Comments on Prof. Kujala's Paper

SRC Winter Symposium Socio-Cultural Dimensions of the Changes in the Slavic-Eurasian World ( English / Japanese )

Comments on Prof. Kujala's Paper

Hiroshi Momose

Prof. Kujala attempted to analyze the motives and underlying causes of the Imperial Government's policy towards Finland between 1905 and 1917. The Russianpolicy aimed at partial political and administrative integration of the Grand Duchy of Finland with the rest of the Empire. According to Prof. Kujala, however, the Russian Imperial Government acted on the basis of fundamentally inaccurate informations describing Finland as "a threat to the security of the Empire," and it came to plan a declaration of the state of war against Finland, though actually the Finnish situation was not like that. Discussing why the Russian government did it, Prof. Kujala attributes it to Nicholas II and politicians who were keen to make use of the question as a weapon in the Empire's domestic politics. Since I am quite a stranger in the field Professor Kujala discussed, I wouldlike to limit myself to a couple of questions befitting to an outsider, who is essentially interested in the Finnish affairs, leaving discussion on Russian situation to specialists in the floor. Beginning with a question of relatively small scale, I would like to ask about Professor Kujala's estimation of Finnish responses toward Russia during the same period. Apart from Prof. Thaden's definition of Russification, an interpretation that the Tsarist Empire attempted at a Russification of Finland has long been prevailing. On the Russian (Soviet) side, however, it hasoften been held that the purpose of the Tsarist government was at most to deprive the Grand Duchy of Finland of autonomy. The evaluation of different Finnish attitudes toward the Tsarist Empire depends on which of the above two interpretations is right. If Russia intended literally to "russify" the Grand Duchy of Finland, the policy of compliance adopted by the Old Finns, which intended to preserve what were essential to the Finnish nation even at the sacrifice of autonomy, might have been a wrong guess. In my own opinion, this problem had cast a shadow even on discussion on the Finnish line of policy towards the Soviet Union after the Second World War. My question is: Does your new interpretation of the Russian policy even with an analysis into Russian domestic affairs imply any new estimation of different Finnish lines: the policyof compliance, passive resistance and activism? Then, I come to the second question of larger scale by referring to the state of affairs in the field of historical research in postwar Finland. One may safely say that Finland's relations with Russia and the Soviet Union have played an imortant role in the development of Finnish research of contemporary history. The mere location of Finland as a neighbor of Russia was not necessarily a decisive reason for it. The fact that Finland had to face up to a bitter situation resulting from two wars with the Soviet Union, in which she had been involved against her will, apparently motivated many Finnish historiansto reconsider Russia as well as Finnish relations with Russia through launching upon the research of contemporary history. They asked themselves: Hadn't therebeen in modern history any stages where Finland and Russia had enjoyed a symbiotic relation? Had Soviet Russia really intended to conquer Finland throughintervening in the latter's internal affairs just after the declaration of Finland's Independence? Wasn't it necessary to cut out aking parts to remove a tumor of misunderstanding? The result was brilliant works, which made contemporary history acquire citizenship in the Finnish world of history writing. Post-Cold War circumstances have no doubt brought about a turningpoint to Russian study in Finland. On the one hand, the Finnish Russian policy once discribed as "the Paasikivi-Kekkonen line" have been under criticisms for the reason that President Kekkonen "finlandized" Finland" by currying favor with theSoviet leaders. The trend even creates an atmosphere, under which even post-war academic heritages tend to be made light of. On the other hand, however, there is a sign that the post-Cold War period will encourage Russian study in Finland. For instance, Finland has come to an agreement with Russia that a thoroughgoing research of Soviet official documents concerning Finland will be made. Professor Kujala no doubt belongs to a new generation not only inherit ing the postwar tradition of Finnish Russian study, but also striking out new lines. Could you kindly give your own opinion on possible development in in Russian study in Finland.

Comments on Prof. Kotkin's Paper

Hiroshi Momose

Although my main task is to give comments on Prof. Kujala's paper, I have enjoyed Prof. Kotkin's paper, too. Prof. Kotkin proposes that history should be written "forward rather than backward" (p. 28), by which he means that one should not judge the past by an easy and unconscious measure of the present, andthat one should put oneself in a time capsule of the past and imagine what mighthave happened. This statement is followed by evidences against my existent views of the Siberian history. While I was impressed by Prof. Kotkin's closing words to the sense that, "a Russian," "a Mongol," "a Tatar" and "a Turk" were "all political categories" in an immense expanse of Siberia. I only regret that I have no ability to examine each of the cases he gave. What a layman like me can do at most is to put a question in the context ofa large narrative. Prof. Kotkin not only showed how the Siberian history had been different from the European history, and how it rejected easy and unconscious modern European interpretations, for which I appreciate. He writes also: ".....history can also be used to debunk, to question the present,....." (p. 2). Apparently he discusses the past with the present in mind. Here comesup my question. The end of the Cold War has put before us two views which contradict each other: "the Western value system won," and "Modern achievements should be questioned." Writing a Siberian / Russian history is undeniably involved in this problem. I hope for Prof. Kotkin's comments on it.

Comments on Catherine Burns

Hiroshi Momose

Your paper concentrates on the economic aspect of the Japan Sea cooperations. The actual state of affairs is that they have recently come to discuss cooperation also in other fields. Moreover, Niigata is not the center of the move any longer. For instance, there has been a new trend, in which Professor Kimura himself has been involved. I ask for your comments on this recent development and any words about your periodization of Japan Sea regional cooperation.

SRC Winter Symposium Socio-Cultural Dimensions of the Changes in the Slavic-Eurasian World ( English / Japanese )