Abstract
This doctoral thesis explores the recovery from the Civil War and the development of communality in Ruovesi in the 1920s. The Civil War left deep wounds on the community and its members in 1918. After the war, former Red Guards and the Whites had to continue their daily life in the same local community. Local institutions supported or hampered the rebuilding of the community, taking care for war victims, honoring their memories, and turning minds to the future.
The study delves into the development of the community and recovery process from the Civil War, examining aspects such as reconciliation, remembrance, the functioning of local institutions, and the role of organizational life in either uniting or dividing people. To understand the process of community development, the study employs the concept of social capital. Social capital is a resource accessible to individuals or a community, accumulating through opportunities for participation within organizational life. The key element of social capital is trust towards other people and towards institutions. A strong sense of community either unites or divides people. If a group’s strong social capital benefits only the group members, outsiders are left without social resources, contributing to the division within the community.
Civil war violence shapes the outcomes of the war significantly. In Ruovesi, twenty unarmed civilians were killed, a relatively low number compared to other communes in the area. Most victims were shot following denunciations from local residents. According to Laya Balcells and Stathis Kalyvas, the local variation in violence against civilians can be attributed to collaboration between civilians and armed groups, wartime territorial control, and pre-war political mobilization. In areas with complete control or major political mobilization during the pre-war period, violence was rare, but in contested areas, the armed groups were likely to perpetrate violence. My observations of violence against civilians during the Civil War in Ruovesi align with the findings of Balcells and Kalyvas.
The recovery from the war was influenced by the settlement of wartime injustices. Nearly 350 locals had been killed as a result of the war. Unarmed civilians had been arrested and sent to prison camps. Following the war, it was to be considered who would be accepted as a member of the community and what kind of punishment the rebels and perpetrators deserved. In most cases, locals defended the suspects. Many of those who initially advocated severe sentences later moderated their stance. Moderation was increased by the familiarity of prosecutors, defenders, and suspects.
The lost civil war did not weaken the support for socialism. The bourgeois had to settle for a minority position in local government. The White winners of the war could not celebrate or uphold the idea of a war of liberation. Economic considerations transcended political and ideological differences, uniting those who made their livelihood through farming around common economic goals. The cooperative movement played a pivotal role in bridging gaps between smallholders and larger farm owners. Former Red Guards and Civil Guardians increased social capital within their respective associations, but there was no interaction between the groups. Members of Labour and Bourgeois Youth clubs participated events in both sides. Immediately after the war, the groups focused on strengthening their own organization. It was not until the late 1920s that the rise of anti-Leftism in Finland provided the Civil Guard with a foundation to take actions against the left in the municipality.
The thesis emphasizes that community development is a continuous process marked by varying levels of cohesion within the local community. Ideological divisions, particularly between the Labour and the Civil Guard, were most pronounced in the village centre, fueled by the strong ideological stance of officials, businesses, and the sawmill industry. In contrast, smaller villages exhibited more tolerance and often overlooked the political differences stemming from the Civil War. The owners of farms of different sizes focused on solving everyday practical problems and developing their livelihood.
The study delves into the development of the community and recovery process from the Civil War, examining aspects such as reconciliation, remembrance, the functioning of local institutions, and the role of organizational life in either uniting or dividing people. To understand the process of community development, the study employs the concept of social capital. Social capital is a resource accessible to individuals or a community, accumulating through opportunities for participation within organizational life. The key element of social capital is trust towards other people and towards institutions. A strong sense of community either unites or divides people. If a group’s strong social capital benefits only the group members, outsiders are left without social resources, contributing to the division within the community.
Civil war violence shapes the outcomes of the war significantly. In Ruovesi, twenty unarmed civilians were killed, a relatively low number compared to other communes in the area. Most victims were shot following denunciations from local residents. According to Laya Balcells and Stathis Kalyvas, the local variation in violence against civilians can be attributed to collaboration between civilians and armed groups, wartime territorial control, and pre-war political mobilization. In areas with complete control or major political mobilization during the pre-war period, violence was rare, but in contested areas, the armed groups were likely to perpetrate violence. My observations of violence against civilians during the Civil War in Ruovesi align with the findings of Balcells and Kalyvas.
The recovery from the war was influenced by the settlement of wartime injustices. Nearly 350 locals had been killed as a result of the war. Unarmed civilians had been arrested and sent to prison camps. Following the war, it was to be considered who would be accepted as a member of the community and what kind of punishment the rebels and perpetrators deserved. In most cases, locals defended the suspects. Many of those who initially advocated severe sentences later moderated their stance. Moderation was increased by the familiarity of prosecutors, defenders, and suspects.
The lost civil war did not weaken the support for socialism. The bourgeois had to settle for a minority position in local government. The White winners of the war could not celebrate or uphold the idea of a war of liberation. Economic considerations transcended political and ideological differences, uniting those who made their livelihood through farming around common economic goals. The cooperative movement played a pivotal role in bridging gaps between smallholders and larger farm owners. Former Red Guards and Civil Guardians increased social capital within their respective associations, but there was no interaction between the groups. Members of Labour and Bourgeois Youth clubs participated events in both sides. Immediately after the war, the groups focused on strengthening their own organization. It was not until the late 1920s that the rise of anti-Leftism in Finland provided the Civil Guard with a foundation to take actions against the left in the municipality.
The thesis emphasizes that community development is a continuous process marked by varying levels of cohesion within the local community. Ideological divisions, particularly between the Labour and the Civil Guard, were most pronounced in the village centre, fueled by the strong ideological stance of officials, businesses, and the sawmill industry. In contrast, smaller villages exhibited more tolerance and often overlooked the political differences stemming from the Civil War. The owners of farms of different sizes focused on solving everyday practical problems and developing their livelihood.
| Original language | Finnish |
|---|---|
| Publisher | TYÖVÄEN HISTORIAN JA PERINTEEN TUTKIMUKSEN SEURA |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-952-7466-38-4 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-952-7466-37-7 |
| Publication status | Published - 2024 |
| Publication type | G4 Doctoral dissertation (monograph) |
Publication series
| Name | Verkkokirjat |
|---|---|
| No. | 53 |
