Perils of Finlandization

[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.

[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.

[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?