Perils of Finlandization

[Adrian II]

This is a spin-off of the Ossetia thread in the backroom, hopefully in a different style. I have always appreciated the scholarly tone in the Monastery and will stick to it.

At issue was the question whether Georgia should be 'finlandized' and whether that would be beneficial for the country, as some members advocated, or not, as I tend to think.

So let's debate Finnish neutrality, particularly with regard to the Soviet Union.

My position is that it resulted in a truncated country with a truncated democracy. Soviet influence stifled national debate and free choice in policies. And it didn't only stifle debate and free choice in contemporary matters, it also stifled historical debate about Finland's own part in the run-up to its finlandization.

Finlandisation was not a matter of choice, as some Finnish proponents have long maintained. It was not a sequel to Finland's supposed policy of splendid neutrality in the pre-war years or during WWII. The fact that Finland ended up being finlandized was because the country had allied with nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944 in the so-called 'Finnish-German Brotherhood of Arms' (leading, among other things, to a British declaration of war).

Finland believed that Germany was the powerhouse of the future. It was wrong, and it had to accept strict Soviet peace conditions after the war.

Finnish historians have long preferred to defend their country's policies during 1939-1945 instead of critically investigating them. They refused to look into the 'Finnish-German Brotherhood of Arms' episode of 1941-44 and ignored available sources.

True, after the war the responsible politicians were put on trial and convicted, but the trial was heavily manipulated behind the scenes by the Soviets. Neither the prosecution nor the defence could speak freely, thus leaving the pain and the lessons of this episode in national history unaddressed.

In fact they weren't addressed at all until the 1960's. American historian Lundin wrote the first critical study of the episode in 1957. British historian Upton followed in 1964, and in 1967 American historian Krisby uncovered essential new records and other documents. Essentially Finnish scholars were told the truth by outsiders. That is not unique. The same would apply to for instance France (American historian Paxton was the first to write critically about 'Vichy'). But it did not, remarkably, apply to Germany itself where the issue of war guilt and responsibility led to fundamental debates.

The same kind of self-censorship has long stifled debate about the 'finlandized era' itself, particularly the period of the lat 1970's when Finland was aligning itself ever closer with the Soviet Union, without proper debate in its media. Many Finnish intellectuals believed that the USSR was the powerhouse of the future. Wrong again.

The main illusion that should be shed is that it was Finnish 'neutrality' during the Cold War that allowed the country to emerge more or less unscathed from that period. It was Nato and particularly the U.S. that kept the Russians from invading again.

[Kagemusha]

Allright. Let us start. Would you first like to be so kind and give references to the historians work you are basing your comments. Or are all these statements your own?

[KarlXII]

And what is "Finlandization"? Is Georgia going to be forced to speak the language?

[CBR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization


..is the influence that one powerful country may have on the policies of a smaller neighboring country.


CBR

[Ironside]

Are we going to maintain the subject on post-WWII Finland and the Finlandization of thereof or letting it spread to the entire area you covered in the original thread Adrian?

Nevertheless, on the subject of the Finlandization I got the impression that it was used to keep Finland's population to not provoke the Soviet Union that much, while keeping a considerble military force to keep the Soviet Union from getting any ideas of "liberation".

[Adrian II]

Are we going to maintain the subject on post-WWII Finland and the Finlandization of thereof or letting it spread to the entire area you covered in the original thread Adrian?Briefly, what I have been trying to do is dispell the myth of Kekkoken. I tried to demonstrate that the oft-celebrated Finnish neutrality - both before and after WWII - was the result of Finland's unfortunate choices rather than of conviction. The actual state of being 'finlandized' was not enviable at all: freedom of speech was limited, books were censored and removed from libraries and bookshops, films censored and banned, all because of their supposed or real anti-Soviet content. The worst aspect is tat refugees from the Soviet Union were deported back to that country instead of allowed to transit to the free world.
Nevertheless, on the subject of the Finlandization I got the impression that it was used to keep Finland's population to not provoke the Soviet Union that much, while keeping a considerable military force to keep the Soviet Union from getting any ideas of "liberation".By the end of WWII I believe Finland would have been no match for the well-commanded Soviet tank armies supported by heavy artillery and modernized air force. The Soviets were satisfied to annex Karelia and keep Finland as a buffer against Nato.

[Kagemusha]

Briefly, what I have been trying to do is dispell the myth of Kekkoken. I tried to demonstrate that the oft-celebrated Finnish neutrality - both before and after WWII - was the result of Finland's unfortunate choices rather than of conviction. The actual state of being 'finlandized' was not enviable at all: freedom of speech was limited, books were censored and removed from libraries and bookshops, films censored and banned, all because of their supposed or real anti-Soviet content. The worst aspect is tat refugees from the Soviet Union were deported back to that country instead of allowed to transit to the free world.By the end of WWII I believe Finland would have been no match for the well-commanded Soviet tank armies supported by heavy artillery and modernized air force. The Soviets were satisfied to annex Karelia and keep Finland as a buffer against Nato.

Your last sentence shows more then ignorance about the end of the continuation war. I would recommend bit of study on the subject. As for your other statements. It seems just that these are your own opinions, while the general standing of historians is completely different.

[Adrian II]

Your last sentence shows more then ignorance about the end of the continuation war. I would recommend bit of study on the subject.If you continue in the same vein as in the Backroom it's no use taking this topic to the Monastery, is it? In the spirit of this forum, let's hear your views.

[Kagemusha]

If you continue in the same vein as in the Backroom it's no use taking this topic to the Monastery, is it? In the spirit of this forum, let's hear your views.

Dear Adrian II. I will promiss to address each and every one of your points when i get back from work, next to some source material.:yes:

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

Nevertheless, on the subject of the Finlandization I got the impression that it was used to keep Finland's population to not provoke the Soviet Union that much, while keeping a considerble military force to keep the Soviet Union from getting any ideas of "liberation".

Soviet Union had no need to liberate Finland. Beacause of the YYA Treaty, Finland was likely to fall on the Eastern Bloc in case of conflict between east and west.

[Ironside]

Soviet Union had no need to liberate Finland. Beacause of the YYA Treaty, Finland was likely to fall on the Eastern Bloc in case of conflict between east and west.

A treaty that gives that Finland if forced to help Soviet if Soviet is attacked through Finland and that Soviet will help if Finland is attacked. First question is if the conditions would actually occur, would Finland keep it?

Second, NATO-forces would have to go through Sweden to get to Finland and Sweden wouldn't allow that with anything less but a Soviet declaration of war. That would make the Soviet request a transit through Finland (something not put in any treay). Would Finland accept such a demand during the Cold (now hot) war?

Third, who exactly was the enemy that the oversized Finnish army trained to face?

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

A treaty that gives that Finland if forced to help Soviet if Soviet is attacked through Finland and that Soviet will help if Finland is attacked. First question is if the conditions would actually occur, would Finland keep it?

Pacta sunt servanda. What if Soviet Union would have attacked Norway? Would Usa and others start full scale war? I think it is better to assume that all treaties would have been kept.


Second, NATO-forces would have to go through Sweden to get to Finland and Sweden wouldn't allow that with anything less but a Soviet declaration of war. That would make the Soviet request a transit through Finland (something not put in any treay). Would Finland accept such a demand during the Cold (now hot) war?

At least Nato's plans treated Finland more like an ally of Soviets than neutral contry.


Third, who exactly was the enemy that the oversized Finnish army trained to face?

I really can't say. Why nations have armies? And was Finnish army really that oversized, when compared to, lets say, Swedish army?

[Ironside]

I really can't say. Why nations have armies? And was Finnish army really that oversized, when compared to, lets say, Swedish army?

Not really, and that's the point, the sole purpose of the large Swedish army was in case of a Soviet invasion.

That's why it has been decreasing now when the Cold war is over. It will be interesting to see the Swedish military development now when Russia has started a more aggressive foreign policy again.

[Marshal Murat]

The fact that Finland ended up being finlandized was because the country had allied with nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944 in the so-called 'Finnish-German Brotherhood of Arms' ... Finland believed that Germany was the powerhouse of the future.

Finland took advantage of the old adage, "The Enemy of My Enemy, He is My Friend". Finland had just come off a loss against the Soviet Union in the Winter War, mostly through inaction on Britain's part. An irony of that is the Soviet Union set up the invasion by having Finnish artillery kill ten Soviet soldiers.

So in 1941 Finland could've stayed neutral, or they could've contributed to the effort against the Soviet Union. They chose to launch a campaign to regain several regions lost through Soviet actions, since it was a better idea. Germany was sweeping eastward, and the Finnish wanted to get back what was theirs. While they started a 'Finnish-German Brotherhood of Arms', it wasn't because they agreed with the ideology, it was simply because joining the Allies meant they would be working with the Soviets, who took alot of their land.

[Prince Cobra]

Well, the countires western that Germany are in something called "no-man-land". After the WWI all the great powers in the region collapsed. In WWII, these powers (the USSR and Germany) tried to hold what they thought have lost. I doubt if USSR had the opportunity to bring back Finland easily, it would have been satisfied with Karelia. After all Stalin felt like a real Tzar in Kremlin. I believe something like the Baltic scenario would have happened. Well, the Soviet plans were wrong and this war was too expensive to be contunued. It turned out that the price for conquering Finland was too high.


About the pro-German orientation. I can not say what extend of democracy this country had, in fact this matters little since the real democracies were too few then. I am ony positive the regime of Finland was not totalitarian. And as far as their pro-German orientation.. Well, for the countries between Germany and USSR the choice was simple: Germany or USSR. Great Britain was faaaar away, France collapsed quickly. I would say that Germany was the most probable ally:

1) USSR tried to swallow it and the Karelia case.

2) The German political regime did not include nationalisation and did not seem so revolutionary.

3) Germany was victorious.





----
The article I read has no sources and I admit I'm not a specialist in this period but this is my impression.

As far as the anti-Soviet policy and the pro-Soviet policy: I will not be surprised if Finland had switched from strict anti-Soviet policy to more friendly one in the period between WWI and nowadays. I see nothing wrong and nothing surprising. When your independence is threatened, you get hostile. When you have interest of good relations with your neighbour, I see nothing wrong to warm the relations.


As far as I know, the best encyclopedias and books of USSR were printed in Finland (finnish paper). Probably, there were also some Finns living in the USSR and vice-versa... And is an economical profit and the interest of your people a good reason to warm the relations? After all you get nothing from bad relations with your neighbour but good one can give you something.

The case between Bulgaria and Greece was similiar, if that's the case.

[Adrian II]

Finland had just come off a loss against the Soviet Union in the Winter War, mostly through inaction on Britain's part.Re-read your own sentence a couple of times. Note the word 'mostly'. What does it tell us?

[Marshal Murat]

That Finland stood little chance of winning the war without British support, support that was not forthcoming in any amount. There were still variables to the situation, but had Britain supported Finland against the USSR, it would've definitely changed a few perspectives.

[Adrian II]

That Finland stood little chance of winning the war without British support, support that was not forthcoming in any amount. There were still variables to the situation, but had Britain supported Finland against the USSR, it would've definitely changed a few perspectives.Can you explain how Britain, which had trouble enough to keep its expeditionary army in France on a proper war-footing, could have declared war on the Soviet Union as well as Germany and effectively aided Finland in its Winter War? I think your view shows little appreciation of Britain's position and capacity at that time, to say the least.

Besides, Soviet peace offers since January 1940 and the Moscow Peace Treaty of March 12, 1940, effectively killed any ideas of British/French military support before they could become operational.

[KarlXII]

Britain didn't want to help Finland. They wanted to send the expeditionary army to sieze Swedish iron to keep from the Germans. I highly doubt help was ever coming.

[Adrian II]

Britain didn't want to help Finland. They wanted to send the expeditionary army to sieze Swedish iron to keep from the Germans. I highly doubt help was ever coming.Thank God the British didn't squander their limited assets on such efforts. By looking after themselves first, they preserved their sovereignty which eventually made a successful Allied invasion of the European mainland possible.

[KarlXII]

Thank God the British didn't squander their limited assets on such efforts. By looking after themselves first, they preserved their sovereignty which eventually made a successful Allied invasion of the European mainland possible.

And the fact that Sweden did not become involved, I am thankful for that.

[Vladimir]

And the fact that Sweden did not become involved, I am thankful for that.

Sweeden did not but fortunately many Sweeds did. Allied intelligence services often received helpful information from them.

[Kagemusha]

This is a spin-off of the Ossetia thread in the backroom, hopefully in a different style. I have always appreciated the scholarly tone in the Monastery and will stick to it.

At issue was the question whether Georgia should be 'finlandized' and whether that would be beneficial for the country, as some members advocated, or not, as I tend to think.

So let's debate Finnish neutrality, particularly with regard to the Soviet Union.

My position is that it resulted in a truncated country with a truncated democracy. Soviet influence stifled national debate and free choice in policies. And it didn't only stifle debate and free choice in contemporary matters, it also stifled historical debate about Finland's own part in the run-up to its finlandization.

Finlandisation was not a matter of choice, as some Finnish proponents have long maintained. It was not a sequel to Finland's supposed policy of splendid neutrality in the pre-war years or during WWII. The fact that Finland ended up being finlandized was because the country had allied with nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944 in the so-called 'Finnish-German Brotherhood of Arms' (leading, among other things, to a British declaration of war).

Finland believed that Germany was the powerhouse of the future. It was wrong, and it had to accept strict Soviet peace conditions after the war.

Finnish historians have long preferred to defend their country's policies during 1939-1945 instead of critically investigating them. They refused to look into the 'Finnish-German Brotherhood of Arms' episode of 1941-44 and ignored available sources.

True, after the war the responsible politicians were put on trial and convicted, but the trial was heavily manipulated behind the scenes by the Soviets. Neither the prosecution nor the defence could speak freely, thus leaving the pain and the lessons of this episode in national history unaddressed.

In fact they weren't addressed at all until the 1960's. American historian Lundin wrote the first critical study of the episode in 1957. British historian Upton followed in 1964, and in 1967 American historian Krisby uncovered essential new records and other documents. Essentially Finnish scholars were told the truth by outsiders. That is not unique. The same would apply to for instance France (American historian Paxton was the first to write critically about 'Vichy'). But it did not, remarkably, apply to Germany itself where the issue of war guilt and responsibility led to fundamental debates.

The same kind of self-censorship has long stifled debate about the 'finlandized era' itself, particularly the period of the lat 1970's when Finland was aligning itself ever closer with the Soviet Union, without proper debate in its media. Many Finnish intellectuals believed that the USSR was the powerhouse of the future. Wrong again.

The main illusion that should be shed is that it was Finnish 'neutrality' during the Cold War that allowed the country to emerge more or less unscathed from that period. It was Nato and particularly the U.S. that kept the Russians from invading again.

Allright lets have a go at it. You seem to suggest that instead of neutrality Finland was infact aligning herself with Soviet Union. I wonder what you think about these few facts that have surfaced:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finland+and+USA+exchanged+military+intelligence+during+Cold+War/1076152567479

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2006/12/finnish_scientists_helped_usa_during_cold_war_224006.html

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/08/security_police_history_reveals_cold_war_contacts_959778.html

If you read these links through. You see that if Finland aligned herself with anything in matter of fact it was West rather then USSR. Finnish seismology scientist gave Nuclear intelligence about Soviet Union to USA, while monitoring it with US equipment.

Finnish military exchanced military intelligence and information about conventional weapons with West extensively.

Finnish Security police was in extensive cooperation with he Western intelligence deparments.

I wonder how this supports your theories that Finland was a willing vassal of Soviet Union, like you describe in your post?:yes:

[Adrian II]

If you read these links through. You see that if Finland aligned herself with anything in matter of fact it was West rather then USSR. I read the links through. It seems to me that the US did a good job enlisting Finnish agents and informing the Finnish military. I would be disappointed if they hadn't. Some parts of the Finnish state, such as the secret service, may have willingly cooperated with the Americans, but it wasn't public policy as the first article states:

Even Finland’s political leaders at the time were probably not aware of the extent of the cooperation.
And it doesn't detract from my point that finlandization stifled public debate, press freedom and historical research in Finland, led to the white-washing of Soviet injustices and even to the scandalous sending back of Soviet defectors and dissidents across the border.

If you insist on presenting new facts, why don't you present all new facts and not just those that seem to support your view?

President Kekkonen insisted on sending back Soviet defectors (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/President+Kekkonen+insisted+on+sending+back+Soviet+defectors/1101980957580)

[Kagemusha]

This just shows you that clearly you dont know anything about FInland. You are trying to apply Netherlands history to Finland, Maybe if you would know even a bit the president of finland of that time Kekkonen was handling executions of reds in finnish civil war of 1918. He was almost a dictator of finland and you are suggesting that he did not know what his, military, intelligence service and
scientist were doing? Even if you knew even a bit.SUPO the security police of finland only answeder to its director and president.

But no.You think that Finland was first a nazi state aiming for world hegemony with third reich. Then after the second world war a willing vassal of soviet union. You dont have anything to back your words. Only your own opinions and nothing else.If Netherlands was too neutral for its own being it doesnt apply to every other neutral country.

Also i was born during 70´s and grew during 80´s and 90´s in Finland, but Adrian II who has never sat his foot in Finland must know better what was the climate in Finland.

[Centurion1]

i had always thought that the finns were friendlier to the west than the russians. They purchased alot of nato equipment for sure. they have f-16's in their air force right now, not migs....

Oh and the finns made a gallant defense in the winter war. Far superior troops they were just swamped with numbers.


Oh and they were the only nation to repay their war debts to america for ww1.

Overall, i like the finns.

Haake Pall!!!!!

[Adrian II]

[..] the president of Finland of that time Kekkonen was handling executions of reds in finnish civil war of 1918.I know Kekkonen was an anti-Communist. This makes his fate after 1950 all the more telling. If even Kekkonen had to send back Soviet defectors and dissidents, that is additional proof of the firm Soviet hold on Finland.

Meanwhile, instead of adopting a scathing tone and voicing all sorts of nonsense about my person, you had better keep your own promises. Such as this one:


Dear Adrian II. I will promiss to address each and every one of your points when i get back from work, next to some source material.
That was over a year ago. I suppose Finnish working hours are gruelling. Even so, you will have to come up with at least something we can put our teeth in.

While you're at it, you might also address Kääpäkorven Konsuli's point:


At least Nato's plans treated Finland more like an ally of Soviets than neutral country.This seems to be at odds with the image you paint of a splendid cooperation between Finland and Nato.

[AggonyDuck]

I think what angers us Finns with your claims is that you make it sound as if we were Soviet puppets.
Finlandization was the most convenient solution at keeping the Soviet Union friendly and thus it also was the policy used. If the Soviets had made unacceptable demands, our leaders would had been ready to say no and we would had been prepared to defend ourselves. It was a process of making small concessions to keep relations friendly and avoid a potentially disastrous war with the Soviet Union.


The main illusion that should be shed is that it was Finnish 'neutrality' during the Cold War that allowed the country to emerge more or less unscathed from that period. It was Nato and particularly the U.S. that kept the Russians from invading again.

Frankly NATO had very little do with keeping us from being invaded. If anything it was the combination of arsekissing the Soviets and maintaning a considerable military that kept us safe. The Soviets had little reason to invade a friendly country, especially when such an invasion would be costly when compared to the potential gains.

I wouldn't say Finlandization is something we should be proud of, but I am certain that it was the safest and wisest way of dealing with the dilemma of neighbouring the Soviet Union. Compared to most of the other nations neighbouring the Soviet Union, I'd say Kekkonen and co. did pretty darn well.

[Kralizec]

At issue was the question whether Georgia should be 'finlandized' and whether that would be beneficial for the country, as some members advocated, or not, as I tend to think.

The suggestion wasn't about censuring the press. It was about Finland's geopolitical status during the Cold War.
Austria was neutral too (still is, supposedly), and only because of that it avoided the fate of prolongued partition wich happened to Germany.

If either country simply fired a couple of shells across the border and called on the western militaries to support them against the Russians, would they have been better off?

From the little I know of the domestic side of "finlandization" I get the impression that some politicians (ab)used the supposed danger of Soviet intervention to silence political opponents. Awful as that may be, I think it's better to have politicians who at least appreciate the circumstances wich their country is in instead of idiots like Saakashvili.

[Adrian II]

I think what angers us Finns with your claims is that you make it sound as if we were Soviet puppets.Not puppets, but the victims of Finnish policy choices, although some maintain that it was just force majeure.

Anyway, please read the OP again so you understand what is at issue:

At issue was the question whether Georgia should be 'finlandized' and whether that would be beneficial for the country, as some members advocated, or not, as I tend to think.My position is that finlandization resulted in a truncated country with a truncated democracy. Soviet influence stifled national debate, free choice in policies and also historical debate. So far I have seen nothing in this thread to counter this view. Finlandization implied much more than neutrality. It entailed forced cooperation with the Soviets in some areas, limited (foreign) policy choices and a comprehensive self-censorship which stifled free debate and research.

Conclusion: finlandization would not be good for Georgia.

[Prince Cobra]

Not puppets, but the victims of Finnish policy choices, although some maintain that it was just force majeure.

Anyway, please read the OP again so you understand what is at issue:
My position is that finlandization resulted in a truncated country with a truncated democracy. Soviet influence stifled national debate, free choice in policies and also historical debate. So far I have seen nothing in this thread to counter this view. Finlandization implied much more than neutrality. It entailed forced cooperation with the Soviets in some areas, limited (foreign) policy choices and a comprehensive self-censorship which stifled free debate and research.



Hmmm, we all see how well the Czechoslovakian Republic was defended by its Western allies in 1939. Are you sure anybody will start a war for your icy Northern country?

Second, would you feel more comnfortable when you are having the Soviet rockets against your capital guarded by rockets of the hostile, though allied to you country? And supposing that the Soviet weapons were getting older imagine something goes wrong and a rocket is fired on your land by accident... Imagine this is a territory not in Western Germany but very close to Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg), the heart of superpower. And imagine your neighbour have nothing to gain from your 5 million populated country except hostile Sweden, casualties, the image of an invader and all these traded for ice and forests. Is a little limitation of the freedom of speech, flexible neutrality + valuable econiomic ties worths saving from a totlatiarian regime and happy referendum at best and world destruction at worst? I would say yes.

May I also aks which are these countries with big choice during the Cold war? Apart from USA and USSR... National debate was even stiffled even in USA during the Cold war. It is a mistake to put the present cattegories in the past.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Dear Adrian II. I will promiss to address each and every one of your points when i get back from work.:yes:

Allright lets have a go at itGenius. Genius. Genius. :laugh4:



Finland as the victim of circumstance? Nah. A small country that made the best of the cards it was dealt? No, not really either. I think Finland had a greater choice in its own matters than it thinks. Finlandization was convenient, and it was a choice.


Your angered replies remind me of the thread where I spoke of Hollandification in the 1930's and 1940's. (Don't get mad, get even! Open a 'Perils of Hollandization' thread :smash:) Same excuses, same irritation at the foreigner pointing out the autonomous choices that were there, contrary to the self-image of powerless victim.

Countries can have a rather different image of themselves than abroad. Do I note a distinct difference between large and small countries in this regard? France knows about Vichy - it is the subject of bitter debate. Even if it took a few decades. The same goes for Algeria. Or colonization. Germany has spend decades of intense historical scutinization. The UK and the US too know and debate their more unfortunate historical periods.

The Finns, the Dutch, the Swiss, Swedes, Austrians too, by contrast, not so much. There is not enough debate in these countries. (The Serbians, Poles, Irish, for their part, have too much historical debate)
Is it a matter of lack of critical mass in these countries? Of too much energy spend on discussing foreign topics, learning foreign languages and histories?
And, apart from these internal forces, perhaps of a lack of external forces too? A lack of foreigners with enough knowledge to pry open debate?

Who knows. At any rate, very interesting.

[Adrian II]

Do I note a distinct difference between large and small countries in this regard? France knows about Vichy - it is the subject of bitter debate.
The French Vichy debate was provoked by an American historian, Robert Paxton. Otherwise I would have to agree with you.

Small countries probably lack the awareness that they have (or have had) agency, that they could (and can) act independently and make a difference. And the longer they adopt this attitude as their official policy, the more it sticks. Your remark about Dutch 'neutrality' toward nazi-Germany is a case in point.

[Brenus]

“The French Vichy debate was provoked by an American historian, Robert Paxton. Otherwise I would have to agree with you.” Paxton indeed opened the door, starting to question the myth of the “France Resistante” build for political reason by de Gaulle.
Then with René Amouroux (40 millions de Pétinistes) and even some movies as “Lacombe Lucien”, suddenly all the French were seen as Petinists.
We even learned at school and movies that France collapsed against the III Reich without fight (Ou est passé la 12eme Compagnie?).
And none of this it in fact true.

But Louis remark is still valid. It doesn’t matter if a foreign historian opened a debate. What matters is the country is able to confront the thesis, to accept it as a start for research… The French were not happy but now nobody really question Paxton.

[Prince Cobra]

The French Vichy debate was provoked by an American historian, Robert Paxton. Otherwise I would have to agree with you.

Small countries probably lack the awareness that they have (or have had) agency, that they could (and can) act independently and make a difference. And the longer they adopt this attitude as their official policy, the more it sticks. Your remark about Dutch 'neutrality' toward nazi-Germany is a case in point.

I'd be glad to learn more about the policy of the Netherlands in the 30's and why you criticize it... A good link will be appreciated since I know nothing on the topic.

Back on topic: Finland was doing exactly that: to stay neutral! Remember you can not be self-proclaimed neutral, you have to be recognized by the warring factions: both USSR and USA. During the WW1 and WW2 Belgium was neutral but this was not recognised by one of the warring sides for certain reasons. The result: Belgium was occupied.

About the debate: AFAIK, the debate of active neutrality is not just a historical debate for the Finns. It is quite much related to their present and future so it is incorrest to call it stifled or something like that. Shall they allign to NATO or not nowadays? How this should be done without worsening the relations with their neighbour: Russia? Will Finland lose more than what it will gain? I think this is a debate quite different from the one in Austria, Switzerland and etc. Example: the current Prime-Minister of Finnland Matti Vanhanen supports tthe idea of NATO membership whilst the President Tarja Halonen is against this idea (AFAIK, the Prsident and the Prime-minister have relatively the same powers in foregin affairs)

[Adrian II]

May I also aks which are these countries with big choice during the Cold war? Apart from USA and USSR... National debate was even stiffled even in USA during the Cold war. It is a mistake to put the present categories in the past.The Netherlands and other European countries made major independent decisions during the cold war, such as joining the EEC and creating a common market that could rival that of the US. And the crucial point is that it was our own choice.

And speaking of category mistakes: comparing Soviet censorship with American self-censorship during the McCarthy era is a mistake of serious proportions. National debate in the US was never stifled to the extent it was in Finland, and more importantly: it was stifled by Americans, not foreigners. Again, that is the real point here.

We should not acquiesce in the idea that a country like Georgia would somehow be 'better off' if it were finlandized instead of being a full-flung member of Nato, the EU and the circle of modern western democracies.

P.S. After perusing this article (http://www.eusanz.org/pdf/conf02/abbenhuis_eusanz_2002.pdf) by Miss Abbenhuis of Canterbury University, I believe it is a fair assessment of the causes and consequences of Dutch neutrality policy. This policy appeared to hold up in 1914-18, even though for totally extraneous reasons. This apparent 'success' allowed successive Dutch governments (and a large part of the population) in the 1930's to lull themselves to sleep with the same neutrality refrain. Resulting in a rude wake-up call.

[Prince Cobra]

The Netherlands and other European countries made major independent decisions during the cold war, such as joining the EEC and creating a common market that could rival that of the US. And the crucial point is that it was our own choice.


Basically, Finland also defended its basic interests. Maybe only in the terms of economical integration it was slower but the Finnish economy also coped well during the Cold war. And eventually, when the Soviet market shrunk, it also actively joined the integration process on the continent.

The economic integration was supported by USA, btw. On the other side, you are right, it gave unexpected fruits and turned out to be profitable for Europe. But basically, there was also a saignificant dependance on USA of the Western countries.



And speaking of category mistakes: comparing Soviet censorship with American self-censorship during the McCarthy era is a mistake of serious proportions. National debate in the US was never stifled to the extent it was in Finland, and more importantly: it was stifled by Americans, not foreigners. Again, that is the real point here.

Of course. But I only compared the Finnish self-censorship with the one existing in the USA. I think it is quite impossible to compare the Soviet and the Finnish societies in the terms of censorship. :yes:


We should not acquiesce in the idea that a country like Georgia would somehow be 'better off' if it were finlandized instead of being a full-flung member of Nato, the EU and the circle of modern western democracies.

Whilst the eventual profits (could you deny that nowaday Finland is developed and democratic country?) from Kekkonen policy are doubtless for the peace and the independance of the country, the profits secured by Saakashvili are still questionable. I can not also claim that Georgia could copy the behaviour of Finland during the Cold war. You can be right or not as only time will tell whether the sacrifice of territories and people will worth it. Once again, we discuss Finland, not Georgia.



P.S. After perusing this article (http://www.eusanz.org/pdf/conf02/abbenhuis_eusanz_2002.pdf) by Miss Abbenhuis of Canterbury University, I believe it is a fair assessment of the causes and consequences of Dutch neutrality policy. This policy appeared to hold up in 1914-18, even though for totally extraneous reasons. This apparent 'success' allowed successive Dutch governments (and a large part of the population) in the 1930's to lull themselves to sleep with the same neutrality refrain. Resulting in a rude wake-up call.

Thanks.

[Adrian II]

Basically, Finland also defended its basic interests. Maybe only in the terms of economical integration it was slower but the Finnish economy also coped well during the Cold war.Finnish industrialization really took off only after WWII, isnt that right? That healthy growth certainly wasn't due to the Soviets, I suppose .. :beam:
But I only compared the Finnish self-censorship with the one existing in the USA.American self-censorship wasn't enforced from the outside, Finnish self-censorship was. And it was enforced by the Soviets, who had a special agency in their press department in Tehtaankatu to take care of it. The result was biased coverage or lack of coverage (and public debate as well) of for instance Alexander Solzhenitsyn's travails and exile, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or events in the Baltic States.

As for the ´profits secured by Saakashvili´, they are non-existent. But that is no reason for us to want to deliver Georgia into Russian hands and have it finlandized. That is the point of this thread. Is finlandization a form of genuine neutrality? No. Is it a good solution? No again.

[Papewaio]

Small countries probably lack the awareness that they have (or have had) agency, that they could (and can) act independently and make a difference. And the longer they adopt this attitude as their official policy, the more it sticks. Your remark about Dutch 'neutrality' toward nazi-Germany is a case in point.

I think blaming lack of quality on lack of size would be a very masculine lens to apply to a country.

Australia with a population of 20 million has been able to examine itself and understand it's agency although at times it does go back into a reflexive 'it was the guv 'onest' blame game of an issue being because of mother Britain. A bit hard for the White Australia policy and the Stolen Generation to be blamed on Britain since these were well and truly generations after Australian Federation.

Likewise New Zealand with a population at fifth that of Australia would have to be one of the countries with a very acute understanding of its own agency (Waitangi Treaty, Women's right to vote) and takes much more responsibility for its successes and failures then its larger cousin.

[Adrian II]

I think blaming lack of quality on lack of size would be a very masculine lens to apply to a country.

Australia with a population of 20 million has been able to examine itself and understand it's agency although at times it does go back into a reflexive 'it was the guv 'onest' blame game of an issue being because of mother Britain. A bit hard for the White Australia policy and the Stolen Generation to be blamed on Britain since these were well and truly generations after Australian Federation.

Likewise New Zealand with a population at fifth that of Australia would have to be one of the countries with a very acute understanding of its own agency (Waitangi Treaty, Women's right to vote) and takes much more responsibility for its successes and failures then its larger cousin.With all due respect, Waitangi was in 1840 and it wasn't exactly a display of agency, rather a cry for help from the outside. It resulted in British sovereignty over the country. The fact that this treaty is now celebrated is a nice example of what Louis stated: small countries have more difficulty facing their national failures, and if and when they do they are likely to blame the outside world for them.

[Furunculus]

Not puppets, but the victims of Finnish policy choices, although some maintain that it was just force majeure.

Anyway, please read the OP again so you understand what is at issue:
My position is that finlandization resulted in a truncated country with a truncated democracy. Soviet influence stifled national debate, free choice in policies and also historical debate. So far I have seen nothing in this thread to counter this view. Finlandization implied much more than neutrality. It entailed forced cooperation with the Soviets in some areas, limited (foreign) policy choices and a comprehensive self-censorship which stifled free debate and research.

Conclusion: finlandization would not be good for Georgia.

"truncated" is a good description insomuch as my real-life Finnish friends find finlandization a very uncomfortable topic to discuss.

[Prince Cobra]

Finnish industrialization really took off only after WWII, isnt that right? That healthy growth certainly wasn't due to the Soviets, I suppose .. :beam:American self-censorship wasn't enforced from the outside, Finnish self-censorship was. And it was enforced by the Soviets, who had a special agency in their press department in Tehtaankatu to take care of it. The result was biased coverage or lack of coverage (and public debate as well) of for instance Alexander Solzhenitsyn's travails and exile, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or events in the Baltic States.

As for the ´profits secured by Saakashvili´, they are non-existent. But that is no reason for us to want to deliver Georgia into Russian hands and have it finlandized. That is the point of this thread. Is finlandization a form of genuine neutrality? No. Is it a good solution? No again.

Finland was an example of how a small country makes minor concessions (like some control over the press but it would be foolish to say that this does not exist in the West, too; in Finalnd it was slightly heavier but it did the trick as we see nowadays) in order to a keep its vital national interests. Plus,no, you are wrong: Finland case was nothing but a neutrality agreed by both the USA and USSR. Contrary to the common understanding, being neutral sometimes requires a price for that to be paid. The Finns made a good deal. I wonder are you aware how Finland solve the German question (recognising the East and West Germany), what was their role in the Helsinki Conference, how it slowly but surely persuaded the Soviet Union of its own understanding of the peace treaties?

Just like most of the Eastern European countries. Most of these countries did not have very developed industry and it is not surprisng that the same happened in Finland (Russian between 1814 and 1917)

[Adrian II]

I wonder are you aware how Finland solve the German question (recognising the East and West Germany), what was their role in the Helsinki Conference, how it slowly but surely persuaded the Soviet Union of its own understanding of the peace treaties?You mean, as in 'resolved' the German question? You really think Finland resolved the German question by recognizing the two Germany's?

I will not address that remark or the rest of that sentence. It is past midnight over here and I fear my Homeric laughter might wake up some of my significant others.

[Papewaio]

With all due respect, Waitangi was in 1840 and it wasn't exactly a display of agency, rather a cry for help from the outside. It resulted in British sovereignty over the country. The fact that this treaty is now celebrated is a nice example of what Louis stated: small countries have more difficulty facing their national failures, and if and when they do they are likely to blame the outside world for them.

Not the original paper, the application of that Treaty in the form of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/). Since the mid 1980's NZ has shown a very acute understanding that there was an obligation to the native people of their nation (something Australia a much larger neighbour has had difficulty with). The agency would be showing leadership in indigenous rights and going not just by the letter of the treaty but the spirit. That and even since the Boer War, New Zealand has had Maori troops, politicians and rugby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_M%C4%81ori_rugby_union_team) players. Since NZ national religion is Rugby and the All Blacks uniform is derived from the Maori not the Pakeha uniform.

Whilst on the other hand it took till 1967 to get Australian Aboriginals off the wildlife census onto the human one.

The main thing is that New Zealand although smaller then Aus has been far more fast at seeing its internal problems, taking responsibility for them and fixing the issues. The main point being that not all small nations blame larger ones for their problems or are less able in creating change.

So to blame Finland's moral positioning on its size is the equivalent of blaming a persons moral positioning on their hair colour. No matter their size they should be held accountable and responsible for their actions. The inability to hold a mirror up to past injustices is fairly common in countries of all sizes. Some of the worst would have to be the biggest, not the smallest.

[Prince Cobra]

You mean, as in 'resolved' the German question? You really think Finland resolved the German question by recognizing the two Germany's?

My God, no. I simply meant it demonstrated its neutrality by recognising them both at the same time after years of silence on the issue.


I will not address that remark or the rest of that sentence. It is past midnight over here and I fear my Homeric laughter might wake up some of my significant others.

Now it's day and after I explained what exactly I meant, I think your laughter will die out as the power of Achileus by the arrow of Paris. :evilgrin: Now more seriously.

I am afraid you conveniently pretend to misunderstand my arguments (or I simply did not explain them well, which is my fault then). Surely, you can not deny that as a host of the Conference, the Finns did a good work with the organisation of the Conference and occasionally, prevented some accidents from happening for the good of the dialogue + Finland was certainly not a random choice. Both sides accepted to meet there. Or maybe you are not familiar what the structuire of the Peace treaties between Finland and the USSR were?

I do not say Finland was a super factor in the world politics but certainly it did well defending its regional interests. Apart from some limitation of the freedom of speech and some election cases (both temporary events in the Finnish history), you have no real arguments against the so called "Finlandisation".

[Adrian II]

The main point being that not all small nations blame larger ones for their problems or are less able in creating change.Your New Zealand example is very convincing indeed. I have been trying to figure out why NZ is an apparent exception to a rule that seems to apply so well in Europe.

Maybe it's because NZ didn't face outside pressure during its modern history, with the exception of a rather remote but serious Japanese threat during WWII. As far as I know, NZ has had no quarrels with its neighbours over language, territory and minority issues, no nosy great powers who wanted to control it. This might explain its relaxed treatment of painful issues from the past.

Suppose that, say, Australia had championed the cause of Maori 'independence' from the central NZ government for the past one hundred years. NZ's attitude with regard to Maori's and to its own treatment of them would be much more cramped...

You agree?


I am afraid you conveniently pretend to misunderstand my arguments (or I simply did not explain them well, which is my fault then).Because of the way you put it (Finland solved the German question and firmly showed the Soviets the error of their ways) I couldn't suppress a giggle. Sure, Finland didn't do all wrong, it was not a Finnish Socialist Soviet Republic. But I am sure that given the choice, a large majority of Finns from 1945 onwards would have opted for freedom and independence instead of Soviet 'brotherhood and friendship'.

[al Roumi]

I'm certain i will reget joining this debate but...


Your New Zealand example is very convincing indeed. I have been trying to figure out why NZ is an apparent exception to a rule that seems to apply so well in Europe.

Maybe it's because NZ didn't face outside pressure during its modern history, with the exception of a rather remote but serious Japanese threat during WWII. As far as I know, NZ has had no quarrels with its neighbours over language, territory and minority issues, no nosy great powers who wanted to control it. This might explain its relaxed treatment of painful issues from the past.

Suppose that, say, Australia had championed the cause of Maori 'independence' from the central NZ government for the past one hundred years. NZ's attitude with regard to Maori's and to its own treatment of them would be much more cramped...

I'm afraid I find the assertion that the size of a nation affects it's ability to objectively examine its history hard to countenance.

I would be most interested in how you define a quantitative measure (size) by highly qualitative means (large/small) and especially the mechanisms by which this "size" translates into a state's greater propensity for self examination?

Additionaly, what's to say that self examination isn't some form of revisionism, suiting past precedent to a modern political (or other) purpose?

Finally, aren't you barking up the wrong tree anyway? Surely a state can only afford to examine its more insalubrious episodes of history with a certain ammount of distance and, especially: present stability and security?

[Adrian II]

I would be most interested in how you define a quantitative measure (size) by highly qualitative means (large/small) and especially the mechanisms by which this "size" translates into a state's greater propensity for self examination?Call it a rule of thumb. I am afraid I can't give you an exact formula. But if I could, I would certainly factor in democracy.

Large + democracy = bigger propensity for self-examination

Leave out one or the other and you get The Netherlands and China respectively.
Additionally, what's to say that self examination isn't some form of revisionism, suiting past precedent to a modern political (or other) purpose?There is always that aspect to the (re)writing of history, but mainly in non-democratic countries where the authorities have leverage over the media, historiography, etcetera. A prime example of that would be Mao's Cultural Revolution.

[al Roumi]

Call it a rule of thumb. I am afraid I can't give you an exact formula. But if I could, I would certainly factor in democracy.

Large + democracy = bigger propensity for self-examination

Leave out one or the other and you get The Netherlands and China respectively.


What about India, Russia, Iran, South Africa, Argentina, Indonesia...

They are all "large" "democracies", and not particularily prone to enlightened self-examination or bringing "past excesses" to light.

I think what you mean is Stability & Security, and non-oppressive & transparent governance. Not size and democracy.

[Adrian II]

What about India, Russia, Iran, South Africa, Argentina, Indonesia...

They are all "large" "democracies", and not particularily prone to enlightened self-examination or bringing "past excesses" to light.

I think what you mean is Stability & Security, and non-oppressive & transparent governance. Not size and democracy.
Alright, I give up. First Papewaio shoots holes in my theory, now you come up with a superior one and make me look like a fool. Serves me right for embracing on of Louis' hair-brained ideas.

You know how it is. You give them an inch and before you know it, you're up to your neck in bulls Cartesian fuzziness.
:shame:

[al Roumi]

Well I'm sure my choice of factors is still too simplistic for some :P

It's been an intersting discussion, glad I wasn't involved in the more patriotic and bruising earlier bits of it!

[Prince Cobra]

But I am sure that given the choice, a large majority of Finns from 1945 onwards would have opted for freedom and independence instead of Soviet 'brotherhood and friendship'.

Maybe. Most often than not the emotions turn out to be a bad advisor. Desire is one thing, political necessity: another.

And Finland was independent enough so that it can serve its national interests: to put it short to prevent from being sovietized. You did not really prove the opposite.

[AggonyDuck]

Because of the way you put it (Finland solved the German question and firmly showed the Soviets the error of their ways) I couldn't suppress a giggle. Sure, Finland didn't do all wrong, it was not a Finnish Socialist Soviet Republic. But I am sure that given the choice, a large majority of Finns from 1945 onwards would have opted for freedom and independence instead of Soviet 'brotherhood and friendship'.

I would like to point out that Finlandization was a democratically elected approach to our dealings with the Soviet Union. Frankly most of us were smart enough to understand neither joining the Warsaw Pact or the NATO would be a wise move for our independence. Simply said, I do not think that the US would had risked nuclear war over our country and thus would not had directly interfered in the case of Soviet invasion. The moment we'd start to align ourselves with the west and the forces of democracy, I'd expect the Soviets to start preparing for an invasion. They couldn't afford to have a potentially hostile government right at the doorstep of Leningrad.

The end result was that we stood alone against the Soviets and we had learned from our wars, that alone, if it came to war, we would eventually fall. So in those circumstances it is infinitely wiser to make those small concessions on our freedom to preserve most of it. It's a case of the lonely little kid agreeing not to say anything negative about the school bully to avoid getting beat up. It certainly beats getting beat up and then having to hand over your lunch money as well. In the geopolitical situation of Finland during the Cold War, Finlandization was the only safe and sound way to deal with the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Anything else would had been a huge gamble and one that we could ill afford to make.

[Adrian II]

Simply said, I do not think that the US would had risked nuclear war over our country and thus would not had directly interfered in the case of Soviet invasion.Oh, I perfectly understand the reasoning behind it all.

My point is that we shouldn't let a country suffer such a fate if we can avoid it. It is not a good thing. The Finns would have avoided it if they could, right? So let's not pretend that finlandization is hunky dory. And let's help the Georgians avoid it while we can.

[AggonyDuck]

Oh, I perfectly understand the reasoning behind it all.

My point is that we shouldn't let a country suffer such a fate if we can avoid it. It is not a good thing. The Finns would have avoided it if they could, right? So let's not pretend that finlandization is hunky dory. And let's help the Georgians avoid it while we can.

Yes, agreed. Luckily for Georgia, Russia of today doesn't really compare to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This means that avoiding Finlandization is a very much a possible option, but the key to avoiding it is strong foreign support. A small country without foreign support has very little option but to respect the wishes of its larger neighbour. The role of the US and EU is very important in this regard.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm a little confused here (didn't read the Backroom thread which may be part of the problem). Adrian, you are saying that Finlandization (historically where the Finns chose to play between NATO and the Soviets to avoid provoking the latter into something rash) is a bad thing because it lets the Soviet equalivalent to influence the Finnish equivalent. Yes?

You also place the blame at the feat of the Finns - surely then Georgiazation would be the choice of the Georgians and not NATO?

[Adrian II]

Adrian, you are saying that Finlandization [..] is a bad thing. Yes?Yes.
[..] Georgiazation would be the choice of the Georgians and not NATO?I'm afraid I don't know what Georgiazation is. The choices made by Georgian leaders are problematic, something I have addressed in the Backroom. They should be allowed to correct them without deep and lasting Soviet/like interference in their internal affairs.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

By Georgization I just meant Finlandization for Georgia...

[Papewaio]

Your New Zealand example is very convincing indeed. I have been trying to figure out why NZ is an apparent exception to a rule that seems to apply so well in Europe.

Maybe it's because NZ didn't face outside pressure during its modern history, with the exception of a rather remote but serious Japanese threat during WWII. As far as I know, NZ has had no quarrels with its neighbours over language, territory and minority issues, no nosy great powers who wanted to control it. This might explain its relaxed treatment of painful issues from the past.

Suppose that, say, Australia had championed the cause of Maori 'independence' from the central NZ government for the past one hundred years. NZ's attitude with regard to Maori's and to its own treatment of them would be much more cramped...

You agree?

Heres the rub... NZ was a colony of New South Wales (Australia) at the time of the first signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

And Britain did not want to take over NZ, it was pro the Maori's keeping it.

I think NZ has had several advantages in its formative years wealth (Gum & Gold) being put into education. Positive immigration (people only went there because they wanted to, not because they stole a loaf of bread to survive). Lots of food. Pride in being so far from everywhere else.

Also it isn't all roses. Maori's do over-represent in all the bad stats (% in prison ~3x the norm, lifespan ~69yrs).

http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/2004/health/life-expectancy.html

The biggest reason that I can see is that the Maori's were already a farming culture that had warrior castes, chiefs and complex trading. There culture meshed rather easily with whalers, farmers and tree choppers. Also their language was far more united across the nation then say Aboriginal Australians. So NZ's success has as much to do with the state of affairs that existed externally and internally.

What makes a nation introspective is education, democracy, transparency and accountability.