Thread by @jmkorhonen

A short thread about #Finland in the Second World War with a lesson from history: why solidarity matters, and it's imperative for #democracy that democracies help threatened democracies.

As many people know, Finland was a de facto Nazi ally in the Second World War. But why? 1/

Finland had been a reasonably stable though imperfect democracy before the war. A fascist coup attempt was defeated in 1932, and the fascist-aligned party was outlawed alongside the communist party.

Finland had also been leaning towards Western democracies, not Nazi Germany. 2/

Without doubt, Finnish politics skewed to the right, and many did like Germany and/or fascism. (These weren't entirely the same thing. Some were pro-German but disliked the Nazis. On the other hand, many Germanophiles were at least initially sympathetic to Hitler.) 3/

However, the Social Democrats were also a very powerful force and even formed the government on occasion. In 1927-28, the government was composed entirely of Social Democrat ministers.

And attitudes towards fascism and Nazis cooled as Hitler dragged Europe towards war. 4/

When another European war began to look likely, Finland and the Finns wanted no part in it. The goal was to stay neutral and out of the war as Sweden had during the First World War.

Then came the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In it, Hitler and Stalin divided Eastern Europe. 5/

Stalin was to get eastern Poland, the Baltic states, Finland, and Bessarabia (modern Moldova).

Hitler would be free to attack Poland, and Stalin would help militarily and with crucial supplies of oil and raw materials.

These bolstered the Nazi war machine considerably. 6/

Pursuing his share of the loot, Stalin issued demands to the Baltic states and Finland: concede territory and permit the basing of Soviet troops.

The Baltic states had not been able to agree on a common defense and bowed to Stalin.

Finland did not. 7/

The territorial concessions Stalin demanded would've dismantled the key Finnish defensive line, and allowing Red Army troops into Finland would've made resistance against an occupation practically impossible.

Finnish leadership also didn't think Stalin would go to war. 8/

After all, the Soviet Union had denounced war and declared it would never conquer other countries.

Finns also believed that if the worst came to worst, Western democracies would honor the principles of the League of Nations and come to Finland's aid. 9/

Finns were a bit naive and wanted to believe democracies would help other democracies.

The Soviet invasion sparked international outrage but little actual help.

France tried. It was too little too late but had an impact - I've written about it here: 10/

https://twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/1618532577706639362?s=20&t=q1Snr9ndFsoA-UAIs_4MjA

In March 1940, Finland was forced to sue for peace. Stalin agreed only because the Allied intervention seemed to be only a matter of time.

11 % of Finnish territory, including the second most important city, was lost. 420 000 became refugees. 11/

https://twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/1618532615736426496?s=20&t=yEHPSIVWLTYGGTJLJ2m33g

All this, after almost all Finns could honestly say that they had just wanted to stay neutral and out of the war.

But the war wasn't finished with the Finns. Stalin clearly saw the peace as temporary.

After France collapsed under German blitzkrieg in May 1940, Stalin moved. 12/

On June 15, the day after Paris fell and it became clear France was out of the war, Stalin ordered the Red Army to occupy the Baltic countries. Soviet secret police, the NKVD, followed. Arrests and executions began immediately. Thousands were shot. The countries were annexed. 13/

Soviet troops massed along the Finnish border and into the Soviet base Finns had been forced to accept.

Soviet planes shot down a Finnish airliner after it departed from Tallinn.

On 8th August 1940, the chief of the Finnish Army recommended partial mobilization. 14/

It's now known that at the same time, Stalin asked his pal Hitler for a free hand to finish Finland.

This time Hitler, who had not only absolutely refused to aid Finland in the Winter War but had impounded Italian arms shipments to Finland, said "no." 15/

Hitler was already planning an attack against his erstwhile ally and believed Finland could be pressured to help.

To that end, he refused to permit the last ditch effort made by Finns to avoid another war: de facto becoming part of Sweden. 16/

Finns and some Swedes had planned a union of two countries to create a Nordic power that could stay out from the rest of the war. Finns agreed to relinquish all territorial claims and effectively merge with Sweden. The Swedes required German and Soviet approval. Both refused. 17/

Options closed one by one. The Nazi conquest of Denmark and Norway had closed off the only route the remaining Allied country, the United Kingdom could transport aid to Finland even if it wanted.

Finland wasn't self-sufficient in food. Hitler used that for leverage as well. 18/

To have a fighting chance against the Soviets, the badly depleted Finnish military needed new weapons and ammunition. The only possible source was Germany.

And an alliance with the hitherto undefeated Germany did appeal to many who might have otherwise detested the idea. 19/

Hence, the Finnish political and military leadership quietly allied with Hitler. Initially, they just extended the same courtesy to German troops that the Soviets had demanded: a right of passage for troop trains.

In June 1941, Finland rejoined the war. 20/

The Social Democrat ministers, in particular, must have known that German victory would probably mean exile for them - possibly death.

But needs must, when the devils drive. And there were two devils, Hitler and Stalin.

Finns did what they could to remain a democracy. 21/

Even Finnish Jews fought. Some even received the German Cross of Iron for bravery; all refused.

A secret ploy by Nazi sympathizers to deport Jewish refugees almost brought down the government, sadly not before 8 to 12 were deported. 22/ telegraph.co.uk/culture/museum…

Could Finland have avoided the war entirely, or at least the second round?

Perhaps - if there had been a more credible mutual security agreement. There had been proposals for an "Intermarium" alliance (from the Baltic to the Black Sea), but these fell through. 23/

After the Stalin-Hitler alliance, it's hard to see other outcomes than war, or occupation & annexation. Sooner or later.

After the Winter War and meager Western aid, and the occupations of the Baltic countries, Norway and Denmark, what choices did actually remain? 24/

What lessons can one draw from unhappy tales like that, which have been written about since Thucydides recorded the Athenian response to small Melos, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"?

Small countries don't always have the luxury of choice. 25/

It's very clear that many well-meaning people living in large countries don't quite understand this.

They berate small countries for their choices to ally with unsavory forces or even for their decision to defend themselves. Case in point: #Ukraine today. 26/

But that's invariably after they've also done their damnedest to refuse effective help to those small countries. Like #Ukraine today.

Then they wonder why democracy suffers setbacks and countries turn to shady allies, both internal and external. 27/

Often they add insult to injury by writing off earnest efforts towards democracy with some more-or-less racist explanation, like "Eastern European countries are just so corrupt that democracy fails there anyway."

All this is very easy to say from the safety of distance. 28/

If we want democracy to flourish in the world, and I'd say it's not just a nice to have but quite possibly a requirement for the survival of human civilization, then democracies need to stick together and defend even aspiring democracies.

Yes, they are going to be imperfect. 29/

But unless aspiring democracies are defended and supported, how can democracy spread and develop?

Finland was in many ways a worse democracy in 1939 than #Ukraine is now. Look at us now.

Give every democracy a fighting chance. 30/

And defend democracy abroad to defend it at home.

Autocrats anywhere, like Putin and the Kremlin elite, are enemies of democracy everywhere. They usually don't have much power and can be left to stew in their own mess, but sometimes they can gain considerable influence. 31/

Democracy must not be exported by force. That is the fatal mistake the United States made. Democracy must emerge naturally. But where it takes root, it should be nurtured and defended. 32/

Only mutual solidarity can guarantee the survival of democracy. There may come a day when old democracies need help to remain democratic. We may then need help from newer democracies. If we don't defend emerging and aspiring democracies, we won't have allies. 33/33

PS. To make this clear: Finland allying with Hitler was shameful.

But my point is that threatened small countries will be looking for help in the future as well.

If democracies refuse to help, those countries won't say, "okay then, I guess we just roll over and be killed."

They will try to find allies elsewhere. Those allies may not be very nice, and they may not have the best interests of small countries anywhere close to their heart.

But even a stay in execution is a stay in execution, even if it has to be purchased from the devil.

One devil whose going rates many are going to inquire, I'm afraid, is nuclear and perhaps biological weapons.

If Russia outlasts democracies that are afraid of nuclear escalation or use that as an excuse not to help, the lesson learned will be clear: get nukes of your own.

Finally, #CeterumCenseo I believe that Russia has to lose this war. A result the Russian elite could claim as victory would be interpreted by the said elite as a proof that democracies can be bullied to anything as long as you have nuclear weapons. The risks are enormous.