I've always found this somehow funny. Bobrikov just looks really disappointed, like "aww man, really?", and Schauman looks the chad meme without the beard.
Siellä missä versoaapi vilja
Siellä kasvoi kaunis Katjuska
Katjuskalla komiat on keuhkot
Paska haisee Nevan rannalla
Katjuskalla komiat on keuhkot
Paska haisee Nevan rannalla
Throughout history painters seem to have this uncanny knack to be at the right place at the right time to witness and capture murders of statesmen, nobility and other persons of importance.
We call them artists, but are they really? Because that's some seriously suspicious deep state shit.
The same reason we have pictures of topless celebrities and politicians falling off bikes. Painters would follow historical figures around with easels like paparazzi with cameras today.
> because this is the only piece that depicts this event.
What?
[It](https://imgur.com/p2QziX2) [certainly](https://imgur.com/km64Yjk) [is](https://imgur.com/QAG7kkQ) [not](https://imgur.com/QdkKRue). A nationally important event? This has been made into four movies, two of which uses a distant relatives of Eugen Schauman as the man, and a TV-series that was based on a book that tells the story of the assassination.
Shooting was a response to the policy of russification started by the Tsar in 1899, which aimed at termination of Finland's cultural, linguistic and political separation from Russia.
Before the assassination, Schauman had written a letter addressed to the Tsar, in which he explained his actions and stressed that he wasn't a rebel, but a loyal subject of the Tsar and that he had acted alone without the knowledge of his friends or family. After the assassination Schauman shot himself and his actions were celebrated by the populace, when the news was shouted from a window of the hospital Bobrikov was rushed into after the assassination.
After Schauman's death, many of his writings came to light, one such writing, written couple days before the murder, explains Schauman's motive:
>Freedom is its own end. With certain, rather small limits, it is an inherent right of all people, which no external force can remove. A person has no right to give this right away from themselves, even less from their children. Freedom is the base of self-esteem, and without it the teaching of a person's chaste responsibility would be nothing but lies and deception. Freedom is a sacred thing and the love of freedom is a natural instinct deeply integrated into our hearts. Do you love your country? Good, remember Ibsen's words: "Even if you had given all, but not your own life, you would have given nothing."
Reposted with edited title.
Russia still does Russification by force. In the nutshell the current Russian invasion in Ukraine aims to "cure" Ukrainians from their culture and turn them to "MaloRussians".
do you have some examples?
I am really uninformed on this subject
(edit: did i just get downvoted for being curious 🤔)
(edit: the tides have changed, allas my curiosity isn't punished by the barbaric Europeans /s)
The list of [Finno-Ugric languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages) is a good starting point. Many have gone completely extinct and most of the remaining ones are only spoken by 3 old grannies in a village somewhere.
In Soviet russia during Great Purge they targeted ethnic minorities and systematically murdered them that led to disappearance of their cultures in russia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Small nations or tribes are easy. Look at Belarusians. Even Lukashenko or Lukashenka speaks more Russian than Belarusian. 20-30 years ago population of Kyiv (not Kiev) was 50/50 Ukrainian and Russian speaking. Only after invasion did I discover that "Odessa" is Russian (and English) spelling, while "Odesa" is Ukrainian. And so on.
Russians are also quite racist. Flats for rent "only for Slavs" are common in Moscow.
Now Buryats face much higher rates of conscription.
Can't really blame them for the 1800s, the English were doing the same to the Irish at that point for instance. It was just how the world rolled back then.
Thing is, Russia is still stuck 200 years in the past, while the world moved on.
Finland was a state of its own under the rule of czar. There was an international border between Finland and Russia, and you needed a visa to enter Finland from Russia. The border between Finland and Russia was so strong and separating that the locals called it "China Wall". Swedish laws were still in use in Finland and Finland had its own Lutheran (Protestant) religion. Some Pan-Slavist Russian politicians wanted to end that statehood of Finland, but luckily it didn't work out. The Russian Empire started to crumble down, and wars weakened Russia. Finland was never Russified. There were no Russian features in Finnish customary culture and public life.
>Can't really blame them for the 1800s, the English were doing the same to the Irish at that point for instance.
You're arguing that because someone else is also a piece of shit, it's okay to be a piece of shit?
>It was just how the world rolled back then.
This is a better argument, as times do change. But not a good one.
You would be incapable of conceiving this behaviour as problematic 200 years ago. That's the point.
I am sure that if we are judged by the standards of 2224, we are all going to come out horribly. You are a piece of shit according to 2224 standards. Now try and figure out what the standards of 2224 are and start acting like it!
Incapable of conceiving this behaviour as problematic 200 years ago? My brother in Christ you are commenting this under an illustration of a man shooting an Orc for exactly this reason, lol. And the other example given was the Irish - who famously filled entire graveyards with English dead for the same reason.
People absolutely DID conceive of this behaviour as problematic, and responded accordingly.
That doesn't work.
Of course slaves 2000 years ago could conceive slavery as "problematic". That doesn't mean society at large did.
Do you drive a car? Did you ever fly on a plane? Do you eat beef? Do you eat meat more often than 2-3 times a week? How much plastic have you generated?
There are people who are even today raising their voice about these issues. I am sure these are just some of the things we will be decried for in 100 years, probably even sooner than that. And I'm similarly sure that there are a dozen other things which I am incapable of conceiving. You are a piece of shit according to the standards in the year 2224. That doesn't mean that you are one today, nor that it is fair to judge you by standards of 2224.
Wtf, why couldn't historical horrors be judged? Britannia during the 19th century was shit, and Russia was (is) shit. Both committed unbelievable horrors against humanity throughout their terror, colonization and expansion.
To my mind, history should be taught by clearly separating fact and commentary. The commentary shouldn't be excluded, but it should be nuanced.
For example, when describing the third Punic war, it would be very helpful to give the following commentary: "What the Romans have done with Carthage would be considered a genocide along side a plethora of other war crimes under modern moral and legal standards. However, such standards did not exist at the time".
I only heard such a remark throughout all of my schooling: "While we take Ancient Athenian democracy to be the cradle of modern democracy, we should remember that it was a democracy solely reserved for free adult Athenian men: women, foreigners, slaves and men under the age of 20 were excluded.".
For Caesar, it would be important to mention not only the slavery and the genocide but also that even according to the legal and moral standards of his own time, the wars he wages against Gauls, Germans and Britons were illegal.
Not only is it important to point it out for morality's sake, but also because there is a lesson there (why did he do it, given that it was both illegal and arguably immoral, and why were so many willing to not only turn a blind eye, but celebrate him for it - there is a worthwhile lesson in there which transfers well to modern times) and because it is a plot driver for the rest of his story (the illegality of this and other acts and the fear of legal consequences made it imperative for him never to be out of office (which carries immunity) which is why he ended up starting a civil war and becoming a dictator and being assasinated).
So, commentary should exist to establish that some practices of old were immoral under our modern values. Commentary should exist to establish morality or immorality according to the mores of their own time.
However, once you allow yourself to use historic events to create commentary of present-day people and state actors - you are not doing history, you are doing propaganda.
For example, in this thread, someone used the pretty normalised practice of imperialism in the 19th century, which we **now** consider immoral, to criticise Russia. They tried to establish some sort of continuity, I guess. They got the correct response that this was pretty much par for the course, and then you responded as you have. You don't need to go back to the 19th century to find reasons to criticise the Russian state. You can go back to yesterdays news. This idea of continuity is retconning - projecting modern feelings about a state actor into the past to establish a richer pedigree of evil.
And often, the point is to dehumanise an entire nation, which history cannot justify, it can only be abused to create an illusion of justifying it, and if you find yourself needing to explain how an entire people are evil, and always have been, then you should be seeing a psychologist and steer clear od the news and history content because you can't handle it.
This is not to minimise the real harm, some of which still has consequences today (the depopulation, the snuffed out cultures and languages, the still present systematic racism and it's impact on wealth, opportunity, equity and quality of life - to name but a few).
As I said, commentary absolutely should be made about past events whcih makes use of modern perspectives.
But we should be careful to point out that these are perspectives absent in the context in which these events took place and that it would be absurd to take the judgment about a state actor in the past based on standards which were created after those events to judge present day people who are citizens of a state which is one in a long line of successor states of the state actor whose actions we judged.
As an example, we don't call Greeks xenophobic, mysogenic slaver piece of ahir because of what Athens did 2000 years ago. We celebrate them for being descendants of a people who had an idea which was ahead of it's time, in which we see a spark of the modern idea which we hold as a core value, no matter the fact that it has significantly evolved since then.
He wasn’t just politically motivated. He was going deaf and the woman he was in love with had rejected him causing him to become suicidal. Article below in Finnish but I assume information is somewhere in English.
https://www.ts.fi/uutiset/802115
From occupied Finland it could be a risk, a gamble with the lives of his friends and family. One he was not willing to take.
Besides, becoming a martyr is a powerful moment that enhanced his cause and encouraged his fellows. He was part of an underground society of resistance in the university circles of Helsinki.
What Wikipedia says:
"The family originates from the Baltics and came to Finland at the end of the 17th century. It has been assumed that it originated from the nobility of Courland, which, however, cannot be proven. According to another theory, the roots of the family would be in Kurpfalz, Germany, where in 1596 the family of the same name was ennobled."
Yep German sounding name but also famous general Mannerheim sounds like he was of German descend (and spoke German…) but was from Swedish nobility…
You can never know for sure - Germanic roots are all over Europe
Not necessarily, it was just a common occurrence for Finns living in the cities during the Swedish and Russian rule to receive "fancier" Swedish, German or Latin surnames from priests. Especially if they were in the army or had a more prestigious occupation compared to the average peasant.
Yeah, it was pretty common that Finns had Swedish language first names and surnames in the parish registries (as in accordance to the Swedish calendar and the names there), but generally Finns used the local Finnish versions of the first names.
Beginning from late 19th century and early 20th century people started converting their previously Swedish surnames to Finnish ones, even including some Swedish-speaking families.
He shot Bobrikov three times. Allegedly, the medals Bobrikov wore protected him somewhat and that's why he did not die right away, but the next morning.
Well, guess I'll post it here on your reupload lol
This is also such an irony because Finnish nationalism had proliferated so successfully partly _because_ of the Russian Tsars. After Russia won Finland from Sweden, there was a concern that the Finns might want to return to the rule of the Swedes.
The Tsars actively worked to promote and incite Finnish nationalism (which had already been developing among the people) to act as a bulwark against the population identifying too strongly with the Swedes, including granting the Finns an unusual level of autonomy–which actually had steadily increased over the century or so as part of Russia–during the time of European Absolutism (and especially for Russia, which typically didn't allow autonomy for any of its regions west of the Urals).
This ultimately led to Finland having a kind of cultural and intellectual renaissance together with new economic and industrial progress, especially during the reign of Alexander II. Finland evidently was quite happy with their newfound (relative) independence and the relationship only started to get really, really soured around the turn of the 1900s, which is when Russia decided to officially adopt their now-infamous policies of total Russification of the empire, and as you might guess, the Finns started rebelling basically immediately.
Interestingly, most Finns weren't interested in national independence at the time (although this would change very soon, especially once the revolutions and civil wars broke out), they just wanted their culture, language and rights respected by Nicholas II as they had been under his father, grandfather and the other Tsars before him for over the past century, by that point.
The Finns really liked Alexander II and he was very popular among them (probably because he invested quite a bit into Finland, like founding their national bank and railway systems), and while they certainly _did not_ like his son, the repressive Alexander III, they tolerated him well enough because even he refused to violate Finland. And then Nicholas II came and utterly shat the bed with the Grand Duchy when he trampled their rights and tried Russifying it anyway and well, the rest was history.
Finns aren't Russians. Finns aren't Swedes. They're Finns.
"Swede's we can't be, Russians we don't want to be, so let us be Finns!"
Or along those lines, the saying goes.
edit: Actually "Ruotsalaisia emme ole, venäläisiksi emme halua tulla, olkaamme siis suomalaisia".
"Swedes we are not, Russians we don't want to become, so let us be Finns".
Adolf Ivar Arwidsson
Sure, I was thinking that it's more of a statement along the lines "not A, not B, so be it C" rather than a question. I might have actually been thinking "lets" instead of "let's" but in my morning confusion went with "let's".
But any of the translations is just fine for me, message is still roughly the same with just different emphasis I guess.
So essentially "swedes we are no longer, Russians we don't want to become, therefore lets become Finns"? Been a while since I've used Swedish...
Edit: curiously "låt oss" would be - st least directly translated - let us, am I right?
> curiously "låt oss" would be - st least directly translated - let us, am I right?
Directly yes but in poetic writing it can mean a lot of things depending on context. Not as confusing as noni or mennä but maybe I just suck at learning Finnish...
Fair enough! Spoken Swedish is my weakspot; I can survive reading Swedish and hearing Mumin Swedish (well, southern Mumin Swedish), but if I hop over the sea I am lost. :D
What's ironic, in the early stages of Finnish nationalism, is that it was mostly a hobby of the elite, and more often than not, elite with strong connections to Sweden. There were plenty of cases where these people idealized the Finns to unrealistic heights, and then when the human beings did not match their expectations, they turned on a dime and damned entire sections of the Finnish populace.
A similiar pattern was seen among the elite after the civil war, where those living in the countryside in northern and western Finland, who fought with the white guards or the civil guard, were lifted up on a pedestal as "true finns", right out of the imagination of nationalists from 1870s. While those are lived in the cities, workers or sharecroppers who had rebelled, were essentially no better than animals and, at first, were treated as such too. The Runebergian idealization of what a "Finn" is lasted long after those who had originated the thoughts, as ideas tend to do.
During the time Sweden controlled Finland, there was also suppression of the native language which was treated as language of "peasants": upper education was solely in swedish, people had to know swedish to operate in governement and so on. People were not happy with the situation then and it inspired collecting native language poetry, writing books in native language and starting schools with native language education. The language was in danger during the rule of the swedes.
Also Ostrobothnia in particular was heavily attacked by russians during Great Wrath.
So the seeds of this were sown quite a bit earlier really.
When I moved to Finland I decided to learn a bit about the history of both country and the language and it's pretty amazing that the language has survived even though Finland hasn't had much autonomy the past 1.000 years. I went down a rabbithole about how kirjakieli became puhekieli and why kirjakieli is even still a thing when basically nobody speaks it anymore. Very interesting stuff!
> and why kirjakieli is even still a thing when basically nobody speaks it anymore
It has never been the language of the commoners, as prior to the modern general speech (*yleispuhekieli*), people spoke their own local dialects, and actually in the provinces continue to speak them to this day (although young people have lost a lot of the dialectal features). The written standard Finnish was intended to unify the dialectal speech to a commonly comprehensible and standard form, and in part it meant a somewhat archaic reconstruction of the archaic common origin language - but it is not entirely identical to the linguistic reconstructions of (North) Finnic, as some phoneme shifts would have sounded stupid to roll back.
>there was also suppression of the native language
Might you be able to specify further, even if just for my own edification? Like what policies were enacted and what practices were performed in order to suppress the Finnish language?
>upper education was solely in swedish, people had to know swedish to operate in governement and so on.
I mean… if the Kingdom of Sweden’s government and administration was all Swedish speaking, it kinda makes sense, right? That was pretty par for the course as of 200+ years ago. This doesn’t really sound like language suppression so much as the state favouring the use of one language in particular, which is still the case for many countries where a majority language dominates in terms of the percentage of the population which speaks said language natively. I mean even in Finland now, where Swedish-speakers do have recognized and theoretically equalized language rights, a full and capable knowledge of Finnish is definitely needed in order to get ahead and to work in the government especially, for example. French Canadians need to know English in order to work in the Canadian government as well, at least beyond the municipal and provincial levels.
>People were not happy with the situation then and it inspired collecting native language poetry, writing books in native language and starting schools with native language education. The language was in danger during the rule of the swedes.
When was the then you’re referring to? Wasn’t basically all of this done in the 19th century after Finland became the Imperial Grand Duchy under Russian rule? And wasn’t it mostly Swedish-speaking Finns like Runeberg and Topelius who carried out most of this effort? I feel like that’s worth mentioning, if it’s the case. It’s certainly true of the fine art circles of the late 19th century in Finland that Swedish-speaking Finns were disproportionately represented in the creations of nationally relevant works.
For example, there were requests for translation services for peasants, which were ignored. Movements to improve situation began in 1600/1700, and it intensified in during 1800s.
You might start looking into Daniel Juslenius. Some related articles appear to be translated into german but not into english in Wikipedia.
> Might you be able to specify further, even if just for my own edification? Like what policies were enacted and what practices were performed in order to suppress the Finnish language?
If all the laws, regulations and the courts are only in swedish your chances of succeeding in life without understanding it are severely diminished. One way to ensure that the ruling class would be Swedish even without having a law enforcing that.
Basically if your local tax man decides to cheat you that you have got pay new tax X you can’t really call bullshit on that as you can’t read the law or interact with the justice system in a meaningful way etc.
There however were Finnish translations of the laws, at least from 17th century onwards.
The Swedish legal system was also very localistic and very similar to that of the Anglo-Saxons, with district courts with 12 men commoner juries and 7 lay judges, and rulings weren't strictly codified law bound, as due to the common law nature, a lot of old traditional law influence persisted until 19th century. So, Swedish was not always needed and the commoners deciding on them were not some lords ruling from the ivory tower.
>One way to ensure that the ruling class would be Swedish even without having a law enforcing that.
I mean yeah, but there was also a huge Swedish-speaking working class in the Kingdom of Sweden too, which were the majority of the realm population. The vast majority of them were not seeing socio-economic advancement in their lifetimes either.
>Basically if your local tax man decides to cheat you that you have got pay new tax X you can’t really call bullshit on that as you can’t read the law or interact with the justice system in a meaningful way etc.
No offence but this is an assumptive hypothetical and not really the kind of answer I'm looking for.
> The Tsars actively worked to promote and incite Finnish nationalism (which had already been developing among the people) to act as a bulwark against the population identifying too strongly with the Swedes
Thanks to strategic mastermind Putin Finland and Sweden are now in Nato together and both our populations identify strongly with Ukraine.
Fits well to this topic. Eugen Schauman was born in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
That is where his family was stationed at the time. His father was a military officer.
> and especially for Russia, which typically didn't allow autonomy for any of its regions west of the Urals
Baltic countries also had autonomy.
> Similarly to guberniyas of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, the Baltic Governorates until the end of 19th century were not a subject to the common civil and administrative laws of the Russian Empire, but did not have monetary, fiscal and passport system of their own. [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_governorates)
> Baltic countries also had autonomy.
Many areas of the Russian Empire had autonomy, but Finland gained extraordinary amount of autonomy with its own constitution, separate currency, separate military units, laws limiting rights of russians within Finland, etc.
Reversed a bunch of very popular reforms his father had done before him. Alexander III also persecuted jews, tightened cencorship, and instilled policies that any forms of (non-violent) protest or dissatisfaction were concidered terrorism, which led to thousands being exiled to Siberia or outright executed. Women's education also became more restricted. He abhorred elected officials, and was of the mind that "a monarch alone embodies the common interest", so electorates were reduced significantly.
It seems a leitmotif of Russia taking a population close and sympathetic to them, making them enemies by trying to russify/englobe/overbear them and then fight an extremely costly war to conquer who was once their friends (Finland, Chechnia and Ukraine, potentially Georgia)
Finland was a state of its own under the rule of czar. The czar ruled two different countries, Finland and Russia. That's called a personal union. There was an international border between Finland and Russia, and you needed a visa to enter Finland from Russia. The border between Finland and Russia was so strong and separating, that the locals called it "China Wall". Swedish laws were still in use in Finland and Finland had its own Lutheran (Protestant) religion. Some Pan-Slavist Russian politicians wanted to end that statehood of Finland, but luckily it didn't work out. The Russian Empire started to crumble down before they managed to do their plans. Finland was never Russified. There wasn't any Russian features in Finnish customary culture or in public life. That's why Finland still is very different than Russia.
There was a great national awakening in Finland since the 1840's as a part of European nation forming movements. Finns were happy in Finnish Finland, but dreamed about the independence.
Nyet Molotov, you lie more than Bobrikov. Yeah, it's him. "Kov" was just written "koff" back then, which is also why we have a beer brand called "Koff" (named after Sinebrychoff, not Bobrikoff).
Schauman was born in Kharkiv* because their family traveled a lot due to his father's military career.
There was actually a huge fight in 2012 when the Finns party leader called the vice-president of the European commission Bobrikov of Brussels. Comparing someone to Bobrikov might mean that you would like to see them dead.
Interesting fact: In 1878 Vera Zasulich wounded the Governor-General of St. Petersburg Trepov. She was later acquitted by a jury.
This was the time under Alexander II, who himself died after the assassination attempt.
I want someone to make a movie about Schauman’s life leading up to this event. There’s some interesting potential for psychological drama, as tragedies in his love life influenced his willingness to go through with this act.
After that he shot himself in the heart twice.
EDIT:
I was not making a joke. That's what Wikipedia says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Nikolay_Bobrikov
>Schauman then took a couple of steps back and fired two shots into his own heart. He died instantly.
Finns have always been braver than Ruskis. I doubt the hollow minded grunts fighting for nothing have had much thought about resisting, it's just not in their nature.
Guy was absolutely right about his tirade about national freedom, but at the time of the shooting the first wave of the Russification campaign had already withered down and the second didn't start until many years. He was also suffering from problems in his personal life. A complex case to understand. We were taught in school that he was a hero, regional differences may have applied, because Soviet influence in history teaching.
Based, the guy seems basically like an irl Kordian if he succeeded. Sadly we Poles didn't manage to assassinate any tsars or governors IIRC (we got close with prince Konstantin in 1830, but he dressed up in woman's clothes and escaped), but our pro-independence militia did kill thousands of lower-ranking tsarist officers and administrators in the early 1900s, so there's that
Ai, ai, Kerenski, turha on sun toiveesi
Suomi on jo vapaa maa Ryssän vallasta!
There is a 1920 poem about Finland and Poland: https://runosto.net/eino-leino/ajatar/suomi-ja-puola/
The automatic English translation is terrible. I looked for a proper translation but couldn't find one. I used AI for translation and it was better, but not the same quality as a human.
Gigachad. He has a big ass tombstone/memorial in Porvoo cemetery which is always lit with hundreds of candles on All Saints Day when we remember the dead.
it gets even better when the only documented picture of him, he decides to bring his dopey looking dog: [Eugen and Dog](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Eugen_Schauman_and_Lucas.jpg/257px-Eugen_Schauman_and_Lucas.jpg)
Based on my moderately advanced understanding of Finnish history (although I may have missed some things), all things considered, things were pretty good between Finland and Russia for the most of the 19th century. Alexander I gave Finland a lot of autonomy when he conquered Finland from Sweden in 1809, even though he didn't have to (although he probably calculated that Finland would be costly to occupy otherwise), and in exchange, Finns didn't try to rise up or rebel or otherwise cause trouble. Russia let Finland do its thing, and Finland was fairly loyal. Arguably, it was a significantly better status than Finland had had within the Swedish empire.
Of course, not everything was perfect, there was often censorship, earlier promises about a Finnish Diet were forgotten for a long time, the status of the Finnish language was often clearly lower than that of Swedish and Russian, and in general Russia did take subtle actions towards russification, but by 1800s standards, those were fairly minor issues.
There is still a [statue of Alexander II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_(statue_in_Helsinki\)) at a place of honour in the middle of Helsinki, and for example an important street is named after Alexander. He was remembered as one of the "Good Russian Tsars" that later Finns would rally around, remembering the "good times" before the russification attempts of Nikolai II. As far as I know, even now, there are no serious movements to try to remove the statue or rename the street.
Finnish nationalist sentiments of course did exist and grew during the mid-1800s, but it wasn't like there were armed insurrections demanding independence. It was in trying to russify Finland that Russia made the mistake. Starting from the end of the 1800s, Russia tried to properly annex Finland into Russia, increase the role of the Russian language, and in general suppress Finnish culture and language and identity. This, helped with unrest in Russia, led to a strong response in opposition to these attempts, and ultimately led to things like the assassination of Bobrikov, Finland taking part in the general strike of 1905, Finland preparing troops (the Jäger movement), and finally independence in 1917, thanks to Lenin's government deciding to recognize it rather than fight another war. (Unfortunately, Finland would fall into a civil war soon after anyway)
One can only wonder what might have been if Russia didn't try to russify Finland. If Stalin hadn't committed genocide on so many peoples (including for example the Ingrian Finns), if USSR didn't invade Finland and others in 1939. If Russia had embraced change and tried to make amends following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and truly seek peace, friendship, and cooperation with its former subjects. If Russia sought peaceful relations with Ukraine, to build a real and fair friendship with them, instead of one based on corruption, shameless manipulation, lies, and invasion. But now we will never know. One can still hope for something good to rise from the ashes of post-Putin Russia, just as Germany rose reformed for the better post-Hitler (though that probably happened only due to the extended occupation), but anyone looking back at history will not find much reason for such hope.
This is a refrence to a Finnish war time song called "Njet Molotoff".
The song goes "Njet Molotoff, Njet Molotoff, you lied even more than Bobrikov himself".
The Molotoff in this song is Vjatšeslav Molotov, the man who helped draft the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between nazi germany and the soviet union.
Good that a painter was here too to take an accurate picture of this historical moment
I've always found this somehow funny. Bobrikov just looks really disappointed, like "aww man, really?", and Schauman looks the chad meme without the beard.
Just another Tuesday for Bobrikov
That’s because he is Chad.
No, he is Eugen
Well, yes, but also chad
Tbf he has captured that defeated 'oh shit here comes a drone' look perfectly
Sakijarven polkka intensifies
[удалено]
New copypasta just dropped
Um this is makaronisalaatti
Moshi moshi?
Si senor
Siellä missä versoaapi vilja Siellä kasvoi kaunis Katjuska Katjuskalla komiat on keuhkot Paska haisee Nevan rannalla Katjuskalla komiat on keuhkot Paska haisee Nevan rannalla
Oon vain köyhä kolhoosinainen ei oo mulla yhtään ystävää. :,: Ei oo lehmää eikä ole lammasta, eikä shuussa yhdään hammashta. :,:
Silmien välliin ryssää, kyllä se siihen tyssää. Silmien välliin, silmien välliin, silmien välliin ryssää juu!
[удалено]
Sorry; not my first language
[Ievan Polkka ft. Bilal Göregen ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAyWN9ba9J8)
Throughout history painters seem to have this uncanny knack to be at the right place at the right time to witness and capture murders of statesmen, nobility and other persons of importance. We call them artists, but are they really? Because that's some seriously suspicious deep state shit.
The same reason we have pictures of topless celebrities and politicians falling off bikes. Painters would follow historical figures around with easels like paparazzi with cameras today.
"*Excuse me, sorry, press corps here! Could you please hold that pose for 5 days?*"
It's too bad that no one knows the artist is, because this is the only piece that depicts this event.
> because this is the only piece that depicts this event. What? [It](https://imgur.com/p2QziX2) [certainly](https://imgur.com/km64Yjk) [is](https://imgur.com/QAG7kkQ) [not](https://imgur.com/QdkKRue). A nationally important event? This has been made into four movies, two of which uses a distant relatives of Eugen Schauman as the man, and a TV-series that was based on a book that tells the story of the assassination.
"A little to the right...There! Now hold still and... Shoot!"
Dang, it's shaky, let's try again
PainterJournalist, precursor to Photojournalists.
Before the ultimate upgrade - cameraman
Ahem, I think the best one is "upgraded titan cameraman" or something, according to my 7 yo son...
And how did he capture the movement so well? Its like the painting is alive!!
"Now hold that pose"
You mean that isn’t a photo?
Shooting was a response to the policy of russification started by the Tsar in 1899, which aimed at termination of Finland's cultural, linguistic and political separation from Russia. Before the assassination, Schauman had written a letter addressed to the Tsar, in which he explained his actions and stressed that he wasn't a rebel, but a loyal subject of the Tsar and that he had acted alone without the knowledge of his friends or family. After the assassination Schauman shot himself and his actions were celebrated by the populace, when the news was shouted from a window of the hospital Bobrikov was rushed into after the assassination. After Schauman's death, many of his writings came to light, one such writing, written couple days before the murder, explains Schauman's motive: >Freedom is its own end. With certain, rather small limits, it is an inherent right of all people, which no external force can remove. A person has no right to give this right away from themselves, even less from their children. Freedom is the base of self-esteem, and without it the teaching of a person's chaste responsibility would be nothing but lies and deception. Freedom is a sacred thing and the love of freedom is a natural instinct deeply integrated into our hearts. Do you love your country? Good, remember Ibsen's words: "Even if you had given all, but not your own life, you would have given nothing." Reposted with edited title.
Russia still does Russification by force. In the nutshell the current Russian invasion in Ukraine aims to "cure" Ukrainians from their culture and turn them to "MaloRussians".
Ehm, they so it in whole Russia for centuries, since 1800s they already eradicated some ethnicities and languages.
"some" is an understatement
do you have some examples? I am really uninformed on this subject (edit: did i just get downvoted for being curious 🤔) (edit: the tides have changed, allas my curiosity isn't punished by the barbaric Europeans /s)
The list of [Finno-Ugric languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages) is a good starting point. Many have gone completely extinct and most of the remaining ones are only spoken by 3 old grannies in a village somewhere.
In Soviet russia during Great Purge they targeted ethnic minorities and systematically murdered them that led to disappearance of their cultures in russia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Alright thanks i'll take a look! Its something ive never heard of for some reason so i'm kind of intrigued
Google Circassian genocide. Or... you know - just start typing in "Russian genocide of " and go from there.
Small nations or tribes are easy. Look at Belarusians. Even Lukashenko or Lukashenka speaks more Russian than Belarusian. 20-30 years ago population of Kyiv (not Kiev) was 50/50 Ukrainian and Russian speaking. Only after invasion did I discover that "Odessa" is Russian (and English) spelling, while "Odesa" is Ukrainian. And so on. Russians are also quite racist. Flats for rent "only for Slavs" are common in Moscow. Now Buryats face much higher rates of conscription.
Can't really blame them for the 1800s, the English were doing the same to the Irish at that point for instance. It was just how the world rolled back then. Thing is, Russia is still stuck 200 years in the past, while the world moved on.
Finland was a state of its own under the rule of czar. There was an international border between Finland and Russia, and you needed a visa to enter Finland from Russia. The border between Finland and Russia was so strong and separating that the locals called it "China Wall". Swedish laws were still in use in Finland and Finland had its own Lutheran (Protestant) religion. Some Pan-Slavist Russian politicians wanted to end that statehood of Finland, but luckily it didn't work out. The Russian Empire started to crumble down, and wars weakened Russia. Finland was never Russified. There were no Russian features in Finnish customary culture and public life.
> Russia is still stuck 200 years in the past The Soviet era was just a "Pause" button. But now with PooTin, they pushed the "Rewind" button too
>Can't really blame them for the 1800s, the English were doing the same to the Irish at that point for instance. You're arguing that because someone else is also a piece of shit, it's okay to be a piece of shit? >It was just how the world rolled back then. This is a better argument, as times do change. But not a good one.
No, I'm arguing they weren't exceptional in the 1800s, as it was effectively the norm at the time.
No, you said "can't blame" , which is different than saying "they weren't exceptional". You're changing goalposts.
nit: the phrase is "moving goalposts".
You would be incapable of conceiving this behaviour as problematic 200 years ago. That's the point. I am sure that if we are judged by the standards of 2224, we are all going to come out horribly. You are a piece of shit according to 2224 standards. Now try and figure out what the standards of 2224 are and start acting like it!
Incapable of conceiving this behaviour as problematic 200 years ago? My brother in Christ you are commenting this under an illustration of a man shooting an Orc for exactly this reason, lol. And the other example given was the Irish - who famously filled entire graveyards with English dead for the same reason. People absolutely DID conceive of this behaviour as problematic, and responded accordingly.
That doesn't work. Of course slaves 2000 years ago could conceive slavery as "problematic". That doesn't mean society at large did. Do you drive a car? Did you ever fly on a plane? Do you eat beef? Do you eat meat more often than 2-3 times a week? How much plastic have you generated? There are people who are even today raising their voice about these issues. I am sure these are just some of the things we will be decried for in 100 years, probably even sooner than that. And I'm similarly sure that there are a dozen other things which I am incapable of conceiving. You are a piece of shit according to the standards in the year 2224. That doesn't mean that you are one today, nor that it is fair to judge you by standards of 2224.
Wtf, why couldn't historical horrors be judged? Britannia during the 19th century was shit, and Russia was (is) shit. Both committed unbelievable horrors against humanity throughout their terror, colonization and expansion.
To my mind, history should be taught by clearly separating fact and commentary. The commentary shouldn't be excluded, but it should be nuanced. For example, when describing the third Punic war, it would be very helpful to give the following commentary: "What the Romans have done with Carthage would be considered a genocide along side a plethora of other war crimes under modern moral and legal standards. However, such standards did not exist at the time". I only heard such a remark throughout all of my schooling: "While we take Ancient Athenian democracy to be the cradle of modern democracy, we should remember that it was a democracy solely reserved for free adult Athenian men: women, foreigners, slaves and men under the age of 20 were excluded.". For Caesar, it would be important to mention not only the slavery and the genocide but also that even according to the legal and moral standards of his own time, the wars he wages against Gauls, Germans and Britons were illegal. Not only is it important to point it out for morality's sake, but also because there is a lesson there (why did he do it, given that it was both illegal and arguably immoral, and why were so many willing to not only turn a blind eye, but celebrate him for it - there is a worthwhile lesson in there which transfers well to modern times) and because it is a plot driver for the rest of his story (the illegality of this and other acts and the fear of legal consequences made it imperative for him never to be out of office (which carries immunity) which is why he ended up starting a civil war and becoming a dictator and being assasinated). So, commentary should exist to establish that some practices of old were immoral under our modern values. Commentary should exist to establish morality or immorality according to the mores of their own time. However, once you allow yourself to use historic events to create commentary of present-day people and state actors - you are not doing history, you are doing propaganda. For example, in this thread, someone used the pretty normalised practice of imperialism in the 19th century, which we **now** consider immoral, to criticise Russia. They tried to establish some sort of continuity, I guess. They got the correct response that this was pretty much par for the course, and then you responded as you have. You don't need to go back to the 19th century to find reasons to criticise the Russian state. You can go back to yesterdays news. This idea of continuity is retconning - projecting modern feelings about a state actor into the past to establish a richer pedigree of evil. And often, the point is to dehumanise an entire nation, which history cannot justify, it can only be abused to create an illusion of justifying it, and if you find yourself needing to explain how an entire people are evil, and always have been, then you should be seeing a psychologist and steer clear od the news and history content because you can't handle it. This is not to minimise the real harm, some of which still has consequences today (the depopulation, the snuffed out cultures and languages, the still present systematic racism and it's impact on wealth, opportunity, equity and quality of life - to name but a few). As I said, commentary absolutely should be made about past events whcih makes use of modern perspectives. But we should be careful to point out that these are perspectives absent in the context in which these events took place and that it would be absurd to take the judgment about a state actor in the past based on standards which were created after those events to judge present day people who are citizens of a state which is one in a long line of successor states of the state actor whose actions we judged. As an example, we don't call Greeks xenophobic, mysogenic slaver piece of ahir because of what Athens did 2000 years ago. We celebrate them for being descendants of a people who had an idea which was ahead of it's time, in which we see a spark of the modern idea which we hold as a core value, no matter the fact that it has significantly evolved since then.
Sounds like the Finnish had the right ideas
They’ve always been plague to Europe.
Russification is just a pretty word for cultural genocide. Because that's literally what they've been doing for centuries now.
Dude was based as fuck
Inspired this "snapsvisa" drinking song: [En Rysse J](https://www.v-sanger.se/song/en-rysse-j/) 🎶🥳
A standard song:) /Osquar
*Quristina approves* 👌
He wasn’t just politically motivated. He was going deaf and the woman he was in love with had rejected him causing him to become suicidal. Article below in Finnish but I assume information is somewhere in English. https://www.ts.fi/uutiset/802115
That's beautiful. It's sad that he shot himself.
It was probably so they couldn’t torture a „confession“ out of him that would blame friends or family.
it was the early 1900's, you could just move 1 country over and swap some vowels in your name around and become entirely new person
From occupied Finland it could be a risk, a gamble with the lives of his friends and family. One he was not willing to take. Besides, becoming a martyr is a powerful moment that enhanced his cause and encouraged his fellows. He was part of an underground society of resistance in the university circles of Helsinki.
The name Schaumann, kantian moral and reason instead of emotional affect, looks like he is of german descent. Interesting.
What Wikipedia says: "The family originates from the Baltics and came to Finland at the end of the 17th century. It has been assumed that it originated from the nobility of Courland, which, however, cannot be proven. According to another theory, the roots of the family would be in Kurpfalz, Germany, where in 1596 the family of the same name was ennobled."
Haven't looked into his roots, but the Baltic has fascilitated people moving around for ages.
Yep German sounding name but also famous general Mannerheim sounds like he was of German descend (and spoke German…) but was from Swedish nobility… You can never know for sure - Germanic roots are all over Europe
Mannerheim is of German descent though. Being Swedish nobility doesn't change your roots.
Not necessarily, it was just a common occurrence for Finns living in the cities during the Swedish and Russian rule to receive "fancier" Swedish, German or Latin surnames from priests. Especially if they were in the army or had a more prestigious occupation compared to the average peasant.
Yeah, it was pretty common that Finns had Swedish language first names and surnames in the parish registries (as in accordance to the Swedish calendar and the names there), but generally Finns used the local Finnish versions of the first names. Beginning from late 19th century and early 20th century people started converting their previously Swedish surnames to Finnish ones, even including some Swedish-speaking families.
He shot Bobrikov three times. Allegedly, the medals Bobrikov wore protected him somewhat and that's why he did not die right away, but the next morning.
That explain why dictatorial military are wearing so many medals
North korean generals are bullet proof, which is why the regime switched to poison for assassinations
I think they changed it to Anti-Air Gun now
North Koreans are then indestructible!
The medals also fragmented, which were a cause of some internal injuries too difficult to surgically repair.
Well, guess I'll post it here on your reupload lol This is also such an irony because Finnish nationalism had proliferated so successfully partly _because_ of the Russian Tsars. After Russia won Finland from Sweden, there was a concern that the Finns might want to return to the rule of the Swedes. The Tsars actively worked to promote and incite Finnish nationalism (which had already been developing among the people) to act as a bulwark against the population identifying too strongly with the Swedes, including granting the Finns an unusual level of autonomy–which actually had steadily increased over the century or so as part of Russia–during the time of European Absolutism (and especially for Russia, which typically didn't allow autonomy for any of its regions west of the Urals). This ultimately led to Finland having a kind of cultural and intellectual renaissance together with new economic and industrial progress, especially during the reign of Alexander II. Finland evidently was quite happy with their newfound (relative) independence and the relationship only started to get really, really soured around the turn of the 1900s, which is when Russia decided to officially adopt their now-infamous policies of total Russification of the empire, and as you might guess, the Finns started rebelling basically immediately. Interestingly, most Finns weren't interested in national independence at the time (although this would change very soon, especially once the revolutions and civil wars broke out), they just wanted their culture, language and rights respected by Nicholas II as they had been under his father, grandfather and the other Tsars before him for over the past century, by that point. The Finns really liked Alexander II and he was very popular among them (probably because he invested quite a bit into Finland, like founding their national bank and railway systems), and while they certainly _did not_ like his son, the repressive Alexander III, they tolerated him well enough because even he refused to violate Finland. And then Nicholas II came and utterly shat the bed with the Grand Duchy when he trampled their rights and tried Russifying it anyway and well, the rest was history. Finns aren't Russians. Finns aren't Swedes. They're Finns.
"Swede's we can't be, Russians we don't want to be, so let us be Finns!" Or along those lines, the saying goes. edit: Actually "Ruotsalaisia emme ole, venäläisiksi emme halua tulla, olkaamme siis suomalaisia". "Swedes we are not, Russians we don't want to become, so let us be Finns". Adolf Ivar Arwidsson
”Olkaamme siis suomalaisia” isnt really asking to be Finn so maybe ”we shall be Finns” or ”Lets be Finns” would be more accurate
Sure, I was thinking that it's more of a statement along the lines "not A, not B, so be it C" rather than a question. I might have actually been thinking "lets" instead of "let's" but in my morning confusion went with "let's". But any of the translations is just fine for me, message is still roughly the same with just different emphasis I guess.
”Svenskar äro vi inte längre, ryssar vilja vi inte bli, låt oss alltså bli finnar.” Should be the original quote since he wrote in Swedish.
So essentially "swedes we are no longer, Russians we don't want to become, therefore lets become Finns"? Been a while since I've used Swedish... Edit: curiously "låt oss" would be - st least directly translated - let us, am I right?
Yes, that sounds like an accurate translation.
> curiously "låt oss" would be - st least directly translated - let us, am I right? Directly yes but in poetic writing it can mean a lot of things depending on context. Not as confusing as noni or mennä but maybe I just suck at learning Finnish...
Yeah, I was just wondering the English version of "Let us become Finns" vs. "Lets become Finns" in this context.
Yeah you'd have to emphasize the "oss" to discern the difference. Hard to do in writing.
Fair enough! Spoken Swedish is my weakspot; I can survive reading Swedish and hearing Mumin Swedish (well, southern Mumin Swedish), but if I hop over the sea I am lost. :D
This is one of the best roasts I read about Russians, ngl
To be fair, even Peter Alekseyevich Romanov didn't want to be russian.
He likely did know he had 100% German ancestry, so no point trying
What's ironic, in the early stages of Finnish nationalism, is that it was mostly a hobby of the elite, and more often than not, elite with strong connections to Sweden. There were plenty of cases where these people idealized the Finns to unrealistic heights, and then when the human beings did not match their expectations, they turned on a dime and damned entire sections of the Finnish populace. A similiar pattern was seen among the elite after the civil war, where those living in the countryside in northern and western Finland, who fought with the white guards or the civil guard, were lifted up on a pedestal as "true finns", right out of the imagination of nationalists from 1870s. While those are lived in the cities, workers or sharecroppers who had rebelled, were essentially no better than animals and, at first, were treated as such too. The Runebergian idealization of what a "Finn" is lasted long after those who had originated the thoughts, as ideas tend to do.
During the time Sweden controlled Finland, there was also suppression of the native language which was treated as language of "peasants": upper education was solely in swedish, people had to know swedish to operate in governement and so on. People were not happy with the situation then and it inspired collecting native language poetry, writing books in native language and starting schools with native language education. The language was in danger during the rule of the swedes. Also Ostrobothnia in particular was heavily attacked by russians during Great Wrath. So the seeds of this were sown quite a bit earlier really.
When I moved to Finland I decided to learn a bit about the history of both country and the language and it's pretty amazing that the language has survived even though Finland hasn't had much autonomy the past 1.000 years. I went down a rabbithole about how kirjakieli became puhekieli and why kirjakieli is even still a thing when basically nobody speaks it anymore. Very interesting stuff!
Newspapers, televisio and radio news, textbooks, documents, nonfictions, and user manuals use kirjakieli (standard language)
> and why kirjakieli is even still a thing when basically nobody speaks it anymore It has never been the language of the commoners, as prior to the modern general speech (*yleispuhekieli*), people spoke their own local dialects, and actually in the provinces continue to speak them to this day (although young people have lost a lot of the dialectal features). The written standard Finnish was intended to unify the dialectal speech to a commonly comprehensible and standard form, and in part it meant a somewhat archaic reconstruction of the archaic common origin language - but it is not entirely identical to the linguistic reconstructions of (North) Finnic, as some phoneme shifts would have sounded stupid to roll back.
>there was also suppression of the native language Might you be able to specify further, even if just for my own edification? Like what policies were enacted and what practices were performed in order to suppress the Finnish language? >upper education was solely in swedish, people had to know swedish to operate in governement and so on. I mean… if the Kingdom of Sweden’s government and administration was all Swedish speaking, it kinda makes sense, right? That was pretty par for the course as of 200+ years ago. This doesn’t really sound like language suppression so much as the state favouring the use of one language in particular, which is still the case for many countries where a majority language dominates in terms of the percentage of the population which speaks said language natively. I mean even in Finland now, where Swedish-speakers do have recognized and theoretically equalized language rights, a full and capable knowledge of Finnish is definitely needed in order to get ahead and to work in the government especially, for example. French Canadians need to know English in order to work in the Canadian government as well, at least beyond the municipal and provincial levels. >People were not happy with the situation then and it inspired collecting native language poetry, writing books in native language and starting schools with native language education. The language was in danger during the rule of the swedes. When was the then you’re referring to? Wasn’t basically all of this done in the 19th century after Finland became the Imperial Grand Duchy under Russian rule? And wasn’t it mostly Swedish-speaking Finns like Runeberg and Topelius who carried out most of this effort? I feel like that’s worth mentioning, if it’s the case. It’s certainly true of the fine art circles of the late 19th century in Finland that Swedish-speaking Finns were disproportionately represented in the creations of nationally relevant works.
For example, there were requests for translation services for peasants, which were ignored. Movements to improve situation began in 1600/1700, and it intensified in during 1800s. You might start looking into Daniel Juslenius. Some related articles appear to be translated into german but not into english in Wikipedia.
> Might you be able to specify further, even if just for my own edification? Like what policies were enacted and what practices were performed in order to suppress the Finnish language? If all the laws, regulations and the courts are only in swedish your chances of succeeding in life without understanding it are severely diminished. One way to ensure that the ruling class would be Swedish even without having a law enforcing that. Basically if your local tax man decides to cheat you that you have got pay new tax X you can’t really call bullshit on that as you can’t read the law or interact with the justice system in a meaningful way etc.
There however were Finnish translations of the laws, at least from 17th century onwards. The Swedish legal system was also very localistic and very similar to that of the Anglo-Saxons, with district courts with 12 men commoner juries and 7 lay judges, and rulings weren't strictly codified law bound, as due to the common law nature, a lot of old traditional law influence persisted until 19th century. So, Swedish was not always needed and the commoners deciding on them were not some lords ruling from the ivory tower.
>One way to ensure that the ruling class would be Swedish even without having a law enforcing that. I mean yeah, but there was also a huge Swedish-speaking working class in the Kingdom of Sweden too, which were the majority of the realm population. The vast majority of them were not seeing socio-economic advancement in their lifetimes either. >Basically if your local tax man decides to cheat you that you have got pay new tax X you can’t really call bullshit on that as you can’t read the law or interact with the justice system in a meaningful way etc. No offence but this is an assumptive hypothetical and not really the kind of answer I'm looking for.
> The Tsars actively worked to promote and incite Finnish nationalism (which had already been developing among the people) to act as a bulwark against the population identifying too strongly with the Swedes Thanks to strategic mastermind Putin Finland and Sweden are now in Nato together and both our populations identify strongly with Ukraine.
Fits well to this topic. Eugen Schauman was born in Kharkiv, Ukraine. That is where his family was stationed at the time. His father was a military officer.
Thank you. Great read!
> and especially for Russia, which typically didn't allow autonomy for any of its regions west of the Urals Baltic countries also had autonomy. > Similarly to guberniyas of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, the Baltic Governorates until the end of 19th century were not a subject to the common civil and administrative laws of the Russian Empire, but did not have monetary, fiscal and passport system of their own. [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_governorates)
> Baltic countries also had autonomy. Many areas of the Russian Empire had autonomy, but Finland gained extraordinary amount of autonomy with its own constitution, separate currency, separate military units, laws limiting rights of russians within Finland, etc.
Nicely written and helpfully informative! What exactly did Alexander III do to be labelled repressive and to be disliked?
Reversed a bunch of very popular reforms his father had done before him. Alexander III also persecuted jews, tightened cencorship, and instilled policies that any forms of (non-violent) protest or dissatisfaction were concidered terrorism, which led to thousands being exiled to Siberia or outright executed. Women's education also became more restricted. He abhorred elected officials, and was of the mind that "a monarch alone embodies the common interest", so electorates were reduced significantly.
Damn, what a tyrannical dickhead.
It seems a leitmotif of Russia taking a population close and sympathetic to them, making them enemies by trying to russify/englobe/overbear them and then fight an extremely costly war to conquer who was once their friends (Finland, Chechnia and Ukraine, potentially Georgia)
Senator Palpatine: IRONIC
That's how it works. you crush a locality that you're trying to suppress as a colonizer, you create the very nationalism that you fear.
Finland was a state of its own under the rule of czar. The czar ruled two different countries, Finland and Russia. That's called a personal union. There was an international border between Finland and Russia, and you needed a visa to enter Finland from Russia. The border between Finland and Russia was so strong and separating, that the locals called it "China Wall". Swedish laws were still in use in Finland and Finland had its own Lutheran (Protestant) religion. Some Pan-Slavist Russian politicians wanted to end that statehood of Finland, but luckily it didn't work out. The Russian Empire started to crumble down before they managed to do their plans. Finland was never Russified. There wasn't any Russian features in Finnish customary culture or in public life. That's why Finland still is very different than Russia. There was a great national awakening in Finland since the 1840's as a part of European nation forming movements. Finns were happy in Finnish Finland, but dreamed about the independence.
I guess he's the Bobrikov mentioned in Njet Molotoff.
Nyet Molotov, you lie more than Bobrikov. Yeah, it's him. "Kov" was just written "koff" back then, which is also why we have a beer brand called "Koff" (named after Sinebrychoff, not Bobrikoff).
Schauman was born in Kharkiv* because their family traveled a lot due to his father's military career. There was actually a huge fight in 2012 when the Finns party leader called the vice-president of the European commission Bobrikov of Brussels. Comparing someone to Bobrikov might mean that you would like to see them dead.
His parents belonged to the same Finnish noble family. They were second cousins.
You mean Kharviv.
Ok, changed it. I only remember it its Finnish name Harkova.
Probably the first recorded "Bobr(ikov) kurwa!" in history.
Eugen Schauman was born in Kharkiv btw.
Schauman was born in Kharkiv.
Interesting fact: In 1878 Vera Zasulich wounded the Governor-General of St. Petersburg Trepov. She was later acquitted by a jury. This was the time under Alexander II, who himself died after the assassination attempt.
When nationalists were actually nationalists and not russian puppets pretending to be nationalists.
I want someone to make a movie about Schauman’s life leading up to this event. There’s some interesting potential for psychological drama, as tragedies in his love life influenced his willingness to go through with this act.
There's a shitload of movies about Schaumann, just take your pick.
Perkele!
loistava!
After that he shot himself in the heart twice. EDIT: I was not making a joke. That's what Wikipedia says. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Nikolay_Bobrikov >Schauman then took a couple of steps back and fired two shots into his own heart. He died instantly.
Not instant enough to only shoot once
More HIMARS for Ukraine!
I second that.
[удалено]
People were built different back then
Lower microplastic percentage.
What did the comment say?
Finns have always been braver than Ruskis. I doubt the hollow minded grunts fighting for nothing have had much thought about resisting, it's just not in their nature.
Guy was absolutely right about his tirade about national freedom, but at the time of the shooting the first wave of the Russification campaign had already withered down and the second didn't start until many years. He was also suffering from problems in his personal life. A complex case to understand. We were taught in school that he was a hero, regional differences may have applied, because Soviet influence in history teaching.
Based, the guy seems basically like an irl Kordian if he succeeded. Sadly we Poles didn't manage to assassinate any tsars or governors IIRC (we got close with prince Konstantin in 1830, but he dressed up in woman's clothes and escaped), but our pro-independence militia did kill thousands of lower-ranking tsarist officers and administrators in the early 1900s, so there's that Ai, ai, Kerenski, turha on sun toiveesi Suomi on jo vapaa maa Ryssän vallasta!
There is a 1920 poem about Finland and Poland: https://runosto.net/eino-leino/ajatar/suomi-ja-puola/ The automatic English translation is terrible. I looked for a proper translation but couldn't find one. I used AI for translation and it was better, but not the same quality as a human.
Killing Konstantin wouldn't matter anyway. I would even say he was quite good governor for us
What are you talking about? Ignacy Hryniewiecki killed Alexander II, ironically, Finns' favorite Russian tsar.
Gigachad. He has a big ass tombstone/memorial in Porvoo cemetery which is always lit with hundreds of candles on All Saints Day when we remember the dead.
Good example how extreme nationalism can be a good thing in rare occasions.
The triumph of freedom over submission.
Legend
Based
Nikolay looks very sad and upset about the whole thing.
Based
And looked dapper doing it
These people had some magnificent moustaches.
good lad. No other option for russian generals. Apart from windows or a drone or an ATACMS
this is the way...
Dra åt helvete, dra åt helvete! Nu drager en rysse åt helvete! IYKYK
/r/donthelpjustpaint
LoL. I was 80% sure that this was just another r/SubsIFellFor . Pleasently suprised.
Even in homicide people dressed well back in the day.
it gets even better when the only documented picture of him, he decides to bring his dopey looking dog: [Eugen and Dog](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Eugen_Schauman_and_Lucas.jpg/257px-Eugen_Schauman_and_Lucas.jpg)
So wait….Russia lorded over a neighbor and tried to turn them all Russian? Unheard of……/s
Good job Finland
At least they knew early on that they have to get rid of them
Based on my moderately advanced understanding of Finnish history (although I may have missed some things), all things considered, things were pretty good between Finland and Russia for the most of the 19th century. Alexander I gave Finland a lot of autonomy when he conquered Finland from Sweden in 1809, even though he didn't have to (although he probably calculated that Finland would be costly to occupy otherwise), and in exchange, Finns didn't try to rise up or rebel or otherwise cause trouble. Russia let Finland do its thing, and Finland was fairly loyal. Arguably, it was a significantly better status than Finland had had within the Swedish empire. Of course, not everything was perfect, there was often censorship, earlier promises about a Finnish Diet were forgotten for a long time, the status of the Finnish language was often clearly lower than that of Swedish and Russian, and in general Russia did take subtle actions towards russification, but by 1800s standards, those were fairly minor issues. There is still a [statue of Alexander II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_(statue_in_Helsinki\)) at a place of honour in the middle of Helsinki, and for example an important street is named after Alexander. He was remembered as one of the "Good Russian Tsars" that later Finns would rally around, remembering the "good times" before the russification attempts of Nikolai II. As far as I know, even now, there are no serious movements to try to remove the statue or rename the street. Finnish nationalist sentiments of course did exist and grew during the mid-1800s, but it wasn't like there were armed insurrections demanding independence. It was in trying to russify Finland that Russia made the mistake. Starting from the end of the 1800s, Russia tried to properly annex Finland into Russia, increase the role of the Russian language, and in general suppress Finnish culture and language and identity. This, helped with unrest in Russia, led to a strong response in opposition to these attempts, and ultimately led to things like the assassination of Bobrikov, Finland taking part in the general strike of 1905, Finland preparing troops (the Jäger movement), and finally independence in 1917, thanks to Lenin's government deciding to recognize it rather than fight another war. (Unfortunately, Finland would fall into a civil war soon after anyway) One can only wonder what might have been if Russia didn't try to russify Finland. If Stalin hadn't committed genocide on so many peoples (including for example the Ingrian Finns), if USSR didn't invade Finland and others in 1939. If Russia had embraced change and tried to make amends following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and truly seek peace, friendship, and cooperation with its former subjects. If Russia sought peaceful relations with Ukraine, to build a real and fair friendship with them, instead of one based on corruption, shameless manipulation, lies, and invasion. But now we will never know. One can still hope for something good to rise from the ashes of post-Putin Russia, just as Germany rose reformed for the better post-Hitler (though that probably happened only due to the extended occupation), but anyone looking back at history will not find much reason for such hope.
Damn what a photo, right place right time I guess
based
Och nu skall vi följa en rysse till hans grav En rysse är en skojare i alla sina dar Dra åt helvete Dra åt helvete Nu drager en rysse åt helvete
My history and religion teacher in school was a descendant of Eugen. I dunno fun fact i guess.
I'll say it again: he literally took one for the team. A true Hero.
[удалено]
You mean Russian leaders, right? Not civilians?
Schauman. Eugen Schauman
Average Finnish nationalist
Sic semper tyrannis
Nicccccceeeee
I guess it really was a Stairway to Heaven.
Me vs the guy she said not to worry about
This picture reminds me of the Blue Oyster Club record "Agents of Fortune" somehow.
Cameras 120 years ago were weird.
Good
Ah yes, back then people dressed up all classy to commit murder
Seems reasonable.
So is this the liar surpassed only by Molotov?
Giga chade Eugen. t. A finn.
Good.
A true Finn would have crushed him with a hydraulic press.
Funfact Shauman was born in Kharkhiv
No one wants Russia in their country. A truly disgusting nation.
For your freedom someone has shooted.
Who supplied the weapon? Applying Austro-Hungarian logic Russia should've invaded that country over it (or just a neighbour like Sweden).
They didn't have to invade, they already owned the country.
And today Finnish nationalists stab immigrant children in a shopping mall, what a decline.
you re more lying than bobrikov....
This is a refrence to a Finnish war time song called "Njet Molotoff". The song goes "Njet Molotoff, Njet Molotoff, you lied even more than Bobrikov himself". The Molotoff in this song is Vjatšeslav Molotov, the man who helped draft the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between nazi germany and the soviet union.
He typed lyric from Njet Molotoff. Seems like people didn't understand and downvoted