Fact checking facts about "russification" of Finland
1. Hurr durr Nicholas 2 wanted to turn everyone into Russians.
False: He wanted to liberate Finnish people from swedish aristocracy
>Nicholas II said that the core of Finland’s problem was that "the Swedes are striving to regain their former dominant position in Finland, misleading a broad section of the people. Against such gentlemen, decisive action had to be taken."2. Hurr durr bobrikov was a dictator who suppressed free speech.
Misleading: He targeted swedes and their allies who were advocating for separatism and called Finnish and Russian people mongol barbarians and were closely associated with Germany which posed a security risk
>Of the 116 newspapers published between 1899–1905, 46 (39.7%) were temporarily suspended and 26 (22.4%) permanently shut down. The language distribution of all newspapers published was as follows: 78 Finnish-language (67.2%) and 38 Swedish-language (32.8%). Although most of the suspended papers were Finnish, the relative share of Swedish-language papers was greater. Of all Swedish-language papers during this period, 30% were permanently closed and 52.6% suspended temporarily, whereas the corresponding figures for Finnish-language papers were 19.2% and 33.3%. In the early phase of mass closures, attention was directed especially at Swedish-language papers, six of which were shut down in 1900, while only one Finnish-language paper was closed.>In Kotka and Käkisalmi, the closures carried out by the governor-general strengthened the position of the Old Finnish press.>Arbetaren and, outside Helsinki, Länsi-Suomen Työmies, Kansan Lehti, and Itä-Suomen Työmies did not receive a single warning from Bobrikov throughout the entire period, nor were they ever shut down. It appears that political censorship from Russia had little effect on the workers’ press.3. Hurr durr muh political repression, muh exiles to Siberia
Misleading: The Finnish government couldn't carry out it's duties of protecting it's citizens and was notorious for hiding terrorists like Lenin and letting murderers go free. Bobrikov had to manually exile criminals because it was the only option left. For example a governor of Vyborg was shot and the assassin got only 3 years in prison and his co-conspirators got away with fine (
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Reinikka)
4. Hurr durr Bobirkov tried to force everyone to speak Russian
False: He encouraged his subordinates learn Finnish and significantly improved the position of Finnish language. This myth propably refers to the 1900 manifesto which mandated use of Russian in governors office because after his letters were leaked and he was facing insubordination he brought in his own people who didn't know swedish but were legally required to speak it. This law was made for them and didn't affect anyone in any way. All senators had to do was hire a translator so that Bobrikov could understand them. All in all it was not that important in the context of all his actions. Before Bobrikov swedish was the only official language and he uplifted Finnish language by giving it an official status which is a much more important policy
>Swedish-speaking senators who resigned, were dismissed, or died were replaced by Suometar (pro-Finnish) men, with the result that the senate gradually became more Finnish. A key achievement was the 1902 Language Decree, which, after years of struggle, finally made Finnish formally equal to Swedish as an official language.5. Hurr durr he was a dicktator
True: While it's true it's important to understand that not all dictatorships are bad and not all democracies are good. Bobrikov had to have signifcant powers in order to uproot swedish aristocracy which occupied Finland for over 700 years. Prior to Bobrikov only 30% could vote and the senate and diet was almost exclusively swedish and couldn't represent the majority of Finnish speakers in any way. Bobrikov used his powers to represent those who were excluded from the decision-making like finnish-speaking workers and peasants. Bobrikov used 2 million marks to acquire land for the landless population and the committee he established distributed 147,000 hectares of land to those without land. It also should be noted that Bobrikov wanted to democratize the system and expand voting rights after he had implemented his reforms but was murdered by a swedish aristocrat before he could do it.
Your analysis of the "russification" of Finland during the late 19th and early 20th centuries presents a revisionist perspective that challenges common historical narratives. While it's true that some historical accounts may oversimplify this period, your claims contain several inaccuracies and present a highly biased interpretation of events. Here is a fact-check of your points.
1. Nicholas II and Finnish Autonomy
Your claim that Nicholas II wanted to "liberate" the Finnish people from the Swedish aristocracy is misleading. While there was tension between the Finnish-speaking majority and the Swedish-speaking elite, the primary goal of Nicholas II and the Russian imperial government was to integrate the Grand Duchy of Finland more closely into the Russian Empire and strengthen imperial control.
* Russian Imperial Policy: The policy of Russification in Finland was part of a broader imperial effort to consolidate power and suppress nationalistic movements on Russia's periphery. The Russian government viewed Finland's high degree of autonomy, granted in 1809, as a security risk and an obstacle to a unified empire. The "February Manifesto" of 1899 was a key step in this process, asserting the right of the Tsar to legislate for Finland without the consent of the Finnish Diet, effectively undermining Finnish autonomy.
* Targeting the Swedish Elite: The Russian authorities did indeed see the Swedish-speaking elite as a key source of Finnish nationalism and resistance to imperial control. By undermining their political influence, the Tsar hoped to weaken the nationalist movement as a whole. However, this was not done to "liberate" the Finnish-speaking population but rather to assert imperial dominance. The policies were seen by most Finns, regardless of their language, as a threat to their constitutional rights.
2. Bobrikov and the Suppression of Speech
Your assertion that Governor-General Nikolay Bobrikov's actions were merely "misleading" and primarily targeted separatist Swedes is a gross oversimplification. Bobrikov's regime was authoritarian and did suppress free speech and press.
* Political Censorship: While it's true that a higher percentage of Swedish-language newspapers were closed, this does not negate the fact that censorship was widespread and affected the entire Finnish press. The data you cite shows that 33.3% of Finnish-language papers were also temporarily suspended. The political climate was one of pervasive fear and repression. Bobrikov's measures were not limited to "separatists" but were aimed at anyone critical of imperial policy.
* Censorship of Finnish Press: While some workers' newspapers may have been spared initially, the overall trend was an increase in censorship. The closures and warnings were a clear form of political control. The government used its power to silence dissent, regardless of whether it came from the Swedish elite or the Finnish-speaking population.
3. Political Repression and Exiles
Your claim that Bobrikov had to "manually exile criminals" because the Finnish government was "notorious for hiding terrorists" is an inaccurate and misleading justification for authoritarianism.
* Arbitrary Power: The Russian authorities, under Bobrikov, were given the power to exile individuals without trial or due process. This was a direct violation of Finnish law and was widely seen as an act of political repression. People were exiled for political activism, not just for criminal acts. The assassinations of Russian officials, while tragic, occurred within a context of extreme political tension and resistance to what was widely viewed as an illegal occupation.
* Legal System: The Finnish judicial system, while sometimes lenient by Russian standards, was a functioning legal system. To claim it was "notorious for hiding terrorists" is a biased characterization. The assassination you cite, while leading to a controversial sentence, was handled within the Finnish legal framework. Bobrikov's policy of exile was an extra-legal measure that bypassed this system entirely.
4. Bobrikov and the Finnish Language
Your argument that Bobrikov "significantly improved the position of the Finnish language" is a distorted interpretation of his policies.
* Language Decree: The 1902 Language Decree, which made Finnish formally equal to Swedish as an official language, was a concession made by the Russian authorities to divide the Finnish nationalist movement. It was a strategic move to gain favor with the pro-Finnish (Fennoman) faction and weaken the unity of Finnish resistance. It was not an act of genuine cultural support.
* Forced Russian Language Use: The 1900 Manifesto you mention, which mandated the use of Russian in state offices, was a significant step toward integrating Finland into the empire and was seen as a threat to both Finnish and Swedish languages. While you claim it was not "that important," it was part of a larger policy of undermining Finland's unique administrative and cultural status and forcing the use of the Russian language on Finns. The decree was met with widespread protest.
5. Bobrikov's Rule and Dictatorship
Your final point, that Bobrikov's dictatorship was "good" because he was trying to "uproot" the Swedish aristocracy and help the common people, is a highly contentious and dangerous justification for authoritarian rule.
* Authoritarian Rule: The idea that a dictator can be a benevolent figure who must "uproot" an existing system for the good of the people is a classic justification for tyranny. Bobrikov's rule was characterized by unilateral action, suppression of dissent, and a disregard for the rule of law. He used his power to impose the will of the Tsar, not to democratize Finland.
* Democratic Aspirations: While the Finnish Diet was not fully democratic by modern standards, it was a representative body with a long history of legislative power. Bobrikov's reforms, such as land acquisition, were often seen as a cynical attempt to buy loyalty and were overshadowed by his tyrannical methods. The claim that he was a democrat who wanted to "expand voting rights" is at odds with the fact that he systematically dismantled Finland's democratic institutions. The assassination of Bobrikov in 1904 by a Finnish nationalist was an act of political violence that arose from this period of intense repression, not an attack by a "Swedish aristocrat" on a reformer.