Perils of Finlandization

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.