Perils of Finlandization

[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.

Allright lets have a go at it

Genius. Genius. Genius.



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 ) 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 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.

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 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 ..

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 .. 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. 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 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. 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.

[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/...xpectancy.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.