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

[Verbose]

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.

Unlike every other German ally in the east, Finland was offered terms. It was offered terms after stopping a fairly dedicated Soviet offensive. The event directly prior to the Soviet offer of armstice and a negotiated peace, was the Soviet defeat at the battle of Tali-Ihantala.

And that didn't "knock the Finns out" of the war. The Soviet terms stipulated the Finns had to go to war with their former German allies in Finland. So they did that, and defeated the Germans in northern Finland as well.

So Finland was never knocked out of WWII. It ended the war with an undefeated army. No doubt the Soviets could have taken it over, but the Finns had made certain the Soviets thought it would cost more than it was worth, which is precisely what any small state with Great Power neighbours can hope for.

 

[Grohan]

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....

I think you are referring to the period right after the war called "vaaran vuodet". I think "years of fear" could be good translation though it's not exact. But anyway the period lasted from 1944 (after Finland signed peace treaty with Soviet Union) to 1948 when communists lost the parliamentary election. During those years there were rumours of possible communist revolution. Fortunately communists never started revolution because they were poorly organised and many of them still remembered how they lost civil war in 1918. Other parties also took advantage of those rumours and added fuel to them. Communist weren't able to form popular front because socialdemocrats (the only other leftist party) actively campaigned against communists. Because of those reasons the support for communists collapsed and they lost elections.
In 1949 communists organized strikes and hoped for soviet support. Soviet Union didn't react at all because they feared that USA would support Finland and after all we had good relations with Soviet Union (Berrie said the reasons so I won't list them again). Soviet Union didn't anymore actively try to turn Finland into communism.
There were also other reasons why Soviet Union didn't help finnish communists but I don't have time list them now (and they aren't as important as others).

 

[Atticus]

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.

I would say that both were reasons: Finland was a (minor) threat and Stalin was paranoid and greedy. Soviet Union has been seen as the bad guy, so it's enemies are the good ones, and Finns are just as keen as anybody else to see themselves as virtuous heroes. They often forget or explain away how Russians were treated in occupied Karelia or the facts that the Continuation war (1941-44) started when Finland invaded Russia and Finland did ally with Germany.

Before the WW2 there was strong fascistic movement in Finland, the Lapua's movement. They terrorized the left wing, killed people and even kidnapped and beated ex-president Ståhlberg. Paradoxically their activies lead to the ban of the communistic party. Also certain Finns dreamed of "the greater Finland", there was for example many war-novels, in which Finnish scientist invented a powerful weapon, that permitted Finns to conquer Soviet Karelia, the whole Soviet Union or the world. That kind of people weren't probably the majority of Finns, but as usuals, lunatics are very loud and I believe soviet embassadors didn't give Stalin reports about moderate Finns having picnic in the Kaivopuisto . In early 20s volunteering Finns even tried to "liberate" Karelian tribes (which always didn't want to be liberated). And it shouldn't be forgot that Finland did have very close ties with Germany.

Now I'm not saying that finland was that big a threat to Soviet Union, but it's different what they thought there. Also I'm not saying that Soviets were justified to attack Finland or anything like that, just pondering about why they did it.

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 term "finlandization", if I have correctly understood, is used about later era, 50s and after. I wouldn't say that Finland was essentially under control of Soviet Union. It was just that Finland's best choice was not to make Soviets angry, and they choose that.

To the original question: Finland wasn't occupied after the WW2 (unlike many foreign people think), I'd think mostly because Soviets valued central Europe more and Leningrad was secured by taking parts of Karelia. After the war Finns were eager to show that they aren't a threat to SU, they even refused the Marshall aid to how their neutrality. Soviets didn't think Finland as a threat anymore and I don't think that any kind of coup would have got much support even from the communists.

 

[EdwardTking]

My understanding is that Finland was a co-belligerent with Germany
against the USSR, but it never actually allied itself with Germany.

 

[Atticus]

You're probably right there. I'm no expert on the subject, just pointing out some here commonly known things that people aren't always so eager to admit. I used to think that "co-belligerent" could be just an eufemism to "allied", but for example Mannerheims refusal to aid Germans in the siege of Leningrad shows that it's probably the right word.

 

[Warman17]

The West defeated the Soviet Union without actually having to fight it,

I disagree. We fought the Soviet Union through proxy wars, but we fought it nonetheless.

 

[Princeps]

Generally speaking, Soviet Union was much more passive than United States (and its allies) during the cold war. Compare Finland and Cuba -- both were in a sort of a similar situation, right under the noses of a super power... United States waged decades of terrorist wars against Cuba and economically strangulated the island --- Soviet Union traded with Finland, with quite limited interference to our foreign policy... and this, despite the fact that Finland was a far greater potential threat to Soviet Union than anything the US elites could conjure up. If western powers had moved into Finland, they would've secured various geostrategic advantages, including a place for missiles, a wide ground for assaults on Soviet Naval bases, for example, and a good place from which to launch an attack to Leningrad, which is very close to the border. Obviously, Soviets couldn't allow the West to take Finland -- yet their interference was quite limited.

 

[ulsterman88]

The Russians were probably having nightmares about invading Finland after the Winter war. A handful of Fins on skis held back half a million Soviet soldiers.

 

[luiz]

Generally speaking, Soviet Union was much more passive than United States (and its allies) during the cold war. Compare Finland and Cuba -- both were in a sort of a similar situation, right under the noses of a super power... United States waged decades of terrorist wars against Cuba and economically strangulated the island --- Soviet Union traded with Finland, with quite limited interference to our foreign policy... and this, despite the fact that Finland was a far greater potential threat to Soviet Union than anything the US elites could conjure up. If western powers had moved into Finland, they would've secured various geostrategic advantages, including a place for missiles, a wide ground for assaults on Soviet Naval bases, for example, and a good place from which to launch an attack to Leningrad, which is very close to the border. Obviously, Soviets couldn't allow the West to take Finland -- yet their interference was quite limited.

Well if you want to compare Finland to Cuba you might as well ask yourself some questions:

a)When did Finland point nuclear missiles towards the Soviet Union?
b) When did a revolution in Finland expropriate billions of dollars in soviet assets?
c) When did Finland actively support capitalist revolutions in the Soviet Union's sphere of influence?

If the answer to those 3 questions is "never", it might be time for a new comparisson.

For us to understand the degree of the soviet "pacifism" we only have to look at how they dealt with the shy reformist attempts in Eastern Europe. Really peaceful, indeed.

PS: I always have to remember that the american "stranglement" of the cuban economy was nothing more than a trade ban between the US and Cuba... since Castro always claimed that the US exploits the poor nations it trades with, we ought to conclude that the american embargo against Cuba actually had healthy effects on the island.

 

[ParkCungHee]

My understanding is that Finland was a co-belligerent with Germany
against the USSR, but it never actually allied itself with Germany.

I dunno, Finland did declare war on the United States as well.

 

[Princeps]

a)When did Finland point nuclear missiles towards the Soviet Union?

True -- but that again, Soviets never gave reasons for Finns to try and get nukes during the cold war, the same cannot be said of the United States.

b) When did a revolution in Finland expropriate billions of dollars in soviet assets?

Nationalizing assets that belong to Cuban sovereignty is not an act of aggression regardless of who owns them. However, if you wish a comparison -- take Finland's secession from the Russian Empire and its consequences, surely a similar context could be used to conjure pretexts in a western power, the pretexts would be more legimate than the US ones concerning Cuba.

c) When did Finland actively support capitalist revolutions in the Soviet Union's sphere of influence?

No, not as far as I know.

For us to understand the degree of the soviet "pacifism" we only have to look at how they dealt with the shy reformist attempts in Eastern Europe. Really peaceful, indeed.

Again, I am fully aware of their aggressive actions in Eastern Europe. However, compared to US aggression in Latin America, South East Asia and Middle East, Soviets were relatively passive.

PS: I always have to remember that the american "stranglement" of the cuban economy was nothing more than a trade ban between the US and Cuba...

No, it is more than that, such as the Helms-Burton Act which "compels the United States to impose sanctions against foreign companies that do business in Cuba." The sanctions "would effectively exclude these firms from exporting to, or doing business in, the United States, even if their products and activities have nothing to do with Cuba". The results are all too evident on the ground.

since Castro always claimed that the US exploits the poor nations it trades with,

But than again-- that isn't trade. You're no doubt twisting his words.

United States forces third world countries to give up protecting their economies and to open their house for US corporate explotation, while US itself retains huge protective measures. US "trade" and "co-operation" often includes murdering dissidents, toppling legal governments, funding death squads... etc

 

[luiz]

True -- but that again, Soviets never gave reasons for Finns to try and get nukes during the cold war, the same cannot be said of the United States.

The time Cuba came closer to a full-scale american invasion was precisely during the missile crisis - so I'd think that pointing the missiles were more of an act of provocation than an act of response to provocation.

Nationalizing assets that belong to Cuban sovereignty is not an act of aggression regardless of who owns them. However, if you wish a comparison -- take Finland's secession from the Russian Empire and its consequences, surely a similar context could be used to conjure pretexts in a western power, the pretexts would be more legimate than the US ones concerning Cuba.

Expropriating assets without compensation (I believe that compensation of about 5%-10% of the value was offered) goes clearly against the rules of good neighborhood. You might hold the opinion that it was within Cuba's right, but you can't deny that it is no doubt an unfriendly act towards the US. Plus, much of the rhetoric of the revolutionaires were based on hatred of the US - not a way to gain a friend after they took power.

No, not as far as I know.

So the cases aren't really comparable, are they?
The US main problem with Cuba was precisely their support of numerous communist revolution in Latin America... how do you think the Soviets would react if some small neighbour started financing and arming capitalist rebellions in Eastern Europe?

Again, I am fully aware of their aggressive actions in Eastern Europe. However, compared to US aggression in Latin America, South East Asia and Middle East, Soviets were relatively passive.

I'd say that the US interventions in Latin America were fairly small and mild compared the soviet ones... just look at the number of interventions and the size of the targeted countries...

No, it is more than that, such as the Helms-Burton Act which "compels the United States to impose sanctions against foreign companies that do business in Cuba." The sanctions "would effectively exclude these firms from exporting to, or doing business in, the United States, even if their products and activities have nothing to do with Cuba". The results are all too evident on the ground.

I am not familiar with text of Helms-Burton, but I do know that many brazilian companies do business with Cuba and the US... and this appear to be the case with canadian and spanish firms as well.
In practice, the american embargo only forbids american companies from doing business. It's hardly a brutal embargo.

But than again-- that isn't trade. You're no doubt twisting his words.

United States forces third world countries to give up protecting their economies and to open their house for US corporate explotation, while US itself retains huge protective measures. US "trade" and "co-operation" often includes murdering dissidents, toppling legal governments, funding death squads... etc

So I guess Castro should be happy his country doesn't suffer with the horrors of trade with the US.

 

[Princeps]

The time Cuba came closer to a full-scale american invasion was precisely during the missile crisis - so I'd think that pointing the missiles were more of an act of provocation than an act of response to provocation.

There was US aggression before the missle crisis.

Expropriating assets without compensation (I believe that compensation of about 5%-10% of the value was offered) goes clearly against the rules of good neighborhood. You might hold the opinion that it was within Cuba's right, but you can't deny that it is no doubt an unfriendly act towards the US.

Plus, much of the rhetoric of the revolutionaires were based on hatred of the US - not a way to gain a friend after they took power.

Yes -- but most of that rhetoric and the current relations between Cuba and US exists because US chose to aggress against the Cuban people after they had freed themselves --- Russias, or Soviets chose not to maintain aggressive relations with the Finns... if they had, there would surely have been far more stronger anti-soviet rhetoric in Finland.

So the cases aren't really comparable, are they?

Yes they are comparable--- No historical event has exactly similar context, all historical events are unique to a certain extent. Take for example the rise of Nazis -- rise of extreme corporatist and fascist right-wing elsewhere can be very different from the rise of German Nazism or Italian Fascism, however, it doesn't mean that there is no resemblance from which to draw parallels. Both Cuba and Finland were in a very similar position; both have resemblence: both were under the nose of a super power, from who's rule they had freed themselves, but with differing circuimstances and consiquences. Russia did try to project its influence into Finland, but not through outright aggression (only with limited espionage and not always subtle interference) even though it would've had ample of opportunities, pretext, ability and a motive to do stage a military invasion after the WW2.

The US main problem with Cuba was precisely their support of numerous communist revolution in Latin America...

Anti-soviet activities existed in Finland -- for example, Finns went to defend Estonia from the "Soviet liberation", Finns had sought to expand deeper into soviet land during the war, (did Cuba ever try to conquer Miami for example?) and broadcasted TV and radio (that reached Soviets) that could've been viewed as propaganda due to some degree of factual coverage and even Western propaganda (yes, it does exist).

During the war, Finland had been a genuine threat to the Soviets -- while the initial threat posed by Cubans was entirely conjured and the subsequent nuclear threat was the result of US aggression.

I'd say that the US interventions in Latin America were fairly small and mild compared the soviet ones... just look at the number of interventions and the size of the targeted countries...

No it wasn't. US interventions in Latin America were immensly brutal and it is not a co-incidence that the one functioning state in central American, Costa Rica, has not suffered direct US intervension. There are many cases of US aggression: pretty much all central American countries (and many of them uncontriversial cases) and Haiti, Colombia, Cuba, Chile etc. South East Asia.... Democracy lovers like Suharto in Indonesia, Vietnam war, support for Pol Pot, etc. Middle East, Afghanistan, Iran--- installing Shah, overthrowing the legal and popular government, support for Saddam and his tyrannical rule, wars and genocide and the subsequent genocidal sanctions, Israel's wars of aggression and its opperssion and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, support for various undemocratic de facto governments and consiquent hampered progress. Not to forget such lovely organizations like IMF and World Bank that continue to wreck entire countries today. Millions of people have been maimed, murdered, slaughtered, tortured, butchered, impoverished due to US aggression. As a nation, US has many good sides -- including their freedoms, culture (yes it exists), cases of good intervensionism, various scientific advances etc, but to say that US as a power, was somehow more benign and less aggressive than the USSR, is simply naive and absurd.

I am not familiar with text of Helms-Burton, but I do know that many brazilian companies do business with Cuba and the US... and this appear to be the case with canadian and spanish firms as well.

True -- however, as I said the facts are all too evident on the ground.

It's hardly a brutal embargo.

Oh yes it is brutal. The only reason why Cuba hasn't turned into the world's largest leper colony, is the good healthcare which the state established.

So I guess Castro should be happy his country doesn't suffer with the horrors of trade with the US.

Well, now what I talked about wasn't trade -- but something that is often called trade. There is good trade -- like for example, Cuba could need new cars, medical equipement, infrastructure, technology etc. However, there is also bad "trade", which often includes toppling legal governments, murder of dissidents, neoliberal sacking of the state, etc.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

So I guess Castro should be happy his country doesn't suffer with the horrors of trade with the US.

Sorry mate but what kind of answer is that?
There is no logical way in which you can say that the World Bank actually helps Third World Economies. The only reason they 'sign up' to restructuring projects is because it is a pre-requiste for getting aid. It's downright exploitation.
I don't agree with everything the other guy says but with that point he is bang on.
So why not graciosuly concede the point and carry on or atleast try to come up with a valid arguement.

(aware of spelling errors just pulled another 14 hour day of work)

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I dunno, Finland did declare war on the United States as well.

And when did this happen?

 

[luiz]

Sorry mate but what kind of answer is that?
There is no logical way in which you can say that the World Bank actually helps Third World Economies. The only reason they 'sign up' to restructuring projects is because it is a pre-requiste for getting aid. It's downright exploitation.

Exploitation? The World Bank?
They only lend money at below market interests. And they never forced anyone to take it. If the nations sign for them because it is "pre-requisite" for getting aid than certainly they consider that the whole package is better than nothing.

I really don't see how one could qualify the WB as exploitative, and I also don't see how that has anything to do with the question of trade with the US.

 

[luiz]

There was US aggression before the missle crisis.

But the only time an actuall invasion actually became likely was during the crisis, which tells something about the deterrant quality of those missiles.

Yes -- but most of that rhetoric and the current relations between Cuba and US exists because US chose to aggress against the Cuban people after they had freed themselves --- Russias, or Soviets chose not to maintain aggressive relations with the Finns... if they had, there would surely have been far more stronger anti-soviet rhetoric in Finland.

The rhetoric existed much before the revolution. They were a strongly anti-american group before taking power, naturally after they did take power relations with the US were damaged.

Yes they are comparable--- No historical event has exactly similar context, all historical events are unique to a certain extent. Take for example the rise of Nazis -- rise of extreme corporatist and fascist right-wing elsewhere can be very different from the rise of German Nazism or Italian Fascism, however, it doesn't mean that there is no resemblance from which to draw parallels. Both Cuba and Finland were in a very similar position; both have resemblence: both were under the nose of a super power, from who's rule they had freed themselves, but with differing circuimstances and consiquences. Russia did try to project its influence into Finland, but not through outright aggression (only with limited espionage and not always subtle interference) even though it would've had ample of opportunities, pretext, ability and a motive to do stage a military invasion after the WW2.

And the difference is, Finland chose to largely ignore the Soviet Union while Cuba adopted an openly confrontationist approach that lasts untill today, in a watered-down manner.

Anti-soviet activities existed in Finland -- for example, Finns went to defend Estonia from the "Soviet liberation", Finns had sought to expand deeper into soviet land during the war, (did Cuba ever try to conquer Miami for example?) and broadcasted TV and radio (that reached Soviets) that could've been viewed as propaganda due to some degree of factual coverage and even Western propaganda (yes, it does exist).

During the war, Finland had been a genuine threat to the Soviets -- while the initial threat posed by Cubans was entirely conjured and the subsequent nuclear threat was the result of US aggression.

Well of course during the war the finns would try to gain controll of soviet lands. But after the war, did they send money and trained troops of rebels in Poland or Hungary?

No it wasn't. US interventions in Latin America were immensly brutal and it is not a co-incidence that the one functioning state in central American, Costa Rica, has not suffered direct US intervension.

Panama is probably the one who suffered the most american intervenions and it seems to be doing fine.

There are many cases of US aggression: pretty much all central American countries (and many of them uncontriversial cases) and Haiti, Colombia, Cuba, Chile etc.

Colombia? So aiding the government against drug-dealing rebels is "aggression"?
What about Chile? I don't remember ever seen a picture of an american tank in Santiago.

South East Asia.... Democracy lovers like Suharto in Indonesia, Vietnam war, support for Pol Pot, etc. Middle East, Afghanistan, Iran--- installing Shah, overthrowing the legal and popular government, support for Saddam and his tyrannical rule, wars and genocide and the subsequent genocidal sanctions, Israel's wars of aggression and its opperssion and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, support for various undemocratic de facto governments and consiquent hampered progress.

Mostly valid points, though Pol Pot was pretty much entirely to blame on China and of course I disagree with you over Israel.

Not to forget such lovely organizations like IMF and World Bank that continue to wreck entire countries today.

No nation is forced to take their loans.

Millions of people have been maimed, murdered, slaughtered, tortured, butchered, impoverished due to US aggression. As a nation, US has many good sides -- including their freedoms, culture (yes it exists), cases of good intervensionism, various scientific advances etc, but to say that US as a power, was somehow more benign and less aggressive than the USSR, is simply naive and absurd.

The Soviet Union was the state that killed the most in the history of the human race. Therefore pretty much anyone you compare with them is more benign, with very few exceptions. When the US starts building gulags, and executing "enemies of the people" after a half-hour trial we can discuss this.

Oh yes it is brutal. The only reason why Cuba hasn't turned into the world's largest leper colony, is the good healthcare which the state established.
Well, now what I talked about wasn't trade -- but something that is often called trade. There is good trade -- like for example, Cuba could need new cars, medical equipement, infrastructure, technology etc. However, there is also bad "trade", which often includes toppling legal governments, murder of dissidents, neoliberal sacking of the state, etc.

Are you saying that trade with the US is necessary to avoid poverty? That the entire rest of the world is not enough?

Anyway, considering how much Castro hates and criticises the US, his burning desire to trade with them never made much sense to me. Specially when he has repeatdly criticised Latin American nations with strong trade relations with the US.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And when did this happen?

I'm sorry your correct. THe United States never went to war with Finland. The United Kingdom did, but it was they who declared war. I had assumed Finland sent a formal declaration of war with America alongside Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Soviet Union was the state that killed the most in the history of the human race. Therefore pretty much anyone you compare with them is more benign, with very few exceptions. When the US starts building gulags, and executing "enemies of the people" after a half-hour trial we can discuss this.

Not true, thats the People's Republic of China. Soviet Union clocks in at less then half of what Mao alone killed.

 

[amadeus]

Both Cuba and Finland were in a very similar position; both have resemblence: both were under the nose of a super power, from who's rule they had freed themselves, but with differing circuimstances and consiquences.

This is freedom?