining 420,000 moving to the Finnish side of the border.

Also, eleven percent of Finnish agricultural soil was lost, the loss made more severe because it was the best Finland had.

After the Moscow Peace Treaty

The Moscow Peace Treaty, signed on March 12, 1940, was a veritable shock for the Finns.

It was perceived as the ultimate proof of failure for Finland's foreign policy of the 1930s, that was based on multilateral guarantees for support from culturally and ideologically akin countries, first in the world order established by the League of Nations, and later from the Oslo group and Scandinavia.

The immediate response was to broaden and intensify this policy.

Formal binding bilateral treaties were now sought where Finland formerly had relied on goodwill and national friendship, and the formerly frosty relations to ideological adversaries, as the Soviet Union and the Third Reich, had necessarily to be eased.

Closer and improved relations were sought particularly with:

Sweden and Norway
the United Kingdom
the Soviet Union
the Third Reich

With exception for the case of Nazi Germany, all of these attempts turned out to meet critical obstacles — either due to Moscow's fear that Finland would slide out of the Soviet sphere of influence or due to general dynamics of the world war.

Interim peace

Public opinion in Finland longed for the re-acquisition of the homes of the 12% of Finland's population who had been forced to leave Finnish Karelia in haste, and put their hope to the peace conference that was generally assumed to come to follow the World War.

The term Välirauha ("Interim peace") hence became popular at once after the harsh peace was announced.

To protest the Moscow Peace Treaty, two ministers resigned and Prime Minister Ryti was forced to form a new cabinet right away.

To achieve better national consensus, all parties except the right extremist IKL participated in the cabinet.

The most difficult post to fill was that of Foreign Minister, for which Ryti and Mannerheim first thought of Finland's ambassador to London G. A. Gripenberg, but as he believed himself to be too unpopular in Berlin, Rolf Witting, who was less British-oriented and more suitable to achieve improved relations with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, was selected.

Attempted Nordic Defence Alliance

During the last days of war, Väinö Tanner and Per Albin Hansson had mentioned the possibility of a Nordic Defence Alliance, possibly including also Norway and Denmark, to stabilize the situation in the region.

On March 15, this plan was published for discussion in the parliaments.

However, on March 29 the Soviet Union declared that an alliance would be in breach of the Moscow Peace Treaty, stalling the plan, and Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway killed even the option of a smaller Scandinavian Defence Alliance, that would benefit Finland also if she wasn't a party to it.

Re-armaments

Although the peace treaty was signed, the state of war was not revoked because of the widening world war, the difficult food supply situation, and the poor shape of the Finnish military.

Censorship was not abolished but was used to suppress critics of the Moscow peace treaty and the most blatantly anti-Soviet comments.

The continued state of war made it possible for President Kyösti Kallio to ask Field Marshal Mannerheim to remain commander-in-chief and supervise the reorganization of Finland's Armed Forces and the fortification of the new border, a task that was critically important in the unruly times.

Within a week after the peace treaty was signed, the fortification works were started along the 1200 km long Salpalinja ("the Bolt Line"), where the focus was between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Saimaa.

During the summer and autumn, Finland received material purchased and donated during and immediately after the Winter War, but it took several months before Mannerheim was able to present a somewhat positive assessment of the state of the army.

Military expenditures rose in 1940 to 45% of Finland's state budget.

Military purchases were prioritised over civilian needs.

Mannerheim's position and the continued state of war enabled an efficient management of the military, but it created an unfortunate parallel government that from time to time clashed with the structures of civilian government.

March 13, the same day when Moscow Peace Treaty came into an effect, British Ministry of Economic Warfare (MEW) asked Foreign Office to start negotiations with Finland as soon as possible to secure positive relations to Finland.

Undersecretary of MEW, Charles Hambro was authorized to form the war trade treaty with Finland, and he traveled to Helsinki April 7.

He had already had exchanged letters with Ryti, and they reached quickly to the basic understanding of the contents of the treaty.

Finns were eager to start trade, and from the first meeting the preliminary treaty was created, which Finns accepted immediately, but Hambro needed the approval of his superiors and that it would be considered official immediately until the final treaty was negotiated.

In the treaty Finland gave control of her strategic material exports to Britain in exchange of armaments and other necessary materials.

Next day, German attack to Norway made the treaty obsolete as England canceled all trade to the region.

Denmark and Norway occupied

After Nazi Germany's assault on Scandinavia on April 9, 1940, Operation Weserübung, Finland was physically isolated from her traditional trade markets in the West.

Sea routes to and from Finland were now controlled by the Kriegsmarine.

The outlet of the Baltic sea was blockaded, and in the far north Finland's route to the world was an arctic dirt road from Rovaniemi to the ice-free harbour of Petsamo, from where the ships had to pass a long stretch of German-occupied Norwegian coast by the Arctic Ocean.

Finland, like Sweden, was spared occupation but encircled by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.

Especially damaging was the loss of fertilizer imports, that, together with the loss of arable land ceded in the Moscow Peace, the loss of cattle during the hasty evacuation after the Winter War, and the unfavourable weather in the summer of 1940, resulted in a drastic fall of foodstuff production to less than two thirds of what was Finland's estimated need.

Some of the deficit could be purchased from Sweden and some from the Soviet Union, although delayed deliverances were then a means to exert pressure on Finland.

In this situation, Finland had no alternative than to turn to Germany for help.

Finland seeks German rapprochement

Germany has traditionally been a counterweight to Russia in Baltic region, and despite the fact that Hitler's Third Reich had acquiesced with the invader, Finland perceived some value in also seeking warmer relations in that direction.

After the German occupation of Norway, and particularly after the Allied evacuation from northern Norway, the relative importance of a German rapprochement increased.

Finland had queried about the possibility of buying arms from Germany on May 9, but Germany refused to even discuss the matter.

From May 1940, Finland pursued a campaign to re-establish the good relations with Germany that had soured in the last year of the 1930's.

Finland rested her hope in the fragility of the Nazi–Soviet bond, and in the many personal friendships between Finnish and German athletes, scientists, industrialists, and military officers.

A part of that policy was accrediting the energetic Toivo Mikael Kivimäki as ambassador in Berlin in June 1940.

The Finnish mass media not only refrained from criticism of Nazi Germany, but also took active part in this campaign.

Dissent was censored.

Seen from Berlin, this looked like a refreshing contrast to the annoyingly anti-Nazi press in Sweden.

After the fall of France, in late June, the Finnish ambassador in Stockholm heard from the diplomatic sources that Britain could soon be forced to negotiate peace with Germany.

The experience from World War I emphasized the importance of close and friendly relations with the victors, and accordingly the courting of Nazi Germany was stepped up still further.

The first crack in the German coldness vis-à-vis Finland was registered in late July, when Ludwig Weissauer, a secret representative of the German Foreign Minister, visited Finland and queried Mannerheim and Ryti about Finland's willingness to defend the country against the Soviet Union.

Mannerheim estimated the Finnish army could last a few weeks without more arms.

Weissauer left without any promises.

Continued Soviet pressure

The implementation of the Moscow Peace Treaty created problems due to the Soviet Vae Victis-mentality.

Border arrangements in the Enso industrial area, which even Soviet members of the border commission considered to be on the Finnish side of the border, the forced return of evacuated machinery, locomotives, and rail cars; and inflexibility on questions which could have eased hardships created by the new border, such as fishing rights and the usage of Saimaa Canal merely served to heighten distrust about the objectives of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet attitude was personified in the new ambassador to Helsinki, Ivan Zotov.

He behaved undiplomatically and had a stiff-necked drive to advance Soviet interests, real or imagined, in Finland.

During the summer and autumn he recommended several times in his reports to the Soviet Foreign Office that Finland ought to be finished off and wholly annexed by the Soviet Union.

On June 23, the Soviet Union proposed that Finland should revoke Petsamo mining rights from the British–Canadian company and transfer them to the Soviet Union, and also grant the Soviet Union rights to handle security in the area.

On June 27, Moscow demanded either demilitarization or a joint fortification effort in Åland.

After Sweden had signed the troop transfer agreement with Germany on July 8, Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov demanded similar rights for a Soviet troop transit to Hanko on July 9.

The transfer rights were given on September 6, and demilitarization of Åland was agreed on October 11, but negotiations on Petsamo continued to drag on, with Finnish negotiators stalling as much as possible.

The Communist Party was so discredited in the Winter War that it never managed to recuperate between the wars.

Instead, on May 22, the "Peace and Friendship Society of Finland and Soviet Union" (SNS) was created, and it actively propagated Soviet viewpoints.

Ambassador Zotov had very close contacts with the SNS by holding weekly meetings with the SNS leadership in the Soviet embassy and having Soviet diplomats participating in SNS board meetings.

The SNS started by criticizing the government and military, and gained around 35,000 members at maximum.

Emboldened by its success, it started organizing almost daily violent demonstrations during the first half of August which were supported politically by Zotov and a press campaign in Leningrad.

The government reacted forcefully and arrested leading members of the society which ended the demonstrations in spite of Zotov's and Molotov's protests.

The SNS was finally outlawed in December 1940.

The Soviet Union demanded that Väinö Tanner be discharged from the cabinet because of his anti-Soviet stance and he had to resign August 15.

Ambassador Zotov further demanded the resignation of both the Minister of Social Affairs Karl-August Fagerholm because he had called the SNS a Fifth column in a public speech, and the Minister of Interior Affairs Ernst von Born, who was responsible for police and led the crackdown of the SNS, but they retained their places in the cabinet after Ryti delivered a radio speech in which he stated the willingness of his government to improve relations between Finland and the Soviet Union.

President Kallio suffered a stroke on August 28, after which he was unable to work, but when he presented his resignation November 27, the Soviet Union reacted by announcing that if Mannerheim, Tanner, Kivimäki, Svinhufvud or someone of their ilk were chosen president, it would be considered a breach of the Moscow peace treaty.

All of this reminded the public heavily of how the Baltic Republics had been occupied and annexed only a few months earlier.

So it was no wonder that the average Finn feared that the Winter War had produced only a short delay of the same fate.

British disregard

Compared to the early spring, during the summer of 1940, Finland wasn't high in importance in British foreign policy.

To gain support from the Soviet Union, Britain had appointed Sir Stafford Cripps, from the left wing of the Labour Party, ambassador to Moscow.

He had openly supported the Terijoki Government during the Winter War and he wondered to ambassador Paasikivi 'didn't the Finns really want to follow Baltic Republics and join the Soviet Union?'.

He also dismissively called president Kallio "Kulak" and Nordic social democracy "reactionary".

The British Foreign Office had to apologize for his language to ambassador Gripenberg.

Britain opposed Finnish-Swedish cooperation and provided support for the Soviet Union to scuttle the initiative, until it became apparent in late March 1941 that it had driven Finland in the direction of the Germans, but by then it was already too late.

Finnish foreign trade was another critical issue as it was dependent on British navycerts and the Ministry of Economic Warfare was extremely strict when issuing those so that even Finnish trade (and relations) with the Soviet Union suffered from it.

During the nickel negotiations the Foreign Office pressured the license owning British-Canadian company to "temporarily" release the license and offered diplomatic support to Soviet attempts to gain control of the mine with the precondition that no ore would be shipped to Germany.

Improved relations with Nazi Germany

Unbeknownst to Finland, Adolf Hitler had started to plan his forthcoming invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) now when France had collapsed.

He had not been interested in Finland before the Winter War, but now he saw the value of Finland as an operating base, and perhaps also the military value of the Finnish army.

In the first weeks of August, German fears of a likely immediate Russian attack on Finland caused Hitler to free the arms embargo.

The arms deliveries stopped under the Winter War were resumed.

The next visitor from Germany came on August 18, when a representative of Hermann Göring, arms dealer Joseph Veltjens, arrived.

He negotiated with Ryti and Mannerheim about German troop transfer rights between Finnmark in Northern Norway and ports of Gulf of Bothnia in exchange for arms and other material.

At first these arms shipments were transferred via Sweden, but later they came directly to Finland.

For the Third Reich, this was a breach of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as well as it for Finland was a material breach of the Moscow Peace Treaty that in fact was chiefly targeted against cooperation between Germany and Finland.

It has in retrospect been disputed whether the ailing President Kallio was informed.[2] ( http://www.mannerheim.fi/10_ylip/e_kkulku.htm )

Possibly Kallio's health collapsed before he could be confidentially briefed.

From the campaign to ease the Third Reich's coldness towards Finland, it seemed a natural development to also promote closer relations and cooperation.

Not the least since the much disliked Moscow Peace Treaty in clear language tried to persuade the Finns not to do exactly that.

Propaganda in the censured press contributed to Finland's international re-orientation — although with very measured means.

Soviet negotiators had insisted that the troop transfer agreement (to Hanko) should not be published for parliamentary discussion or voting.

This precedent made it easy for the Finnish government to keep a troop transfer agreement with the Germans secret until the first German troops arrived at the port of Vaasa on September 21.

The arrival of German troops produced much relief to the insecurity of average Finns, and was largely approved.

Most contrary voices opposed more the way the agreement was negotiated than the transfer itself, although the Finnish people knew only the barest details of the agreements with the Third Reich.

The presence of German troops was seen as a deterrent for further Soviet threats and a counterbalance to the Soviet troop transfer right.

The German troop transfer agreement was augmented November 21 allowing the transfer of wounded, and soldiers on leave, via Turku.

Germans arrived and established quarters, depots, and bases along the rail lines from Vaasa and Oulu to Ylitornio and Rovaniemi, and from there along the roads via Karesuvanto and Kilpisjärvi or Ivalo and Petsamo to Skibotten and Kirkenes in northern Norway.

Also roadwork for improving winter road between Karesuvanto and Skibotten and totally new road from Ivalo to Karasjok were discussed and later financed by Germans.

Ryti, Mannerheim, Minister of Defence Walden and chief of staff Heinrichs decided October 23 that information concerning Finnish defence plans of Lappland could be given to the Wehrmacht to gain goodwill, even with the risk that they could be forwarded to the Soviet Union.

When Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov visited Berlin on November 12, he demanded that Germany stop supporting Finland, and the right to handle Finland in a similar way to Baltic states, but Hitler demanded that there should be no new military activities in Northern Europe before summer.

Through unofficial channels, Finnish representatives were informed that "Finnish leaders can sleep peacefully, Hitler has opened his umbrella over Finland."

Attempted Defence Union with Sweden

On August 19, a new initiative was launched for co-operation between Sweden and Finland.

It called for a union of the two states in exchange for a Finnish declaration of satisfaction with the current borders.

The plans were primarily championed by the Swedish Foreign Minister, Christian Günther, and Conservative party leader Gösta Bagge, Education Minister in Stockholm.

They had to counter increasing anti-Swedish opinions in Finland; and in Sweden, Liberal and Socialist suspicions against what was seen as right-wing dominance in Finland.

One of the chief objectives of the plan was to ensure greatest possible liberty for Sweden and Finland in a presumed post-war Europa totally dominated by Nazi Germany.

In Sweden, political opponents criticized the necessary adaptations to the Nazis; in Finland, the resistance centred on the loss of sovereignty and influence — and the acceptance of the loss of Finnish Karelia.

However, the general feeling of Finland's dire and deteriorating position quieted many critics.

The official request for a union was made by Christian Günther on October 18, and Finland's approval was received on October 25, but by November 5, the Soviet ambassador in Stockholm, Alexandra Kollontai, warned Sweden about the treaty.

The Swedish government retreated from the issue but discussions for a more acceptable treaty continued until December when, on December 6, the Soviet Union and, on December 19, Germany announced their strong opposition to any kind of union between Sweden and Finland.

Road to War

At the autumn of 1940, Finnish generals visited Germany and occupied Europe several times to purchase additional material, guns and munition.

Mannerheim even wrote a personal letter January 7, 1941 to Göring where he tried to persuade him to release Finnish purchased artillery pieces Germany had captured in Norwegian harbours during Weserübung.

During one of these visits, Maj. Gen. Paavo Talvela met with Chief of Staff of OKH, Col. Gen Franz Halder and Göring January 15-18, 1941, and was asked about Finnish plans to defend itself in case of new Soviet invasion.

The Germans also inquired about the possibility of someone from Finland coming and giving a presentation about the experiences of the Winter War.

After the resignation of president Kallio, Risto Ryti was elected by parliament as the new president of Finland December 19.

Johan Wilhelm Rangell formed a new government January 4, and this time the fascist IKL party was included in the cabinet as an act of goodwill toward Nazi Germany.

Petsamo Crisis

The negotiations about Petsamo nickel mining rights had dragged on for six months when the Soviet Foreign Ministry announced January 14 that the negotiations had to be concluded quickly.

The Soviet Union had demanded 75% ownership to the mine and to a nearby power plant together with the right to handle security in the area.

On the same day, the Soviet Union interrupted grain deliveries to Finland.

Soviet ambassador Zotov was recalled home January 18 and Soviet radio broadcasts started attacking Finland.

January 21 Soviet Foreign Ministry issued an ultimatum demanding that nickel negotiations be concluded in two days.

When Finnish military intelligence spotted troop movements on the Soviet side of the border, Mannerheim proposed January 23 a partial mobilization, but Ryti and Rangell didn't accept.

Ambassador Kivimäki reported January 24, that Germany was conscripting new age classes, and it was unlikely that they were needed against Britain.

Finnish Chief of Staff Lt.Gen. Heinrichs visited Berlin January 30-February 3, officially giving a lecture about Finnish experiences in the Winter War, but also including discussions with Halder.

During the discussions Halder "speculated" about a possible German assault on the Soviet Union and Heinrichs informed him about Finnish mobilization limits and defence plans with and without German or Swedish participation.

Col. Buschenhagen had reported from northern Norway February 1 that the Soviet Union had collected 500 fishing ships in Murmansk, capable of transporting a division.

Hitler ordered troops in Norway to occupy Petsamo (Operation Renntier) immediately if the Soviet Union started attacking Finland.

Mannerheim submitted his letter of resignation February 10 claiming that the continuing appeasement made it impossible to defend the country against an invader.

He took his resignation back the next day after discussions with Ryti and after stricter instructions were sent to negotiators: 49% of mining rights to the Soviet Union, the power plant to a separate Finnish company, reservation of the highest management positions for Finns and no further Soviet agitation against Finland.

Soviet Union rejected those terms on February 18, thus ending nickel negotiations.

Diplomatic Activities

After Heinrichs' visit and the end of the nickel negotiations, the diplomatic activities were halted for a few months.

The most significant activities of that time was the visit of col. Buschenhagen in Helsinki and Northern Finland February 18-March 3 when he familiarized himself with the terrain and climate of Lappland.

He also had discussions with Mannerheim, Heinrichs, Major General Airo and chief of operational office Colonel Tapola.

Both parties were careful to point out the speculative nature of these discussions, although later these speculations became the basis of formal agreements.

Already in December 1940 leaders of Germany's Waffen-SS had demanded that Finland should "with deeds" show its orientation towards Germany.

It was clear that it meant enlistment of Finnish troops to the SS.

The official contact was made March 1, and in the following negotiations Finns tried in vain to transform the troops from SS to Wehrmacht in commemoration of the WWI-era Finnish Jäger Battalion.

Ryti and Mannerheim considered the battalion necessary to reinforce German support of Finland, thence the nickname "Panttipataljoona" ("Pawn battalion"), and the negotiations were concluded at April 28 with the Finnish conditions that Government, Civil Guards or Armed Forces would not participate in enlistment and that all military personnel wishing to parcipate must first take their leave of the Finnish army.

These conditions were designed to limit Finnish commitment to Nazi Germany.

The enlistment was carried out in May and in June they were transferred to Germany where a Finnish SS battalion was founded June 18.

Foreign minister Witting informed Sweden, where similar activities were also conducted, already on March 23 about possible enlistment.

The British ambassador to Helsinki, Gordon Vereker, notified the Finnish Foreign Ministry May 16 on the issue, demanding the end of enlistment.

Relations between Sweden and Germany strained in March, and Sweden mobilized March 15 80,000 more men and moved military units to the southern coast and western border making it even more likely that Sweden couldn't support Finland if war broke out.

This also affected Swedish-Finnish co-operation as the Finnish interest for intelligence exchange diminished considerably during April.

Race issues were sources of particular concern: the Finns were not viewed favourably by the Nazi race theorists.

By active participation on Germany's side, Finnish leaders hoped for a more independent position in post-war Europe, through the removal of the Soviet threat and the incorporation of the related Finnic peoples of neighbouring Soviet areas, especially Karelia.

This view gained increasing popularity in the Finnish leadership, and also in the press, during the spring of 1941.

From February to April Germany prepared Barbarossa in secret, and apart from the above contacts no operational or political discussions were concluded during this time.

Instead they published disinformation, such as claims that the German troop buildup in the East was merely a ruse ahead of a planned invasion of Britain (such a plan had been considered under the codename Operation Seawolf) or safe training locations from British bombers, to hide their real intentions.

When Germany invaded Yugoslavia and Greece beginning on April 6, suspicion of German intentions increased in Finland, though uncertainty still prevailed as to whether Hitler really intended to attack the Soviet Union before the Battle of Britain was concluded.

However, the Finns had in the past bitterly learned how a small country can be used as small change in the deals of great powers, and in such a case Finland could have been used as a token of reconciliation between Hitler and Stalin, something which the Finns had every reason to fear, which is why the relations with Berlin were considered of the utmost priority for the future of Finland, especially so if the war between Germany and Soviet Union failed to materialize.

Once again the German Foreign Ministry sent Ludwig Weissauer to Finland May 5, this time to clarify that war between Germany and the Soviet Union would not be launched before spring 1942.

Ryti and Witting believed that at least officially, and forwarded the message to Swedish Foreign Minister Günther, who was visiting Finland May 6-May 9.

Witting also sent the information to Finnish ambassador to London Gripenberg.

When the war broke out only a couple of weeks later, it was understandable that both the Swedish and British governments felt that the Finns had lied to them.

Part of that disinformation campaign was a request to ambassador Kivimäki that Finland should offer proposals for a new borderline Germans could pressure the Soviets to accept in negotiations.

On May 30, 1941 General Airo produced five alternate border drafts for delivery to the Germans, who should then propose the best they felt they could bargain from the Soviet Union.

In reality, the Germans had no such intentions, but the exercise served to fuel the support among leading Finns for taking part in Operation Barbarossa.

Operations like Barbarossa don't begin without some advance notice, and the worsening of Soviet-German relations which began with the meeting in Berlin November 12 was seen around from the end of March 1941.

Stalin tried to improve relations toward the Third Reich by taking the leadership of the Soviet government May 6 and backed off from unimportant issues and fulfilled all trade deals even as German deliveries were late.

Part of that policy was also improving relations with Finland.

A new ambassador, Pavel Orlov, was named to Helsinki April 23 and a gift of a trainload of wheat was presented to J. K. Paasikivi when he retired from Moscow.

The Soviet Union also renounced opposition to a Swedish-Finnish defence alliance, but Swedish disinterest and German opposition to that kind of alliance rendered that change moot.

Also Soviet radio propaganda against Finland ceased.

Orlov acted very conciliatory and soothed many feelings which had been raised by his predecessor, but as he failed to solve any critical issues like the disagreement over petsamo nickel or to restart grain imports from Soviet Union, his line was seen only as a new facade to old policy.

British ambassador Vereker saw Finland moving towards Germany, and due to his reports British Foreign office had requested easing Finnish trade regulations in Petsamo March 30.

At April 28 Vereker reported that the British government should pressure the Soviet Union to return Hanko or Vyborg to Finland as he saw it as the only possible way to secure Finnish neutrality in the case of German-Soviet war.

The Petsamo crisis had disillusioned Finnish politicians, especially Ryti and Mannerheim, creating the impression that peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union was impossible, and that Finland would survive in peace only if the Soviet Union was defeated, as Ryti presented it to US ambassador Arthur Schoenfeld on April 28.

The effect of this general feeling was that voices advocating closer ties with Germany grew stronger and the voices advocating armed neutrality within Finland's new borders (some among the Social Democrats, and some of the more left-leaning in the Swedish People's Party) softened.

Contacts with Sweden's Conservative Foreign Minister Günther showed an enthusiasm unusual for the Swedes for the anticipated "Crusade against Bolshevism".

After the successful occupation of Yugoslavia and Greece by the spring of 1941, the German army's standing was at its zenith, and its victory in the war seemed more than likely.

The envoy of the German Foreign Ministry, Karl Schnurre, visited Finland May 20-24, and invited one or more staff officers to negotiations in Salzburg.

Cooperation with Germany

A group of staff officers led by gen. Heinrichs left Finland on May 24 and participated in discussions with OKW in Salzburg on May 25 where the Germans informed them about the northern part of Operation Barbarossa.

The Germans also presented their interest in using Finnish territory to attack from Petsamo to Murmansk and from Salla to Kandalaksha.

Heinrichs presented Finnish interest in Eastern Karelia, but Germany recommended a passive stance.

The negotiations continued the next day in Berlin with OKH, and contrary to the negotiations of the previous day, Germany wanted Finland to form a strong attack formation ready to strike on the eastern or western side of Lake Ladoga.

The Finns promised to examine the proposal, but notified the Germans that they were only able to arrange supply to the Olonets-Petrozavodsk-line.

The issue of mobilization was also discussed.

It was decided that the Germans would send signal officers to enable confidential messaging to Mannerheim's headquarters in Mikkeli.

Naval issues were discussed, mainly for securing sea lines over the Baltic Sea, but also possible usage of the Finnish navy in the upcoming war.

During these negotiations the Finns presented a number of material requests ranging from grain and fuel to airplanes and radio equipment.

Heinrichs' group returned on May 28 and reported their discussions to Mannerheim, Walden and Ryti.

And on May 30 Ryti, Witting, Walden, Kivimäki, Mannerheim, Heinrichs, Talvela and Aaro Pakaslahti from Foreign Ministry had a meeting where they accepted the results of those negotiations with a list of some prerequisites: a guarantee of Finnish independence, the pre-Winter War borders (or better), continuing grain deliveries, and that Finnish troops would not cross the border before a Soviet incursion.

The next round of negotiations occurred in Helsinki on June 3-June 6 regarding some practical details.

During these negotiations it was decided that Germany would be responsible for the area north of Oulu.

This area was easily given to them because it was sparsely inhabited and non-critical to the defence of the more important southern provinces.

The Finns also agreed to give two divisions to the Germans in northern Finland (30 000 men) and to the usage of airfields in Helsinki and Kemijärvi (Because of the number of German aircraft, airfields at Kemi and Rovaniemi were added later).

Finland also warned Germany that an attempt to establish a Quisling government would cut co-operation and that they considered it very important that Finland not be the aggressor and that no invasion should be launched from Finnish soil.

The negotiations for naval operations continued on June 6 in Kiel.

It was agreed that the Kriegsmarine would close the Gulf of Finland with mines as soon as the war began.

The arrival of German troops participating in Operation Barbarossa began on June 7 in Petsamo, where SS Division Nord started southwards, and on June 8 in the ports of the Gulf of Bothnia where the German 169th Infantry Division was transported by rail to Rovaniemi, where both of these turned eastward on June 18.

Britain cancelled all naval traffic to Petsamo June 14 in protest of these moves.

Starting from June 14 a number of German minelayers and supporting MTBs arrived in Finland, some on an official naval visit, others hiding in the southern archipelago.

Finnish parliament was informed for the first time on June 9, when first mobilization orders were issued for troops needed to safeguard the following mobilization phases, like anti-air and border guard units.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs complained that parliament was bypassed when deciding on these issues, and protesting that Parliament should be trusted with sensitive information, but no other actions were taken.

Swedish ambassador Karl-Ivan Westman wrote that the Soviet-minded "Sextuples", the far-left Social Democrats, were the reason that parliament couldn't be trusted in foreign policy questions.

When Soviet news agency TASS reported on June 13 that no negotiations were ongoing between Germany and the Soviet Union, Ryti and Mannerheim decided to delay mobilization as no guarantees had been received from Germany.

General Waldemar Erfurt, who has been nominated as liaison officer to Finland on June 11, reported to OKW June 14, that Finland wouldn't finalize mobilization unless the prerequisites were granted.

Although the Finns continued on the same day (June 14) with the second phase of mobilization, this time the mobilizing forces were located in northern Finland and later operated under German command.

Field Marshall Keitel send a message on June 15 stating that the Finnish prerequisites were accepted, and the general mobilization started on June 17, two days later than scheduled.

An airfield in Utti was evacuated by Finnish planes on June 18 and the Germans were allowed to use it for refueling from June 19.

German reconnaissance planes were stationed at Tikkakoski, near Jyväskylä, on June 20.

On June 20 Finland's government ordered 45,000 people at the Soviet border to be evacuated.

On June 21 Finland's chief of the General Staff, Erik Heinrichs, was finally informed by his German counterpart that the attack was to begin.

To the Opening of Hostilities

Operation Barbarossa had already commenced in the northern Baltic by the late hours of June 21, when German minelayers, which had been hiding in the Finnish archipelago, laid down two large minefields across the Gulf of Finland, one at the mouth of the gulf and a second in the middle of the Gulf.

These minefields ultimately proved sufficient to confine the Soviets' Baltic fleet to the easternmost part of the Gulf of Finland until the end of the Continuation War.

Three Finnish submarines participated in the mining operation by laying 9 small fields between Suursaari Island and the Estonian coast.

Later the same night German bombers, flying from East Prussian airfields, flew along the Gulf of Finland to Leningrad and mined the harbour and the river Neva.

Finnish air defence noticed that one group of these bombers, most likely the ones responsible for mining the river Neva, flew over southern Finland.

On the return trip, these bombers refuelled in Utti airfield before returning to East Prussia.

Finland feared that the Soviet Union would occupy Åland as soon as possible and use it to close naval routes from Finland to Sweden and Germany (together with Hanko base), so Operation Kilpapurjehdus (Sail Race) was launched in the early hours of June 22 to occupy Åland.

Soviet bombers launched attacks against Finnish ships during the operation but no damage was inflicted.

Individual Soviet artillery batteries started to shoot at Finnish positions from Hanko early in the morning, so the Finnish commander sought permission to return fire, but before the permission was granted, the Soviet artillery had stopped shooting.

On the morning of June 22, the German Gebirgskorps Norwegen started Operation Renntier and began its move from Northern Norway to Petsamo.

The German ambassador initiated urgent negotiations with Sweden for transfer of the German 163rd Infantry Division from Norway to Finland using Swedish rail.

Sweden agreed to this on June 24.

On the morning of June 22, both the Soviet Union and Finland declared that each would be neutral in respect of the other in the war that was now underway.

This precipitated unease in the Nazi leadership, which tried to provoke a response from the Soviet Union by using both the Finnish archipelago as a base, and Finnish airfields for refueling.

Hitler's public statement worked in the same direction; Hitler declared that Germany would attack the Bolshevists "(...) in the North in alliance ["im Bunde"] with the Finnish freedom heroes".

This was in flat contradiction of the statement made to parliament by British Foreign Secretary Eden on June 24 affirming Finnish neutrality.

Finland did not allow direct German attacks from its soil to the Soviet Union, so German forces in Petsamo and Salla had to hold their fire.

Air attacks were also prohibited, and very bad weather in northern Finland helped to keep the Germans from flying.

Only one attack from Southern Finland against the White Sea Canal was approved, but even that had to be cancelled due to bad weather.

There were occasional individual and group level small arms shooting between Soviet and Finnish border guards, but otherwise the front was quiet.

To keep a close eye on their opponents, both parties - and also the Germans - performed active air reconnaissances over the border, but no air fights ensued.

After three days, early on the morning of June 25, the Soviet Union made its move and unleashed a major air offensive against 18 cities with 460 planes, mainly striking airfields but seriously damaging civilian targets as well.

The worst damage was done in Turku, where the airfield become inoperable for a week, but among civilian targets, the Medieval Turku Castle was also destroyed.

(After the war the castle was repaired, but the work took three decades and was not completed until 1977.)

Heavy damage to civilian targets was also sustained in Kotka and Heinola.

However, civilian casualties of this attack were relatively limited.

The Soviet Union justified the attack as being directed against German targets in Finland, but even the British embassy had to admit that the heaviest hits had been taken by southern Finland, and airfields where there were no Germans.

Only two targets had German forces present at the time of attack: Rovaniemi and Petsamo.

Once again Foreign Minister Eden had to admit to parliament on June 26 that the Soviet Union had initiated the war.

A meeting of parliament was scheduled for June 25 when Prime Minister Rangell had been due to present a notice about Finland's neutrality in the Soviet-German war, but the Soviet bombings led him to instead observe that Finland was once again at war with the Soviet Union.

The Continuation War had begun.

Conclusion

What began for the Finns as a defensive strategy, designed to provide a German counterweight to Soviet pressure, ended as an offensive strategy, aimed at re-conquest of the formerly Finnish Karelia and an invasion of East Karelia in the Soviet Union.

The Finns had been lured by the prospects of regaining their lost territories and ridding themselves of the Soviet threat into becoming a party to Nazi Germany's planned invasion of the USSR.

Finnish Offensive 1941

Mobilized units started moving towards the border on June 21, and they were arranged into defensive formations as soon as they arrived at the border.

Finland was able to mobilize 16 infantry divisions, one cavalry brigade, and two "Jäger" brigades, which were practically normal infantry brigades, except for one battalion in the 1st Jaeger Brigade (1.JPr), which was armored using captured Soviet equipment.

There were also a handful of separate battalions, mainly formed from Border Guard units and used mainly for reconnaissance.

Soviet military plans has estimated that the Finns would be able to mobilize only 10 infantry divisions, as they had done in the Winter War, but they failed to take into account materiel the Finns had purchased between the wars and the training of all available men.

In northern Finland there were also two German Mountain Divisions at Petsamo and two German Infantry divisions at Salla.

Another German infantry division was en route through Sweden to Ladoga Karelia, although one reinforced regiment was later redirected from it to Salla.

When the war started, the Soviet Union had 23rd Army in Karelian Isthmus consisting of 50th and 19th Corps and 10th Mechanized Corps, together 5 Infantry, 1 Motorized and 2 Armored divisions.

At Ladoga Karelia there was 7th Army consisting of 4 Infantry divisions.

In Murmansk-Salla region the Soviet Union had 14th Army with 42nd Corps, consisting of 5 Infantry divisions (1 as reserve in Archangelsk) and 1 Armored division.

Also the Soviets had around 40 battalions, separate regiments and fortification units which were not part of their divisional structure.

In Leningrad there were 3 Infantry divisions and one Mechanized Corps.

The initial German strike against the Soviet Air Force had not touched air units located near Finland, so the Soviets could field nearly 750 Air Force planes and part of the 700 planes the Soviet Navy had against 300 Finnish planes.

The Soviet war against Germany did not go as well as pre-war Soviet wargames had envisioned, and soon Soviet high command had to take units from wherever they could, so although Soviets had started the war against Finland, they could not follow the initial air offensive with a supporting land offensive.

They also had to withdraw the 10th Mechanized Corps with two armored divisions and 237th Infantry division from Ladoga Karelia thus stripping reserves from defending units.

Reconquest of Ladoga Karelia

Initially the Finnish army was deployed in a defensive formation, but on June 29 Mannerheim created the Army of Karelia, commanded by Lt. Gen. Heinrichs, and ordered it to prepare to attack Ladoga Karelia.

The Army of Karelia consisted of VI Corps (5th and 11th Divisions), VII Corps (7th and 9th divisions) and Group O (Cavalry Brigade, 1st Jaeger Brigade and 2nd Jaeger Brigade).

Also later when 1. division and two regiments of German 163. division arrived to the area they were given to the Army of Karelia.

Opposing them were the Soviet 7th Army with 168th Division near Sortavala and 71st Division north of Jänisjärvi ("Hare Lake").

Soviets had prepared field fortifications along the border across Sortavala and to the important road crossings at Värtsilä and Korpiselkä.

On July 9, the order for offensive was given.

The duty to break through the Soviet defences was given to VI Corps, commanded by hero of Battle of Tolvajärvi, Maj. Gen. Paavo Talvela.

He had borrowed as much artillery as possible from other units of the Army of Karelia and even 1st Jaeger Brigade (Col. Ruben Lagus) from Group O.

With strong artillery support he unleashed 5th Division (Col. Koskimies) to Korpiselkä July 10 and the defenders were overwhelmed by next morning.

Talvela wasn't satisfied with aggressiveness of Koskimies, and he relieved him from the command and gave 5th Division to Col. Lagus.

Lagus pursued retreating Soviet IR 52 eastward with his light units and reached Tolvajärvi July 12.

Then he turned southwards and advanced using small roads, some in such worse shape that men had to carry their bicycles.

On July 14 his forces cut Sortavala-Petrozavodsk railroad, and next day they reached shores of Lake Ladoga, cutting Soviet routes around the lake.

Soviets had to transfer two regiments and separate battalions from Karelian Isthmus to close down the hole on the eastern side of Lake Ladoga.

The 11th division (Col. Heiskanen) had already July 4 found that Soviet forces had temporarily abandoned their trenches across the border, and they used the opportunity to capture them.

When the general offensive began, they had already pushed July 9 eastward from their captured positions over the roadless terrain and cut the road running from Korpiselkä to Värtsilä and Suistamo, on the eastern shore of Jänisjärvi.

From there they threatened to encircle Soviet forces south of Korpiselkä and those fortified in Värtsilä, so to prevent encirclement, they had to leave their positions and retreat eastward.

Soviet IR 367 was able to hold its positions north of Jänisjärvi until defenders of Värtsilä had retreated there July 12.

Heiskanen continued pressing Soviet IR 367 around the eastern side of Jänistärvi, and reached Jänisjoki, running from Jänisjärvi to Lake Ladoga July 16, where they set on defensive.

Lagus continued his offensive immediately along the north-eastern coast of Lake Ladoga.

Soviet Mot. IR 452 was coming from Karelian Isthmus and its first parts set to defensive at Salmi, where Tulemajoki reaches Lake Ladoga.

Finns arrived there on July 18, and early next morning Finns started the battle by crossing the river 5km north of Salmi and managed to cut the roads leading to Salmi by afternoon.

Next day Finns were able to push into the village and only small units were able to escape the encirclement.

Salmi was finally cap

[Livyjr]

By 1969, Dwight D. Eisenhower had been dead for eight years.

And you say this Organisation is about the study of HISTORY???

Well, actually, I don't say anything at all, because I am wondering exactly who the hell they are, because they are skewing OUR history, and that has me curious!

When I read their propaganda, and saw that BID-NESS about Eisenhower, in 1969, which is their words, I stuck that question mark in there, in parenthesis, to mark my astonishment at how much Ike was able to achieve in OUR America, despite being dead!

OUR HISTORY IS BEING CHANGED, AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT IS GOING ON, SINCE WE ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DIALOGUE!

And this crowd is a part of that changing!

And I still wonder what that Abshire fellow got that "ORDER of the LION of FINLAND" for, if he is an American, and I wonder at the award itself, which has its origins in the fascist period of Finland's own history!

WHO EXACTLY DO WE HAVE IN CHARGE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OVER HERE?

WHO IS CHANGING OUR HISTORY, AND WHY?

Just curious, of course!

[Livyjr]

WHO EXACTLY DO WE HAVE IN CHARGE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OVER HERE?

WHO IS CHANGING OUR HISTORY, AND WHY?

Just curious, of course!

And I'm curious about what Mother Nature is up to as well:

"Moderate Quake Shakes Southern California"

38 minutes ago

YUCAIPA, Calif. - A moderate earthquake shook most of Southern California Thursday, startling people and knocking items off shelves and desks, but there were no immediate reports of significant damage or injuries.

The early afternoon quake had a magnitude of 4.9 and was centered near Yucaipa in San Bernardino County, east of Los Angeles, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

About 25 aftershocks followed in a little over an hour, the strongest estimated at magnitude 3.5.

Residents reported shaking from Los Angeles to San Diego and in counties to the east.

Rock slides were reported on Highway 38 in the San Bernardino Mountains.

"All of a sudden I heard a loud rumbling sound, kind of like thunder," said Nick Brandes, 25, manager of a store in Yucaipa.

"At the front, all the customers were in a panic."

"They were all just in a hurry to get out."

Andrea Cabrera, an employee at the Walgreens drug store in Yucaipa, said the store "just had a few items falling, that's all."

Customers "were just stunned, and they just stood there," she said.

The Los Angeles Fire Department received no immediate reports of major damage, spokesman Brian Humphrey said.

None of Southern California Edison's 4.6 million customers lost power.

It was the third significant quake to hit California this week: A magnitude-5.2 quake shook Riverside County on Sunday, and a magnitude-7.0 quake struck Tuesday under the ocean 90 miles off Northern California.

Thursday's quake occurred near the San Andreas Fault but not on it, said Lucy Jones, scientist in charge of the U.S. Geological Survey office in Pasadena.

She said the quake was not a direct aftershock from Sunday's temblor.

"This is not an unusual level of earthquake activity," Jones said of the state's recent quakes.

Channon Kelly, 31, was eating her lunch in downtown Los Angeles when Thursday's quake hit.

"I almost jumped out of my seat," Kelly said.

"I'm starting to get freaked out."

"We've had so many in the last week, the one Sunday and then in Northern California."

"I could hear the windows rattling and feel it all at the same time."

end quotes

Fear not jeffmoskin, I hear that George Pataki has Mother Nature on the ropes, right now, and that he will have Mother Nature subdued pretty soon now, and so, you shouldn't be bothered anymore by earthquakes, or errant mountain lions eating shoppers on Rodeo Drive, or those coyotes who have become accustomed to a poodle diet out there!

Hang tough, jeffmoskin!

Don't get freaked out!

Of course, then you'll have to make Pataki the next president of America, but for stability in your environment out there, that's a small price to pay, isn't it?

[Livyjr]

Fear not jeffmoskin, I hear that George Pataki has Mother Nature on the ropes, right now, and that he will have Mother Nature subdued pretty soon now, and so, you shouldn't be bothered anymore by earthquakes, or errant mountain lions eating shoppers on Rodeo Drive, or those coyotes who have become accustomed to a poodle diet out there!

Hang tough, jeffmoskin!

Don't get freaked out!

Of course, then you'll have to make Pataki the next president of America, but for stability in your environment out there, that's a small price to pay, isn't it?

And speaking of "George's", here's that other one now, and what is he peddling now?

Oh, yeah, just some more of that same old ****:

"Bush Seeks to Calm Anxieties About Iraq"

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

55 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Facing growing pressure to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush is launching a public relations campaign to try to calm anxieties about the war.

Bush scheduled a major address for June 28, the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraqis.

Four days before that, he will meet at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who heads the transitional government chosen after January elections.

The president also plans a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington.

He will emphasize the importance of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere when he meets with fellow world leaders in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

The president's campaign comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700.

A relentless wave of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings has killed at least 1,070 just since al-Jaafari's government was announced April 28.

"The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people," McClellan said.

"That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the ground — there's significant progress that has been made in a short period of time — the dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq."

A few Republicans have broken ranks with the White House on Iraq, supporting a resolution that calls for Bush to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006.

"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.

Many GOP lawmakers also have been reluctant to embrace Bush's signature second-term domestic issue — allowing younger workers to set up private investment accounts with part of their Social Security taxes.

But the president has shown no public evidence yet of backing down and has traveled the country weekly — and will again next week — to campaign for his proposals.

Still, at a time when Bush intended to be concentrating primarily on his domestic agenda, he finds himself shifting emphasis to Iraq.

Foreign policy has typically given Bush his highest scores with the public, but that has changed.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month found just 41 percent of adults supported his handling of the Iraq war — an all-time low.

In addition, a Gallup poll released Monday found that six in 10 Americans say they think the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

As with his new domestic agenda sales job, Bush plans to offer no policy changes on Iraq.

One development, though, could throw Bush completely off-stride.

The Supreme Court's first vacancy in over a decade could come by the end of the month, and the fierce nomination battle that would immediately ensue would consume a huge portion of the president's — and the entire capital's — attention.

[Livyjr]

And speaking of "George's", here's that other one now, and what is he peddling now?

Oh, yeah, just some more of that same old ****:

"Bush Seeks to Calm Anxieties About Iraq"

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Facing growing pressure to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush is launching a public relations campaign to try to calm anxieties about the war.

Bush scheduled a major address for June 28, the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraqis.

A few Republicans have broken ranks with the White House on Iraq, supporting a resolution that calls for Bush to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006.

"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.

And in the meantime, however:

"House Ready to Give Pentagon $45B for Wars"

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House was poised to give the Pentagon an additional $45 billion for wars next year, even as public support for combat in Iraq wanes and lawmakers press for an exit strategy.

While President Bush has not asked yet for more war funds, lawmakers included money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill the House was expected to approve late Thursday.

With no end in sight in Iraq and Afghanistan, additional war costs are certain and House lawmakers are reluctant to wait for the president's request.

The Senate also is considering adding billions for the wars in its version of the spending bill.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has given the president $350 billion for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting terrorism worldwide.

That total includes $82 billion that lawmakers approved in May; much of this money was for Iraq.

In the month since, polls have shown that the public increasingly is dissatisfied with the direction of the Iraq war.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that only 41 percent of adults — a low-water mark — said they supported Bush's handling of the war.

A Gallup poll reported that six in 10 Americans want the United States to withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

Responding to the growing criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Americans to "reach down" into themselves and "look for the kind of patience and generosity that we have exhibited in the past."

"Now, I do think that we owe to the American people to say again and again that this is not going to be an American enterprise for the long term."

This is going to be an Iraqi enterprise," she said.

Military officials said they hoped to reverse the downward trend in public support.

"It is concerning that our public is not as supportive as perhaps they once were," said Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"It's extremely important to the soldier and the Marine, the airman and the sailor over there, to know that their country's behind them," Conway said.

Discontent about the war is evident among lawmakers.

On Thursday, a small group of House members from each party introduced a resolution that would require the president to announce by year's end a plan for bringing home troops from Iraq and take steps to follow through.

Withdrawal would have to start by Oct. 1, 2006, according to the measure.

"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.

Introduced the same day attacks west of Baghdad killed six U.S. troops, the joint resolution is the first such proposal offered by both Democrats and Republicans.

In 2002, most Democrats and six House Republicans voted against sending troops to Iraq.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced a resolution this week that urges the Bush administration to give Congress a time frame for achieving military goals in Iraq and bringing home troops.

The White House argued that a timetable cannot be considered until Iraq's army is strong enough.

The administration also has said any withdrawal plan would encourage insurgents to wait for foreign troops to leave Iraq.

"Timetables simply send the wrong message."

"They send the wrong message to the terrorists."

"They send the wrong message to the Iraqi people."

"They send the wrong message to our troops who are serving admirably and working to complete an important mission," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.

Excluding war money, the House bill provides $364 billion for the Pentagon for the 2006 budget year that begins Oct. 1.

That amount is about 3 percent greater this year's base funding.

The House bill is about $3 billion less than the president wants for defense.

The measure would fund a 3.1 percent pay raise for the military.

Lawmakers hope it could help entice current and prospective troops at a time when enlistments are lagging.

Bush, in the Pentagon spending proposal he submitted to Congress in February, did not request any money to pay for the wars.

The White House insisted it did not yet know how much would be needed for next year — an argument it has used before to omit war costs from its initial budget.

end quotes

This whole Bush administration is chock full of ****, and so is Connie "CON JOB" Rice!

Her lies and ignorance are a part of the problem, here, and not a part of any solutions, at all!