1. Finnish resistance 1899-1905 The Grand Duchy of Finland - large degree of autonomy secured in imperial decrees of 1809. National History: - 1157 Swedish crusade into Finland. - 1323 Finland became a province of Sweden. - 1713-21 Russia occupied Finland. Finns undertook a guerrilla campaign against the Russians. - 1809 Russians took control of Finland from Sweden.

2. What made Finland so well suited to ‘passive resistance’? Finland’s administration remained largely in Finnish hands Russian was not the predominantly spoken language in Finnish society, nor was it the language of government. Cultural isolation from Russia – Finland had its own legal system, its own school system and its own army. Societal elite in Finland was not made up of Greater Russians Geography

3. Fennomania (previous nationalist movement) in the 1840s and 1850s. J.V. Snellman saw cultural advance as the key to securing national survival. Snellman’s twofold notion of power: 1)the emancipatory notion of power. 2)The repressive notion of power. ‘Together they constitute the rhythm of history which philosophers and statesmen have to grasp in order to guide their nation’.

4. What were the Finns resisting against? Growing infringement on the autonomy of Finnish institutions – 1890 Finnish postal service brought under imperial control. Russification 1898 onwards Plans in 1899 to merge Finland’s army into Russia’s and increase conscription. Russian officers would be able to serve in the Finnish army. Imperial Manifesto 1899 – primacy of Russian law over Finland’s.

5. Divisions within the resistance Finnish resistance Constitutionalists (passive resistance) Appeasers Constitutionalist movement was united under one centralised body in 1900 = Kagal.

6. How did the resistance movement operate? Constitutionalism – “legal battle” Petitions Strikes Underground press Boycotts Social boycotts – The Black Book

7. 1903 – the movement’s low point Point at which some sections of the resistance began to look to violence Mark Kurlansky ‘History teaches over and over again that a conflict between a violent and a nonviolent force is a moral argument...if the nonviolent side can be lead to violence, they have lost the argument’. Governor General Bobrikov assassinated in 1904.

8. Movement’s Success Finland’s General Strike October-November 1905. Manifesto signed 4 th Novemeber 1905 – repealed Russification and integration policies including conscription act. 1906 Tsar confirmed Freedom of Speech and electoral system. These developments were by no means safe however – Stolypin began to erode Finnish integrity, especially on the economic front.

9. Theories underpinning nonviolent struggle in Finland Johan Vilhelm Snellman – former nationalist leader. Believed the Finns’ political aims could not be achieved violently. His justifications were two- fold: on a pragmatic level, the Russian military and numerical superiority rendered a successful conflict out of the question; on a moral level Snellmen believed that the ends were intrinsically connected to the means.

10. Arvid Neovius – intellectual leader of Finnish passive resistance. Saw passive resistance as an active force and a defensive weapon for the Finnish people. Like Gandhi years later Neovius believed passive resistance only became a powerful weapon when its unique and “definite essence” were fully understood. Neovius’s notion of violence was expansive, including in its definition not just physical harm but any form of injustice. - Neovius understood passive resistance as the systematic refusal to act.

11. Viktor Theodor Homén – saw passive resistance as a weapon of the weak. He believed passive resistance could be encapsulated in three words: noncooperation, disobedience, nonrecognition.