Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Historical borders of Finland

Discussion in 'The Stump' started by Karjala, Nov 5, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    I didn't really like all of your posts either but I have refrained from emotional outbursts. :green:

    It is impossible to address the subject of this tread properly if we put a veto on a conversation about certain unpleasant issues. Omitting details as "inappropriate" would have been wrong because the idea of the Greater Finland and Finnish relationships with the 3rd Reich are historic facts and it is quite correct to address them at the board dealing with the World War II in a tread dealing with Finnish historic borders. Almost the entire Europe was collaborating with certain armies and it is difficult to find a single European country which didn't attempt to increase it's size during the war. Why should we make exceptions?

    Finally, It wasn't me who has opened this can. :)
     
  2. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    You're quite right A-58. Europe is a continent where terms nation and ethnicity are mixed up completely and have caused so much unnecessary pain and sorrow. I just hope that young Europeans would somehow be able to get rid of this unpleasant heritage.
     
  3. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,021
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    That would make things much easier for everyone living there. Who knows, it might just happen. Probably not though. History always repeats itself because people/nations/armies seem to suffer from the CRS (can't remember sh1t) Syndrome.
     
  4. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    1. No, it's not only the US' fault, but the USA has not done that great job to get rid of them either - unlike what the US politicians/media/films advertise.

    2. Not ALL despots are US controlled - just many of them.

    3. It depends on who is saying what. Often I personally prefer the US intervention(s), but not based on lies (e.g. Iraq). Neither do I - nor most of the people - appreciate the militaristic machoism shown by some uniformed drug addicts, civilian murderers (for fun), rapists, torturers and likes...

    4. Yes, the USA supplies a lot of aid - but not as much as she could or should. The USA is only at the 19th spot in the list of countries giving development aid per capita as a percentage of their gross national income.

    1. Luxembourg 1.00 %
    2. Sweden 0.99 %
    3. Norway 0.93 %
    4. Denmark 0.84 %
    5. The Netherlands 0.71 %
    6. The UK 0.56 %
    7. Finland 0.53 %
    8. Ireland 0.48 %
    9. Belgium 0,47 %
    10. France 0.45 %
    ...
    12. Germany 0.38 %
    ...
    14. Canada 0.32 %
    ...
    19. The USA 0.19 %

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid

    5. At least I'm not blaming the USA for that - although we still remember her supplying the Marxists with food, arms etc...

    6. Yes, it's rather ok to be Finnish. .;-)

    With the power comes also the responsibility. Since the EU cannot be the dominating country - since it's not a one and there're too many conflicting interests - I personally much rather prefer the USA as the dominating country of the world, instead of e.g. China, Russia or likes. What annoys me sometimes, and many others I think, is that the USA falls too often short of her great ideals she advertises for.
     
  5. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    1. You forgot the only treaty which was negotiated on even terms - the Peace Treaty of Tartu 1920! You also forgot the followings:

    - in 1923 both countries signed the Border Peace Agreement, which normalized the border
    - Treaty of Non-Aggression and Pacific Settlement of Disputes between the Soviet Union and Finland, concluded on January 21, 1932 - re-affirmed in 1934 for ten years
    - In 1934, the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations - accepting the rules of it

    2. The "capitulation" of Finland?! The world is unawere of such occasion. Please inform us - naturally with sources - when and where did that "capitulation" happen and who were the signees...?



    to be continued...
     
  6. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    To be honest I san see that people who are living in a country that has been a country with an empire or people under their rule in faraway places STILL are more proud of temselves than we who have had to fight for our independence or at all being there.IF you had the British Umpire or the USSR you don´t seem to understand what we talk about. You would want to go back to the old days.We don´t.Never. And we never let you do it. Serving you was never to our liking and never will be. Dig this! Back to PUNK 1977!
     
    Karjala likes this.
  7. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Gentlemen, we seem to not only gone into the ditch, but beyond it into the high grass.

    This thread is/was supposed to be about Finland and her borders, let's mosey on back to the reservation.
     
  8. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    You feel picked on... Don't. I *think* everyone here is entirely sympathetic to your initial points about Karelia, and certainly everyone on the planet (except maybe the Russians) admires Finland for its tough stand against the Soviet Union.

    The disconnect is the "what now" part of the question. Nobody is going to support a move to go back to pre-1939 borders anywhere in Europe.
     
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Excuse me ... Where is it stated that one of the functions of the US governement is suppose to be changing the governments of other countries? Indeed the UN charter rather clearly indicates that memeber states are not suppose to feel free to change the governments of other states just because they want to. Nor have I seen advertisements to the effect that the US is suppose to.

    REally? Care to name a few. I can't. We don't even control the governments of several states where we have massive military presence.

    Well Iraq wasn't based on lies other than Sadam's. Some of the justifications may have been though. As for the rest of that I'm not sure what you are talking about am I'm not sure you are either.

    Who are you to judge who should be contributing how much? It's also worth noteing that all the countries in your list with the exception of Finland have been able to get by with a fairly small military due to the US military being there to defend them. Finland managed to assure it's neutrality in part by haveing a pretty small military. Doing so allows one to spend a considerable amount on other things doesn't it?

    Being to active in pushing those goals could be counter productive both as to its effects on other countries and its effects on our own. There is a reason many Americans are and were isoltionist to one extent or another.
     
  10. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    Your figures are misrepresented. In fact, it is not "per capita" at all. It is aid by gross national income. Furthermore, that aid is only counted if it is under "Official Development Assistance" guidelines (link below). For example, US aid to Mexico and many other nations would not be counted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Development_Assistance


    According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the countries giving the highest amounts of money (in absolute terms) are as follows:[1]
    1. United States – $30.46 billion
    2. United Kingdom – $13.66 billion
    3. Germany – $13.11 billion
    4. France – $12.00 billion
    5. Japan – $10.49 billion
    6. Canada – $5.68 billion
    7. Netherlands – $5.52 billion
    8. Australia – $5.44 billion
    9. Sweden – $5.24 billion
    10. Norway – $4.75 billion
    11. Switzerland – $3.02 billion
    12. Denmark – $2.72 billion
    13. Italy – $2.64 billion
    14. Belgium – $2.30 billion
    15. Spain – $1.95 billion
    16. South Korea – $1.55 billion
    17. Finland – $1.32 billion
    18. Austria – $1.11 billion
    19. Ireland – $0.81 billion
    20. Portugal – $0.57 billion
    21. New Zealand – $0.46 billion
    22. Luxembourg – $0.43 billion
    23. Greece – $0.32 billion
     
  11. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelian_question_in_Finnish_politics


    "Both Russia and Finland have repeatedly stated that no open territorial dispute exists between the two countries. Finland's official stance is that the borders may be changed through peaceful negotiations, although there is currently no need to hold open talks, as Russia has shown no intention of returning the ceded areas, or discussing the question. In 1994 Boris Yeltsin commented that "seizure of Finnish Karelia" was an example of Stalin's totalitarian and aggressive politics. Later in 1997 he stated that the matter was closed. In 2000 President Putin stated that such discussions may endanger Finnish-Russian relations, and in 2001 he said that "changing borders is not the best way to resolve problems", but that possible solutions would be "integration and cooperation".
    In 1998 Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari said that "Finland's official position is that it does not have territorial demands on Russia. However, if Russia wants to discuss returning the ceded areas, Finland is ready for that."[ Several other politicians holding government office, such as the former foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja and prime minister Matti Vanhanen, have made statements along the same lines.

    Polls and popular opinion
    The latest polls show that approximately 26% to 38% of Finns would like to see Karelia return to Finnish control and some 51% to 62% would oppose such a move. In Russia, people associate the word "Karelia" with the Republic of Karelia instead of Finnish Karelia, which makes conducting polls more difficult. In a 1999 poll by MTV3, 34% of the people of Vyborg supported returning Karelia to Finland and 57% were opposed. Vyborg and the rest of the ceded Karelia outside the Republic of Karelia nowadays contain very few ethnic Finns, and is almost exclusively inhabited by people who moved there during the Soviet era and their descendants.
    In the latest poll in Finland about the question, 36 percent of Finns supported the return of ceded territories, compared to 51% who are opposed."
     
  12. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    Continuing...

    3. Yes, the present, soviet aggression borders are a fact now. Borders are changed peacefully (and non-peacefully) all the time - Russian borders too.

    "The 2004 Complementary Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on the Eastern Section of the China–Russia Boundary[7] stated that Russia agrees to transfer a part of Abagaitu Islet, whole Yinlong (Tarabarov) Island, about a half of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island and some adjacent islets to China. A border dispute between Russia and China, standing since Japanese invasion of Manchuria of 1931, was resolved. These Amur River islands were until then administered by Russia and claimed by China. The event was meant to foster feelings of reconciliation and cooperation between the two countries by their leaders. The transfer has been ratified by both the Chinese National People's Congress and the Russian State Duma. The official transfer ceremony was held on-site October 14, 2008"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Russia_border

    4. Can't see the relevance. All countries and situations are indeed different. Poland was occupied by both Germany and the USSR, Finland was not. We are sorry for the Poles, since they were wronged too. Still Poland has nothing to do with Finland nor her borders.

    5. Well - "losing" is not as easy to determine as one should think, as we have discussed already before. The USSR tried to occupy all of Finland - she got 12 %. Finland tried to stay untouched and independent - she stayed independent and retained 88 % of her area. Those are also facts.

    6. You yourself tried to present some false believes of Finland in the 1800's. Why did you do it, if that time suddenly doesn't mean anything?

    7. What "explosive ethnic mixtures"? There was nothing like that by the Finnish borders, since BOTH sides were/had been (before the very recent soviet purges) been inhabited by the Finns (in the Karelian Ishtmus) or Finns and Karelians (North of Lake Laatokka/Ladoga). Where's the "ethnic mixture"? You still don't seem to understand anything...

    8. Poland and Ukraina - "war profiteers"? And the USSR not?! Poland was robbed (by the USSR) from her own areas in the East and was forced to move millions of her citizens to the areas robbed from Germany. Some "profiteering" indeed! And Ukraine was not a real country but a slave of the USSR. Everything she "profiteered" was in reality going to the USSR - the biggest robber.

    9. No, that's not true. See my answer nr. 3.

    Who is ready to start a war? At least not me. What I want is that Russia would clearly appologise for her (as the legal follower of the USSR) crimes and starts negotiating ways to compensate them. I know, that it seems absurd now, but who could have expected e.g. the USSR to collapse and dissolve 20 years ago? At least not me.

    Since that area is so tiny and meaningless to Russia, why keep occupying it? On the other hand for Finland it is 12 % of the Finnish area - equally same as in the USA the areas of California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada combined.
     
  13. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Thanks "Green Slime" for this comprehensive and yet concise information. This explains all:
     
  14. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    Your question is quite complicated, since the USSR was allied with Germany - from 23rd August 1939 to 22nd June 1941 - before, during and after the Winter War. "Allying" with the USSR would have led to the occupation of Finland - as happened to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

    After the Winter War the USSR made clear, that a new soviet attack was coming sooner or later. Any alliance with that bloody occupier of the Baltic countries - in front of the Finnish eyes - was unthinkable. The alliance with the UK/USA would have been pointless, since from April 1940 to spring 1945 Finland was surrounded either by Germany or the USSR. The UK/USA couldn't have offered anything to help Finland.


    If Finland had not got help from Germany, I strongly doubt there had been anybody left to negotiate anything - just see the faiths of the Baltics and Poland, among many others. Katyn would have been one of the places where all possible Finnish negotiators would have been buried...


    Why would anybody in Finland in the fall of -41 been willing to help the soviets? The very country which attacked Finland just 1,5 years before and was preparing to do it again after that! Why would anybody in Finland had trusted to soviets, who had broken all the previous treaties? it was for the best Finnish interests to help get rid of that evil empire and the eternal threat to Finland.


    That's not a principle what the members or the UN have agreed on - the USA included.
     
  15. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    You seem to think, that smaller nations "belong" to the bigger nations. What about Slovenia then? Should she be part of Austria, Italy, Hungary or perhaps Turkey? Surely - according to your ideas - such a tiny nation does not deserve to be independent.

    Finland was not "taken" from Russia, since the country of the Finns was not Russia's to have in the first place.

    The borders of 1939 (according the Peace Treaty of Tartu) will do just fine - thank you for asking.

    View attachment 19916

    I cannot see any relevance of the Nazi maps - although Stalin himself made clear what the real borders of Finland (yellow and green combined) should be like...

    View attachment 19915
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    1. The romantic - although reasonable - idea of uniting the Finnish/Karelian areas was just that - a romantic idea - without any attempts to do anything. The tiny and poorly equipped Finnish army - nor the (center-left) government - was not plannig (nor was capable of) any offences to any direction what so ever.

    Only after the Winter War AND the new soviet attacks in 1941, causing a new war, brought up the situation, where that romantic idea could be achieved too. The romantic idea of Greater Finland was never any reason behind the war - nor the goal of the war.

    2. The USSR forced Finland to seek help from Germany - the ally of the soviets - which was the only possible source.

    3. See the answer nr. 1.

    4. Actually it was you, since your ignorance demanded response.
     
  17. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    As I already wrote, that was not the case with Finland - except of course the soviet/Russian nationality...
     
  18. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    1. Nowhere. But that's what the USA has done.

    2. Really. Saddam, Pinochet, Shah of Iran, Mubarak... The list is quite long...

    3. "Weapons of mass destruction", "presence of al Qaeda"...

    4. I do but would prefer not to go there - and it's off topic anyway.

    5. I'm not - but then it was not me bragging about the massive US aid...

    6. That's a choice. US military presence in Sweden, Canada and some other countries not shown in my post? Really...?

    7. I understand that. It just is not what it says on the tin...
     
  19. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    You are right, my apologizies. It is indeed by gross national income, not per capita. The list itself is still what I wanted to show.

    You are also right, that the list does not cover ALL possible aid, which I did not even argue for. However IMHO it gives a clear enough picture of the compareble shares of aid from each country. I'm sure all countries have additional forms of aid, which is not shown here.

    Are you seriously trying to say, that the size of the country does not mean anything? Surely one can not expect Iceland to give as much aid as the USA!

    I still argue, that the correct way to compere the amount of aid by country is to take the population and the GDP into the equation.
     
  20. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    US of A: Population 316 million, $30.5 billion USD: 96,5

    Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden combined) Population 25,5 million, $14 billion USD: 549. (I've excluded Iceland, as they weren't listed in the post above)

    5½ times as much per capita, according to the above OECD figures.

    United States' nominal GDP was estimated to be $16.6 trillion in June 2013, approximately a quarter of nominal global GDP.
    Sweden's nominal GDP $399.4 billion in 2012.
    Finland's nominal GDP $247.2 billion in 2012.
    Norway's nominal GDP $499.8 billion in 2012.
    Denmark's nominal GDP $313.8 billion in 2010.
    Total for the Nordic countries: $1.46 trillion (estimated).

    The GDP of the Nordic countries is less than 9% of USA's, with a population approx. 8% of USA's.

    This does nothing to show the balance of private donations & welfare. But that is also a entirely different kettle of fish, with various tax "planning", and self-aggrandisation by public figures, and I'll not touch that with a ten-foot pole.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page