Why wasn't Finland turned into a Soviet Puppet State?

[Stylesjl]

When the Soviet Union pushed the Germans back and won the war they seized several Eastern European states, but why not Finland? Wouldn't they have simply rolled through Finland and established a Communist government there like they did with pretty much every state the Germans conquered in the East?

 

[sabo]

That's a good question, I've always wondered that too. I believe that as far as Soviet Russia leaving Finland alone was all part of the Potsdam agreement. Russia Did get various tracts of land around Leningrad, and even though Finland was allied with Germany as was Rumania and Hungary, the difference was that Russia attacked Finland 1st during the Winter war.

I'm sure one of our Finnish or Russian friends on this board will be here soon to inform us.

 

[Berrie]

I don't recall the exact circumstances, but at some time it was a possibility that Finland would become another communist state.

The western allies and the Soviets used Finland as small change in their negotiations. The Soviet-Union contented itself with a large influence in Finland via the Finno-Soviet Pact of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance and the fact that Finland paid it's war retributions.
Another factor was that the American populace had more sympathy for the Finns then for the Eastern European people. So the Americans were much more inclined to play it hard regarding Finland.

I could give you more information if I had access to my sources, but I haven't right now. But there are a lot of Finns on this forum who could help you more....

 

[Maimonides]

When the Soviet Union pushed the Germans back and won the war they seized several Eastern European states, but why not Finland? Wouldn't they have simply rolled through Finland and established a Communist government there like they did with pretty much every state the Germans conquered in the East?

This period produced a political term: Finlandization. Basicly, Finlandization occurs when a country is so firmly under the sphere of influence of another that it is essentially under the control of the other.

The Soviets did invade Finland, but the Finns did a simply amazing job of defending themselves. Despite this, Soviet control of the area was so complete that Finland had no choice but to comply with the Soviets. The Soviets controlled the seas & the skies & far outnumbered the Finns.

There has been fear that Taiwan would Finlandize to mainland China, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Because of Snow.

 

[innonimatu]

I think the mainstream Cold War history needs a big revision. Stalin behaved as a russian nationalist, not as some kind of internationalist revolutionary seeking to extend communist throughout the globe - the USSR pretty much gave up on that by 1923, and Stalin's victory later cemented the policy change. He wanted to rebuild the old czarist empire and extend it where possible, but not get involved in a world war!

Following WW2 he was probably far more concerned about defense (and setting up puppet states in Central Europe fit into that strategy) than about taking over the rest of Europe. The fact is that for the rest of the 20th century the USSR never sought to expand its territory again (even Afghanistan was invaded in the old czarist "tradition" of dispute over Central Asia.

I was commenting that the western europeans might have been the "useful idiots" to the US post-WW2 imperial strategy precisely because I'm not convinced the whole Cold War was inevitable to start with. Why was the USSR's proposal to reunite Germany as a neutral state in 1952 (as it was done with Austria) refused? Even it it was a ploy in response to the Brussels Treaty, why not seriously discuss it, and leave room for agreement by keeping West Germany out of western military treaties for some more years? Who benefited from the refusal to unite Germany and from the enduring division of Europe during the Cold War? Certainly not Western Europe, forced into a conflict that cast it into the role of "vassal" to its big ally. De Gaulle in France saw that as early as 1959, but then blew up the alternative that the EDC might have offered!

The Warsaw Pact was essential as a cover for the USSR to maintain Central Europe under control, created in reaction to NATO. Without it, the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968 might have been successfully, and set off the overthrowing of soviet influence in other countries decades sooner. So Central Europe was also very much a victim of the Cold War and the strategies of the two superpowers that sought to divide the world during those years.

Back to the topic: Finland wasn't a threat (unlike in 1939-40, when was a very likely ally of Germany), so there was no point in trying to take it over.

 

[luiz]

I think the mainstream Cold War history needs a big revision. Stalin behaved as a russian nationalist, not as some kind of internationalist revolutionary seeking to extend communist throughout the globe - the USSR pretty much gave up on that by 1923, and Stalin's victory later cemented the policy change. He wanted to rebuild the old czarist empire and extend it where possible, but not get involved in a world war!

That is precisely how mainstram historians view Stalin. An aggressive, ultra-cruel czar, not someone trying to spread the Revolution. In fact Stalin made it clear that unlike Trotsky he didn't feel a world revolution was necessary (though he did fund communist parties in the West including the USA).

Following WW2 he was probably far more concerned about defense (and setting up puppet states in Central Europe fit into that strategy) than about taking over the rest of Europe. The fact is that for the rest of the 20th century the USSR never sought to expand its territory again (even Afghanistan was invaded in the old czarist "tradition" of dispute over Central Asia.

If occupying Central and Eastern Europe was purely about the defense than I'd say the soviet leaders were even more delusionally paranoid than commonly thought. It was about power, in every sense of the word including but not limited to defense. Stalin's sole goal in life was to accumulate power; by extending soviet power throughout a vast empire he made himself more powerful by extention.

I was commenting that the western europeans might have been the "useful idiots" to the US post-WW2 imperial strategy precisely because I'm not convinced the whole Cold War was inevitable to start with.

It wasn't inevitable if the soviets didn't behave the way they did.

Why was the USSR's proposal to reunite Germany as a neutral state in 1952 (as it was done with Austria) refused? Even it it was a ploy in response to the Brussels Treaty, why not seriously discuss it, and leave room for agreement by keeping West Germany out of western military treaties for some more years? Who benefited from the refusal to unite Germany and from the enduring division of Europe during the Cold War? Certainly not Western Europe, forced into a conflict that cast it into the role of "vassal" to its big ally. De Gaulle in France saw that as early as 1959, but then blew up the alternative that the EDC might have offered!

Germany was divided by soviet initiative. People were only barred in one way of the division, you should remember that. The US and Western Europe wanted nothing more than have a united democratic Germany, that would democratically chose to side itself with the West (the immigration flux in the two Germanies show very well which model was liked best). Germany had to be divided by force, by the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union alone.

The Warsaw Pact was essential as a cover for the USSR to maintain Central Europe under control, created in reaction to NATO. Without it, the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968 might have been successfully, and set off the overthrowing of soviet influence in other countries decades sooner. So Central Europe was also very much a victim of the Cold War and the strategies of the two superpowers that sought to divide the world during those years.

I'd say that Central Europe was a victim of the soviet tanks that smashed them.

Back to the topic: Finland wasn't a threat (unlike in 1939-40, when was a very likely ally of Germany), so there was no point in trying to take it over.

So you're saying that the USSR invaded Finland because it was a "threat"? Yeah, right. I'm sure russian children had troubles sleeping at night fearing the finnish hordes. So what if Finland was a possible ally of Germany? Back in 1939, when the Soviet Union carried out it's repulsive sneak attack, Hitler and Stalin were buddies.

They invaded because Stalin wanted nothing short of total hegemony in the Baltic, this is the commonly accepted version and makes far more sense than the version that Stalin was fighting an ally of Hitler, propagated by western historians on Moscow's pocketts during the Cold War.

Finland wasn't invaded another time because the Finns proved they would put up a hell of a fight and it would ultimately cost more than the benefit.

 

[Verbose]

Back to the topic: Finland wasn't a threat (unlike in 1939-40, when was a very likely ally of Germany), so there was no point in trying to take it over.

You conveniently disregarded that in 1939-40 the Soviet Union was as good as a German ally, while Finland came pretty close to becoming an allied nation, receiving a Franco-British expeditionary force, which would have fought the Soviets.

Finland was never a threat to anyone. Hitler and Stalin just divyed up the territory between them, and Staling got Finland, if he could take it.

 

[Verbose]

When the Soviet Union pushed the Germans back and won the war they seized several Eastern European states, but why not Finland? Wouldn't they have simply rolled through Finland and established a Communist government there like they did with pretty much every state the Germans conquered in the East?

Why?

Well,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala

 

[innonimatu]

Finland was never a threat to anyone. Hitler and Stalin just divyed up the territory between them, and Staling got Finland, if he could take it.

True, at that time his intent of enlarging the USSR (on the line of the old russian empire) was one of his motives. But the other, pretty obvious one, was that finnish territory came so close to Leningrad that the russian presence in the Baltic could be threatened from there - yes, I do believe he was paranoid.
But when the war ended Finland was in no position to ally with any power capable of threatening the USSR (it had consolidated control over a much larger area on the Baltic by then).
Stalin and Hitler, buddies? Only for as long as it suited them both, as history has shown. And both knew that.

 

[innonimatu]

Germany was divided by soviet initiative. People were only barred in one way of the division, you should remember that. The US and Western Europe wanted nothing more than have a united democratic Germany, that would democratically chose to side itself with the West (the immigration flux in the two Germanies show very well which model was liked best). Germany had to be divided by force, by the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union alone.

Germany was divided because neither side on the Cold War would risk having a united Germany joining the other side. We will never know it the USSR would have followed up on its proposal for an united, neutral Germany. We do know that such an agreement on Austria was successfully concluded.

We also know that the catalyst for the soviet actions in actually dividing Germany was the inclusion of the western part on a western military alliance. Both sides took steps that sunk Europe into the Cold War, and things could have been different had either side made different decisions. For better of for worst, what would actually happen, I won't dare trying to guess. But there was the possibility of avoiding the Cold War, and of that actually leading to the collapse of soviet rule over central europe decades before it did happen, that I do believe.

20 years ago most people would believe that the USSR would never allow its satellites to become free. The in a short while the whole empire came crashing down, almost without bloodshed (apart from local wars). Soviet rule, as all rule, required a semblance of legitimacy even on those places where it imposed puppet governments. And on the USSR itself. People had to be, at the very least, persuaded to consent to that form of government (thus the necessity of propaganda). How likely would it be that they would consent to dictatorship and soviet control over the central european states in the absence of an external enemy to justify it?
The hold the USSR had on its satellites, and its willingness to resort to war and violence to keep them, were vastly overestimated after the fall of Stalin and his clique. In fact even his willingness to go to war was overestimated. The West defeated the Soviet Union without actually having to fight it, when it became obvious that most of the people on those countries considered their governments illegitimate. If Europe had not been turned into an armed camp the political conditions leading to this loss of legitimacy might very well have come much sooner, and became so widespread that the government would not dare directly opposing chance.
In fact I don't think many political and military figures in the West, as well as the USSR, wanted to end the Cold War...

 

[luiz]

Stalin and Hitler, buddies? Only for as long as it suited them both, as history has shown. And both knew that.

Not buddies as in regular people who like one another, but buddies as in mad dictators splitting between themselves lands and people that never belonged to them.

 

[luiz]

Germany was divided because neither side on the Cold War would risk having a united Germany joining the other side. We will never know it the USSR would have followed up on its proposal for an united, neutral Germany. We do know that such an agreement on Austria was successfully concluded.
We also know that the catalyst for the soviet actions in actually dividing Germany was the inclusion of the western part on a western military alliance.

You are assuming that an agreement between the occupying powers is the correct way to go, when of course it should be left to the people.
The Western powers never forced Western Germany into a an alliance; the western german people chose that path and could have opted out.

The Soviet Union, unlike Britain and the US, denied the eastern germans the right to self-determination. They were forced against their will into the eastern block; many fled. As I said, the barrier only existed in one side.

Both sides took steps that sunk Europe into the Cold War, and things could have been different had either side made different decisions. For better of for worst, what would actually happen, I won't dare trying to guess. But there was the possibility of avoiding the Cold War, and of that actually leading to the collapse of soviet rule over central europe decades before it did happen, that I do believe.

The only possibility I see is the USSR allowing the peoples of Easterrn Europe to freely choose their destinies, in the sense the US let the peoples of Western Europe. I mean, by the end of WW2 France, Belgium, Western Germany an co. were all flooded with american troops, but unlike their soviet counterparts they did not force those nations to side with them under gunpoint. They did side with the US (though on occasions it was a turbulent relationship), but only because they thought it was better than the alternative.

It was impossible, right after the fall of Nazi Germany, to have a relation without tension with an Empire that behaved essentially just like Nazi Germany. So I blame the Cold War on Stalin.

20 years ago most people would believe that the USSR would never allow its satellites to become free.

And it didn't. Only after they lost control over the sattelites did they gain independence. The peak of the proccess, of course, was when Russia itself broke with Soviet rule.

The in a short while the whole empire came crashing down, almost without bloodshed (apart from local wars). Soviet rule, as all rule, required a semblance of legitimacy even on those places where it imposed puppet governments. And on the USSR itself. People had to be, at the very least, persuaded to consent to that form of government (thus the necessity of propaganda). How likely would it be that they would consent to dictatorship and soviet control over the central european states in the absence of an external enemy to justify it?

The consent came with tanks and propaganda.
And of course the external enemy may be invented, like "Trotskyists" or "Imperialist spies".

The hold the USSR had on its satellites, and its willingness to resort to war and violence to keep them, were vastly overestimated after the fall of Stalin and his clique.

What about Brezhnev? He didn't seem to think too much before resorting to violence.

In fact even his willingness to go to war was overestimated. The West defeated the Soviet Union without actually having to fight it, when it became obvious that most of the people on those countries considered their governments illegitimate. If Europe had not been turned into an armed camp the political conditions leading to this loss of legitimacy might very well have come much sooner, and became so widespread that the government would not dare directly opposing chance.
In fact I don't think many political and military figures in the West, as well as the USSR, wanted to end the Cold War...

I don't disagree with this.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

See this article: [wiki]Finlandization[/wiki].

In other words: Finland stayed non-Soviet by being nice to the Soviets.
In funny words: "By artfully bowing the East in such a way that one cannot be seen as mooning the West."

 

[ParkCungHee]

You're all looking into the subject way to deeply. An occupation of Finland would have required a massive diversion of resources, into a theatre that advance would have been slow at best against a weak enemy, nevermind the Finns, and was very low on military priorities.

In short, Finland wasn't turned into a sattelite state because of the snow.

 

[Verbose]

In short, Finland wasn't turned into a sattelite state because of the snow.

But there was no snow in the summer of 1944...

 

[amaterasu]

A)They had a lot of what they wanted in finland

B) we finns are . .. .. .. .. .es to conquer

C) too hard to maintain control

They had island bases in the gulf of finland already, and finland was a good trading partner. Finland out up a tough fight against the USSR, they wouldn't of been able to occupy it.

As for finlandisation, we weren't completely under riussian infulence, we joined the european trade assoication and maintained a free market along with many other right wing things.

 

[budweiser]

But there was no snow in the summer of 1944...

That's when they got knocked out of WWII. I don't know why they didnt have to turn commie, but I'm sure the Soviets got everything they wanted out of Finland during the peace talks.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But there was no snow in the summer of 1944...

An oversimplification perhaps, bt the point remains, because its so far north, such difficult terrain, etc. etc. the Soviet Union had no reason to devert its resources there.
Its like asking why Siam was never occupied by the Allies.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

nm., stupid post.