Finland gained independence from Russia right after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. A civil war ensued, along the lines of the post-revolution conflict in Russia itself: ‘Reds’ against ‘Whites’. The conservative ‘White’ forces won out, thanks in part to support of the Germans.
An outgrowth of this conservative victory was the birth of an irredentist, ‘Pan-Finnish’ movement, claiming a ‘Greater Finland’ (Suur Suomi) composed of all areas inhabited by Finns or by people ethnically related to Finns. This irredentism was in large part aimed at areas still under control of the fledgling Soviet Union.
The Treaty of Tartu (1920) fixed the Finno-Soviet border, largely following the border of the old Arch-Duchy of Finland when still within Russia. It did however also grant the northern territory of Petsamo (Russian: Pechenga) to Finland, thereby giving it access to an ice-free seaport on the Barentsz Sea. Finland, in return, agreed to leave Repola and Porajärvi, two areas it had occupied in Russian Karelia.
In 1939 however, the Soviet Union invaded Finland in the so-called Winter War, with the express aim of reconquering the whole country. The Finns managed to prevent this, but were forced to relinquish part of their territory: a large part of Finnish Karelia, pushing Finland off the northern side of Lake Ladoga, an area called Salla midway along the border, and part of Petsamo in the north. This is important, as these three areas are marked separately on this map of Suur Suomi: they are the blue areas separated from the main body of Finland by red lines – areas which were illegitimately ‘stolen’ from Finland by an unprovoked Soviet attack.
The other areas indicated were less legitimately claimed by Finland:
-
an eastward expansion of Finnish territory into Russia to include all of the Kola peninsula, so that Finland would be bordered by the Barentsz Sea in the north, the White Sea in the east and lakes Ladoga and Onega in the south-east. For many proponents of Suur Suomi, this was the maximum extent of their ambitions.
-
A grander vision of Suur Suomi encompasses not only expansion to the east. This ‘Even Greater’ Finland would also expand southward to include Estonia, the northernmost of the three Baltic states, with a culture and language closely related to Finland. Estonia gained its independence after the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), thanks in part to Finnish support.
-
It would also include Ingria, an area somewhat similar to present-day Leningrad Oblast (still, even though the city itself has been renamed Saint Petersburg). Now mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians, it was at one time majoritarily Finnish. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Northern Ingria for a brief period (1919-1920) even was an independent state. After re-integration into Soviet Russia, most Finnish inhabitants fled to the ‘motherland’.
- Expansion would also occur westwards, to those areas of Norway (Finnmark) and Sweden (the Torne Valley) inhabited by Kvens (descendents of mediaeval Finnish migrants to these areas).
The popularity of the Suur Suomi idea faded after World War II. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, there were renewed calls for the return of those parts of Finland lost in the Winter War, but support for this idea has been partial at best in Finland, and almost non-existent in Russia. This map can be found here on Wikipedia.

An interesting piece of Suomi history. I hope to visit that beautiful country someday, not least of all for a REAL sauna.
Comment by Curtis — November 7, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
I just found this site and I love it (because I love maps and obscure history). The only thing I could ask for is that maps be better labeled, for example this one.
Comment by Andy K — November 17, 2006 @ 2:13 am
Hmm, the kvens are a Finnish speaking ethnic group in northern Norway, whose anchestors migrated there in the 19-century, the Finnish speaking population in the Torneo river valley in Sweden are indigenous to the area, definitely not migrants. During medieval times Finns migrated into the are known as Finnskog, that is today situated in the border between Sweden and Norway. The last Finnish speakers were assimilated by the end of the 19-century into the Swedish and Norwegian populations.
And it was Grand-Duchy of Finland not Arch-Duchy.
At one time the planned Suur-Suomi also included a part of todays Congo, (can’t remember which one) that was at that time a German colonial territory.
Comment by Jay — November 29, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
The best idea I’ve heard in a while is to trade the Ã…land Islands to Russia in exchange for Karelia.
It might be easier tho to make a deal with Russia for a 99-year lease on Karelia. Then the Finns would return there and see what a mess them pesky Rooskies have made and pay for the mother of all environmental cleanups. A freebie for Russia.
Comment by F.Baube — December 4, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
Are there any maps of the short-lived Socialist Workers Republic of Finland you could dig up? Fascinating site, btw…
Comment by Scott — February 27, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
@ Scott:
If such a map is dig-upable and it looks nice, I’ll surely post it…
Comment by strangemaps — February 27, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
I’d like to add that Repola and Porajärvi were not “occupied” by Finland, they voted to join Finland. Also, Petsamo was already promised to be part of Finland in the 19th century (Grand Duchy at the time) in exchange of the factories at Siestarjoki (Rajajoki) to Imperial Russia. However, only Finland’s part of giving the factories happened. So Petsamo should have already been part of Finland if the Russians were honest people and there would have been no need to cede Repola & Porajärvi which rightfully belong to Finland.
The so called modern “Kvens” also have roots from Finnish immigrants in the 18th century, if I recall correctly. However, the ancient kingdom of Finland and also kingdom of Kvenland had possesions in Finnmark. The real Kvens in fact were people from the ancient kingdom of Kvenland (Kainuu) but the name has eventually begun to mean the Finns in Finnmark.
Off-topic: Before the Indo-Europeans came to Europe, most of Europe was inhabited by Finno-Ugrics but when the Indo-Europeans came, most of the language changed, however genetic research suggests that there were fairly little of actual Indo-Europeans. Today 80-85% of Balts, Slavs and Indo-Europeans have Finno-Ugric ancestry.
Another quite magnificent and interesting thing is the fact that at least still about a thousand years ago a number of Finno-Ugric kingdoms or areas (Finland, Kvenland, Karelia, Bjarmland, Perm – which derives from its Finnish name Perämaa – etc.) prospered from trade with other Finno-Ugric kingdoms or areas within the so called Finno-Ugric super power (which really was a collection of several Finno-Ugric kingdoms not under one rule, hence it was not one kingdom) half the size of the powerful Roman Empire.
Comment by Fulmen — March 25, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
F.Baube, the return of the forcibly ceded territories to Finland would be a great economic advantage to both Finland and Russia. Although the Russians haven’t conditioned Karelia or any of the other territories, which would mean we will have to do it still would be a huge advantage as the amount of money we will get from Karelia (and the other forcibly ceded territories) once it’s “up and running” will be multiple times more than we payed for conditioning it. We must return the forcibly ceded territories immediately so we can get Finland out of this poor economic state she has been suffering for decades after WWII.
Comment by Fulmen — March 25, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
The idea of exchanging Ã…land into the ceded Finnish Karelia is very stupid and laughable. Ã…land is Finnish land and so is the currently occupied territories that the USSR annexed from Finland. There was however a suggestion that Ã…land could be exchanged EASTERN Karelia.
P.S There is an error on the map: most of the Kalastajasaarento (peninsula north-east of Petsamo) belonged to the USSR, and thus the part under Soviet control should be coloured in the same colour as the Kola peninsula and Eastern Karelia, instead of the entire peninsula being coloured in light blue.
Also, Arkangel is sometimes depicted as part of Greater Finland.
Comment by Fulmen — March 25, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
A few more things: The territories currently occupied by Russia were illegally annexed by the Soviet Union while Finland had no choice to accept. The whole invasion of Finland (both of them) in the first place was illegal and unjust. The first territories to be ceded were ceded AFTER the Winter War, NOT during it.
These territories included Kalastajasaarento, Salla, Ladoga Karelia, Border Karelia, the Karelian isthmus, Viipuri with its nearby areas, the Gulf of Finland’s outer islands and rental of Hanko as a naval base for the Soviet Union.
In 1941 during the Continuation War, after re-conquering nearly all of legal Finland (I say nearly all because Suursaari for example was re-conquered in 1942, not 1941) Finland proclaimed the Treaty of Tartu’s (Tarton rauha) borders as her legal borders.
In 1944 Finland was again forced to cede the same areas as after the Winter War in the Treaty of Moscow (1940) AND this time also cede Petsamo and rent Porkkala.
In the Treaty of Paris (1947) Finland sold Jäniskoski-Niskakoski (a small area west of Petsamo which in modern maps is almost always erronously depicted as part of Petsamo, which it was not) in exchange to keep some German military equipment etc.
So those are the legal territories of independent Finland currently being occupied by Russia.
Sadly, 9 out of 10 maps of Finland that depict independent Finland before WWII are incorrect. In many maps about events in, let’s say 1939, Finland strangely has the illegal 1947 borders. While sometimes she partly has her legal borders, but doesn’t have in example Petsamo at all in 1939! Or Salla! About 50% of the time the borders in Finnish Karelia are correct, but not in the other areas. In most maps (foreign AND Finnish ones) Jäniskoski-Niskakoski is erronously depicted as part Petsamo. Hence there are plenty of maps depicting Finland in 1918 (from the time before Repola voted to join independent Finland) where Finland doesn’t have Petsamo, but also does NOT have Jäniskoski-Niskakoski. In Wikipedia for example, there is an incorrect map about the Treaty of Tartu where it clearly shows Jäniskoski-Niskakoski as being part of Petsamo.
I’ve seen foreign maps of Finland where Finnish Karelia is part of Finland along with Petsamo, but no Salla and/or Kalastajasaarento.
In Wikipedia there are maps where Finland is divided into Swedish provinces during the time of Swedish rule. The funny thing is, that all of the eastern border except for Finnish Karelia is according to the illegal borders of the Treaty of Paris. Clearly Finnish Karelia is the most known of the ceded territories to both Finns and foreigners as many tend to ignore the other ceded areas completely by thinking that they never were part of Finland.
I don’t know what kind of idiots make these maps but seriously they should study Finland’s borders from RELIABLE sources (mainly maps from 1918-1939 instead of mostly incorrect maps made after WWII) before they go printing their work and spread the ignorance and misinformation.
Comment by Fulmen — March 25, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title o.us poetry. Thanks for informative article
Comment by Jakob — July 22, 2007 @ 7:03 am
[...] between Finalnd and the USSR. As the negotiations failed, politics went on by other means. 25 – Suur Suomi « Strange Maps Winter War – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [...]
Pingback by What If Germany Didnt Declare war on the Soviets - World War II Forums — May 6, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
I’ve got a question for you Fulmen. It is said, that Finland was at largest in 1917-39(including 1947 borders, Petsamo, Jäniskoski, salla and southern Karelia) if we don’t take to count the land annexed from USSR in the Continuation War (well lets forget the fact that it occured later than 1939). This period of time is usually represented as a one map (as Repola and Porajärvi would not have joined Finland). So does this mean that Finland was at largest at the time when Repola and Porajärvi were part of Finland During the latest independence (I can’t promise that Finland has never before been independent than 1917, you never know!) and the Finnish territory was reduced after Soviet annexion of Repola and Porajärvi?
P.S. Wasn’t it Jäniskoski and Nautsi instead of Niskakoski?
Comment by Farrick — August 6, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
thanks.
Comment by hero — October 15, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Hi Im 1st generation australian, my mother was born in karelia Finland and lost everything in the winter war… im just writing to thank everyone for all the great info I have read today ..as I dont know a lot about it. thanks again.
Comment by Anne Miettinen — November 9, 2008 @ 5:19 am
Interesting fact: Among European combatants in the Second World War, Finland was one of only three nations never to have its capitol occupied by enemy forces (the other two, obviously, being the UK & USSR; good trivia question, that).
Comment by Kevin Riley O'Keeffe — April 23, 2009 @ 7:04 am
thanks alot
Comment by Tony — May 4, 2009 @ 2:21 am
merci
Comment by aspicco . — May 17, 2009 @ 4:51 am
Yes, modern Finland was at its largest during 1919 when Repola and Porajärvi had joined (the former joined already in 1918). And indeed there’s quite some evidence that Finland used to be a large and powerful kingdom during the Viking times. But excluding that… ;)
Comment by Fulmen — June 5, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
teşekkür ederim
Comment by yory — June 12, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 3:50 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 6:40 am