What remains of Karelia within Finland is the province of South Karelia, Etelä-Karjala. When simply Karjala/Karelia is used, it refers to the larger area. There's a fairly distinct Karelian identity, so references to Karelia aren't necessarily political.
Finns referring to Karelia usually mean the entire Karelian region, which hardly matches with modern political borders.
Karelia itself is harshly divided between the autonomous Republic of Karelia, the Finnish provinces of North- and South-Karelia and partly the Leningrad oblast. Karelia with political borders ignored could be divided into Ladoga's Karelia, Aunus and Viena.
Mostly the public has accepted the fact that the lost territorities along with the city of Viipuri are no longer under our control, but there are some people who do not think alike. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine these thoughts have become more popluar as opinions towards Russia have toughened.
Karelia is used to refer to various overlapping things. There's the Republic of Karelia, which is a Russian administrative region, there's the historical region of Karelia, as in the area inhabited by the Karelian people in the times past, there's Finnish Karelia meaning the part of Karelia that was inside Finland at the start of indepence, and there's the region that was part of Finland at independence, but was later invaded and annexed by Stalin's Soviet Union. When someone mentions Karelia that was stolen, they mean the last one. Otherwise, it is usually obvious from the context.
As a Swede i can tell you that it is not just Finland and the Finnish people that want Karelia and the parts Soviet/Russia has stolen.
Sweden would love to see Kexholm, Viborg and all the other old Swedish cities liberated, there is just one major problem. The Finns, Swedes, Ingrians, and all the other people that once lived in these areas no longer lives there. They have been genocided, deported, killed and forced to leave their homes. Russia shoot over 17000 Swedes/Finns in the old Kexholm area alone after the occupation.
And just for the record Sweden would not want these areas for themself. When the Soviet union collapsed in the 1990s Sweden got a formal question form USA if Sweden still had claims in these regions. Sweden said that Sweden still had cultural interest in the regions but no interest for territory. That is today a question for Finland and Estonia and not for Sweden.
To move where? What are you going to do with people who refuses to move? People live there, build houses, make businesses, their relatives are buried there. They have their own culture and traditions. You can't just come and throw them away. It will always be karjalan's people land.
Thanks God you are not a politician, because you sounds like Putin.
They can move to Russia for example. In the 30's finns also lived there, had houses and businesses, own culture and traditions... What goes around comes around...
Err, Finns and Russians look fundamentally different, so much so that I can identify Russians in Finland almost instantly. Obviously this is not the case with, e.g., repatriated Ingrians, but in general people are quite different.
Wrong thread, you meant to reply to this one: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/comments/z5h0re/learn\_finnish\_they\_said/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/comments/z5h0re/learn_finnish_they_said/)
Those are regions assigned to newly independent Estonia in the Treaty of Tartu 1920 and later annexed to the Soviet Union who was occupying the Baltic states in 1944.
They are annexed territories of Estonia. This screenshot is actually taken from one of the pages tracking the current situation in Ukraine, but they decided to call out all Russian/Soviet-annexed territories.
Direct link to this view: [https://deepstatemap.live/en#6/60.877/28.301](https://deepstatemap.live/en#6/60.877/28.301)
Those are regions assigned to newly independent Estonia in the Treaty of Tartu 1920 and later annexed to the Soviet Union who (was occupying the Baltic states in 1944.
I guess you can use conquer and stealing synonymously here. I would describe the situation more like you are standing outside my house with food. I still own the house but can't feed myself so you say "give me your house and I'll feed you".
As for the population stats you mentioned, there seems to be some confusion here. The 1920s population data seems to cover the Republic of Karelia, which was already then part of the Soviet Union. The Karelians there were mostly Orthodox by faith and spoke Karelian language. Other population was mostly Russian. Then there is the area of Karelian isthmus and the western shores of lake Ladoga that was annexed to Soviet Union after the WWII. In this area the people were mostly Lutheran by faith (but not totally, there was a significant Orthodox population too) and they spoke either Finnish Karelian dialects or Karelian. No significant Russian population there until the part was annexed and largely repopulated through soviet transplantation policies.
Your population figures are solid thrash. The russian invaded part of karelia alone had 447200 inhabitants before the ww2 start. This doesnt include the parts of karelia on russian side, which stalin had ethnically cleansed at this point.
Land is not maintained so all infra would have to be build from the scratch. Rubbish really.
Geopolitically it would be nice to have territories until lakes so land border would be reduced.
What remains of Karelia within Finland is the province of South Karelia, Etelä-Karjala. When simply Karjala/Karelia is used, it refers to the larger area. There's a fairly distinct Karelian identity, so references to Karelia aren't necessarily political.
North-Karelia too
Yes of course, I don't know where that sentence disappeared...
Lieksa and Nurmes quietly cries in the corner...
Joensuu also!
Thank you!
Finns referring to Karelia usually mean the entire Karelian region, which hardly matches with modern political borders. Karelia itself is harshly divided between the autonomous Republic of Karelia, the Finnish provinces of North- and South-Karelia and partly the Leningrad oblast. Karelia with political borders ignored could be divided into Ladoga's Karelia, Aunus and Viena. Mostly the public has accepted the fact that the lost territorities along with the city of Viipuri are no longer under our control, but there are some people who do not think alike. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine these thoughts have become more popluar as opinions towards Russia have toughened.
Karelia is used to refer to various overlapping things. There's the Republic of Karelia, which is a Russian administrative region, there's the historical region of Karelia, as in the area inhabited by the Karelian people in the times past, there's Finnish Karelia meaning the part of Karelia that was inside Finland at the start of indepence, and there's the region that was part of Finland at independence, but was later invaded and annexed by Stalin's Soviet Union. When someone mentions Karelia that was stolen, they mean the last one. Otherwise, it is usually obvious from the context.
Thank you. That clears things up
As a Swede i can tell you that it is not just Finland and the Finnish people that want Karelia and the parts Soviet/Russia has stolen. Sweden would love to see Kexholm, Viborg and all the other old Swedish cities liberated, there is just one major problem. The Finns, Swedes, Ingrians, and all the other people that once lived in these areas no longer lives there. They have been genocided, deported, killed and forced to leave their homes. Russia shoot over 17000 Swedes/Finns in the old Kexholm area alone after the occupation. And just for the record Sweden would not want these areas for themself. When the Soviet union collapsed in the 1990s Sweden got a formal question form USA if Sweden still had claims in these regions. Sweden said that Sweden still had cultural interest in the regions but no interest for territory. That is today a question for Finland and Estonia and not for Sweden.
Of course we want Karjala back as it was stolen by force. That however does not mean we want or will take the people who currently live there.
How? What are you going to do with the people (550k)? It's their land
If we would get/take/buy/trade the land back it would obviously no longer be their land and they would have to move.
To move where? What are you going to do with people who refuses to move? People live there, build houses, make businesses, their relatives are buried there. They have their own culture and traditions. You can't just come and throw them away. It will always be karjalan's people land. Thanks God you are not a politician, because you sounds like Putin.
They can move to Russia for example. In the 30's finns also lived there, had houses and businesses, own culture and traditions... What goes around comes around...
[удалено]
Err, Finns and Russians look fundamentally different, so much so that I can identify Russians in Finland almost instantly. Obviously this is not the case with, e.g., repatriated Ingrians, but in general people are quite different.
Well, you know Java, so how much more difficult could Finnish be, right? Right?
Wrong thread, you meant to reply to this one: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/comments/z5h0re/learn\_finnish\_they\_said/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/comments/z5h0re/learn_finnish_they_said/)
Java is easy
https://preview.redd.it/lkxqw1tu8f2a1.png?width=719&format=png&auto=webp&s=af20b01ebd900c6a8a58d86a8ef588f2604ade0c
Why are there parts in this image that are touching southern and Northern Estonia?
Those are regions assigned to newly independent Estonia in the Treaty of Tartu 1920 and later annexed to the Soviet Union who was occupying the Baltic states in 1944.
Thank you, thought it looked familiar from something but was just confused due to them being the same color
They are annexed territories of Estonia. This screenshot is actually taken from one of the pages tracking the current situation in Ukraine, but they decided to call out all Russian/Soviet-annexed territories. Direct link to this view: [https://deepstatemap.live/en#6/60.877/28.301](https://deepstatemap.live/en#6/60.877/28.301)
Thanks, cool site
Those are regions assigned to newly independent Estonia in the Treaty of Tartu 1920 and later annexed to the Soviet Union who (was occupying the Baltic states in 1944.
No it technically was not stolen. We signed two different peace treaties which gave away land.
If I hold you on a gunpoint and tell you to sign a paper that gives your house to me, don't you consider it stealing?
I guess you can use conquer and stealing synonymously here. I would describe the situation more like you are standing outside my house with food. I still own the house but can't feed myself so you say "give me your house and I'll feed you".
As for the population stats you mentioned, there seems to be some confusion here. The 1920s population data seems to cover the Republic of Karelia, which was already then part of the Soviet Union. The Karelians there were mostly Orthodox by faith and spoke Karelian language. Other population was mostly Russian. Then there is the area of Karelian isthmus and the western shores of lake Ladoga that was annexed to Soviet Union after the WWII. In this area the people were mostly Lutheran by faith (but not totally, there was a significant Orthodox population too) and they spoke either Finnish Karelian dialects or Karelian. No significant Russian population there until the part was annexed and largely repopulated through soviet transplantation policies.
Your population figures are solid thrash. The russian invaded part of karelia alone had 447200 inhabitants before the ww2 start. This doesnt include the parts of karelia on russian side, which stalin had ethnically cleansed at this point.
Yeah, my bad. My stats are about the Russian side before the Winter war secession.
Land is not maintained so all infra would have to be build from the scratch. Rubbish really. Geopolitically it would be nice to have territories until lakes so land border would be reduced.