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.

[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/Fin.../1076152567479

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2006/12/f...ar_224006.html

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/08/s...ts_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?

[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

[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.