The Karelian question

[Aurielius]

The first Finns to inhabit the area now known as Finland arrived as hunter-gatherers from the Ural mountains at the end of the last ice age, so we have a pretty solid history of living in these territories.

If we accept the fact that homo sapiens migrated out of the African continent several hundred thousand years ago then everywhere is actually owned by the Zulu's 'et al'. As much as it is disconcerting to die hard nationalists, territory switches hands sometimes permanently. The indigenous north American Indians are the actual owners of the United States but the likelihood of them reclaiming it in total is zero. Occupation by right of conquest is as old as the Sumerian's, whether fair or unfair it's the way things actually are.

[Jopo1980]

I know how things are, but that doesn´t make it right morally. So we can conclude that the world is an immoral place. The United States was built in blood by the conquest and genocide of the Indians and the Russians conquered Siberia with blood. The British Empire was built on blood. So were all the other empires. And every time it was the victors who dictated how the world was gonna be like without regard to the losers.

 

The whole world agreed that the Winter War was a war of agression unjustly waged by the huge Soviet Union on a small country and what did the world do? NOTHING. We had lots of sympathy and goodwill, but no real help, because the major powers were busy fighting Germany and Germany was in league with the Soviets. Eastern Europe was partitioned in the secret clauses of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and as a reward for so gallantly fighting the Germans, the western allies chose to grant Stalin his territorial demands and looked elsewhere as the soviets annexed eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, East Prussia and of course the territories taken from Finland, plus the territories taken from Japan.

 

Some in Finland still believe that neutrality and independent defense will save us and is the best policy, but I disagree. We must ally more closely with the rest of Europe in order to have guarantees of assistance in the case of an inevitable conflict with Russia. The Finnish leaders knew before WW-2 that an attack from the east was as inevitable as night follows day, but they chose to trust the League of Nations and neglected defense spending. As a result of this blue-eyed trust in international institutions we were unprepared for the Soviet onslaught and the bravery of our soldiers could only postpone the inevitable.

 

My only hope is that the EU and its common defense policy and possible NATO membership will provide solid enough guarantees for us. I do not believe that the EU would just "feed" its eastern border regions to the hungry Russian bear in appeasement. If a WW-3 erupts, then I hope for a total western victory, which would allow for Finland to press home its objectives in regaining the lost territories, although there is the worry about Russian nuclear doctrine, which states that they will use nukes if their conventional forces are defeated and possibly if foreign forces enter Russia.

[Aurielius]

@Jopo

If you are hoping that either the EU or NATO will be your shield that is a possibility but the likelihood of either acting as your sword is low to nil. NATO is a defense alliance not an offensive one and the EU has no military committed to it's directives, that is still in the hands of individual member states which have shown no desire to be involved militarily anywhere as a collective force. The US as the major component of NATO is already over committed and has little desire to reawaken the cold war and even less to make it hot.

[Jopo1980]

In case of a war between NATO, EU and Russia, I think the whole alliance would be pushed to the defensive in the face of the massive Russian hordes. When it comes to the defense of FInland it would make sense to seize the Karelian isthmus as a defensive chokepoint, which provides a natural defense. We lost that natural defensive barrier in the Winter War and although the terrain of Finland is very unsuitable for tanks in general, the southern coastline is relatively open ground providing the invading Russian forces a corridor straight to Helsinki (the capital) and thus the heart of Finland. It is uncertain whether our armed forces would be able to repel a massively overwhelming force or would we be reduced to guerrilla operations from the start. Needless to say, the Russians would not get a single inch of Finnish territory without blood, which they know from experience and would be prepared for.

But, as I´ve said, Finland doesn´t stand a chance against Russia alone, no matter how courageous our troops are.

[Aurielius]

In case of a war between NATO, EU and Russia, I think the whole alliance would be pushed to the defensive in the face of the massive Russian hordes. When it comes to the defense of FInland it would make sense to seize the Karelian isthmus as a defensive chokepoint, which provides a natural defense. We lost that natural defensive barrier in the Winter War and although the terrain of Finland is very unsuitable for tanks in general, the southern coastline is relatively open ground providing the invading Russian forces a corridor straight to Helsinki (the capital) and thus the heart of Finland. It is uncertain whether our armed forces would be able to repel a massively overwhelming force or would we be reduced to guerrilla operations from the start. Needless to say, the Russians would not get a single inch of Finnish territory without blood, which they know from experience and would be prepared for.

But, as I´ve said, Finland doesn´t stand a chance against Russia alone, no matter how courageous our troops are.

You are entitled to your point of view but NATO will be defending the Fulda Gap which chokes the pathway to western Europe and our primary alies not anywhere else, that is our doctrine and has been so for over a half a century.

[Jopo1980]

The borders of NATO have moved eastwards, so defending the Fulda Gap in west Germany is no longer a priority. Any battles against the Russians would be fought on the eastern borderlands of the EU, Poland, Romania, Finland, the Baltic states etc. Unless you want to sacrifice the whole of eastern Europe to make your stand at the Fulda Gap. Do you expect the Polish army to withdraw and abandon Poland to reinforce you at Fulda, or the Germans to abandon the eastern parts of their nation? Fulda Gap was relevant in the war plans of the Cold War era, now the situation is different.

[zegh8578]

The first Finns to inhabit the area now known as Finland arrived as hunter-gatherers from the Ural mountains at the end of the last ice age, so we have a pretty solid history of living in these territories.

If we accept the fact that homo sapiens migrated out of the African continent several hundred thousand years ago then everywhere is actually owned by the Zulu's 'et al'. As much as it is disconcerting to die hard nationalists, territory switches hands sometimes permanently. The indigenous north American Indians are the actual owners of the United States but the likelihood of them reclaiming it in total is zero. Occupation by right of conquest is as old as the Sumerian's, whether fair or unfair it's the way things actually are.

 

this is the point i tried to make, and one i often try to make when territorial disputes arise.

 

europe is allready a patchwork of "stolen land", find me a single european country who is 100% satisfied with its borders, nationalism-wise.

maybe iceland

 

this means there _is no way_ to satisfy everyone. let the russians keep karelia, and the finns cry, give it to the finns and the russians cry. its not even just about politics, but about fates and homes:

the russians inhabiting karelia just now arent there just to provoke the finns - they are born there. they grew up there, and have their home there. wether you like it or not, jopo, you are suggesting to rip people out of their homes, or at least give them the age old message of "sorry, you no longer live in your homeland. new administration, you now live in a new land. you may apply for new citizenship if you like. oh, and get used to a new language."

 

to be honest, ive wanted similar things myself. like i mentioned before, sweden holds norwegian territory since the 1600s. we want it back.

one day!!!

but its really not worth wars and suffering, so... there it remains, in swedish administration. it simply is a pill we're damned to swallow.

Edited November 30, 2011 by zegh8578

[Aurielius]

The question is quite simple, which allies will the US be willing to go to war for? The answer is just as simple our primary trading partners and our long standing allies which really means the UK, Germany and France, do you really think that we will start or devolve into WW3 over Poland? The assumption that we will risk all over eastern Europe is wishful thinking, we neither have the capacity in conventional force structure nor the prepositioning of necessary logistical supplies.It might be useful for you to remember what NATO actually stands for... the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, last time I checked no eastern European country borders on the Atlantic. The security of Eastern Europe really should be an issue for the EU not the US. I wish you luck in getting any of the European countries other than the UK to spend the actual proportion of their GNP that is necessary to do an adequate job, a fact that we over here have been pointing out for decades. No NATO action that does not have American logistical support stands a prayer of success, even when we (the US) were not directly involved as in Libya we provided the logistics (5th Fleet) for the air operations.

[Illuna]

Currently most karelian people who live in karelia havent seen war over it, even theyr mommy and daddy didnt see it, maby juust maby some old 90+ grandpa who was like 14 on time of war remembers something, same thing whit finland.

The only reason atm why Russia may go to war whit Finland is due to this exact hate, hate drives you to desigtions that worsen your relations whit your border neightbors, its been soon 100 years after war, ppl change, country changes whit ppl. atm most normal russian ppl like Finland, they go to veications there and soo oon. If Finish population can somehow get over it Russia dosent need to be enemy.

As for joining NATO and w8ting for help just like in that cold war how is that any different from what happend then. You join organization, and you pay them money for protection. But its still that organizations choise whatever to help you or not. Will they risk nuclear war whit one of most powerfull countrys in world over land that is so far north ? Better to spend money on new technologies and develop your own defense, whit Finlands tech knowhow on same lvl as Japanise you can build in 5-10 years something that would defend you against armed conflicts whit other nations.

 

In the end i will give you excample that i saw when i was small, i knew some bullies and one weak kid, said weak kid that was always bullied god tired of it and decided he would give his lunch money to one of strong kids in yard to protect him if someone will try to bullie him, evrything was going well for about week, he gave evry day his lunch / candy money to strong kid and no one touched him. In week other strong bullie came and started to beat weak kid up. ofc weak kid started screaming at guy that was suposed to help him in this situation and say i gave you my lunch money defend me. but then he found out harsh truth, strong kid just laughed it off sayng that it was his own falt for trusting this would work. After weak kid got beaten strong one and bullie that bullied weak went off to buy candy at local store on money that strong kid took from weak to defend him.

Ofc in this situation weak now beaten kid run to his mommy and told what happend and there was shitstorm over schoolyard.

But this small story that i withnesed when i was small tauth me that there aint no one that will protect you, learn to do so yourself. Also i would like to remind evryone that about 3-5 years ago there was week long armed conflict near russian border where russian armed forces entered other countrys territory and waged war. All of europe and america critisized such events, non did anything to support.

[raatorotta]

Yea, Jopo, why you are so afraid of Russians and thinking they are the enemy all the time? Stalin is dead and so is Soviet Union. Kekkonen's politics made good relations with Russia and Russia is our biggest trading companion today. Like you said yourself in one post, "situation is different" And joining NATO ain't any good for Finland, unless you want to spread our forces around the world and let our homeland itself defenceless.