Oikeutta moraalin kustannuksella? : Neuvostoliiton kansalaisten luovutukset Suomesta 1944-1955

Abstract

This study analyses the deportations of the citizens of the USSR from Finland back to USSR in 1944-1955 as a diplomatic and judicial problem. The crux of it was whether justice was done at the expense of morality. The main sources of information consist of the papers concerning deportations deposited in the archives of the Finnish foreign ministry, of the papers of the Finnish state police and of correspondence of the ministry of internal affairs. The deportations amounted to a dilemma to the authorities in Finland after the war. Legal processing was defined by the Armistice Agreement of the 19th of September, 1944, and its 10th paragraph. The claims made by the USSR according to the 10th paragraph should be interpreted against the post-war setting. Two principles come afore. First, although the Russians had won the war, their territory was devastated. Understandably, they wanted their people back for reconstruction. Secondly, the image of a Great Power, Russia, had to be preserved, and this presupposed that all war criminals were to be brought to court. All who were co-operators or had forfeited fighting by surrendering, had to be punished. In the ninth paragraph of the Paris Peace Treaty (15th of September, 1947) Finland was bound to arrest and deport all such Russians who were accused of breaking the laws of their home country; either of treason or co-operation with the enemy. The claims made by Russia to arrest and deport its citizens were judicially justified and in accordance with the Peace Treaty. It is altogether another question whether they were morally acceptable. There were war criminals among the deported who had fought against Russia in the Axis armies, but this had happened involuntarily. Finnish authorities acted according to the dictates of the international law. Some of the Russian claims were challenged but if they were found judicially correct they were not defied. Authorities acted following the guidelines defined by international treaties, not to please the USSR. On the contrary, the moral side of the dilemma is at least questionable.