Perils of Finlandization

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.