Perils of Finlandization

[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.

[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.