Talk:Grand Duke of Finland
|
|
Jao, what do you say? Should there be separate articles on the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Grand Duke? If not, which is to prefer as an article title?
BTW: I started on Russification of Finland, which in my view is a very important phase in the history of the Grand Duchy, and a key to understand Finland's history up til the YYA Treaty of 1948, but I do not know if or when I'll get time and energy to make something of that article. Everyone else, who feel like, is hereby officially invited to the talko! (Aha! Yet another article to write... ;-) The wikialcometer rises.) /Tuomas 23:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the information in this article belongs at Grand Duke of Finland and nowhere else. I think Grand Duchy of Finland would have its own merit, though, as "part of the History of Finland series" (the part treating 1809-1917).
- Yes, certainly. /Tuomas 13:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- Russification of Finland is much welcome. I do hope that you and/or someone else who is knowledgeable in the area will extend it in the future. -- Jao 08:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- OK. :-)) /Tuomas 13:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- The location of this article is complementary to the Governor-General of Finland and I think the location is proper. I would agree that an article on the Grand Duchy of Finland, would be most appropriate in a series on the History of Finland. I could be mentioned however that there are some former entities that have does in fact follow the countries template like the Soviet Union and East Germany, these are generally more recent though. -- Mic 14:19, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
Personal union is definitely not the correct interpretation of relationship of Finland to Russia. K.
- It's questionable whether that was the true intention by Russia in 1808, but on the other hand the area wasn't incorporated in the way many other areas were in the course of the Napoleonic Wars; and in the following years it turned out that the notion of a separate state for Finland (in the meaning of an administration of its own and national finances of its own) were mutually beneficial. /Tuomas 16:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If you bother to read for example Hentilä, Nevakivi, Jussila, polhistF (original in Finnish, but if you happen not to understand Finnish enough, the book is Eng and Swed translated too), you will understand that "personal union" and "nationhood" were ideas not true at the time itself, but inventions propagated strongly after gaining independence - so you are joining such nationalist efforts to rewrite the history. The first signs of that invention came only for the russification time, and were not seriously used in government. How do you explain, with regard to your concept of personal union, that Finnish authorities recognized the temporary government of Russia in 1917 as tsar's successor, and did not directly decide that the personal union is either dissolved by lack of monarch, or the genealogical heir of the abdicated tsar is now independently sovereign of Finland, whatever Russia wants to do. 62.78.104.106 06:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)