Finlandization

red · Post by **red** » Mar 24 2004

How about it? I see very similar posts on influence in previous threads, but all I saw were very old.

[ This Message was edited by: red on 2004-03-24 14:00 ]

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Mar 25 2004

If it wasnt for Harpoon, I wouldnt even know what that was P.

prime_642 · Post by **prime_642** » Mar 25 2004

Unfortunately, i haven't played harpoon, which is a shame, since i heard it's a good game. So, what is Finlandization?

red · Post by **red** » Mar 25 2004

It's when a powerful country bullies a smaller one into following its foreign policy line. Comes from Russia and Finland.

I'm wondering how sensitive the AI will be to relative power. In a lot of games the AI couldn't care less if you can squash them in a second, and makes these really uncooperative moves that lead to your invading everyone for lack of any other options. I don't know, I'd like to win diplomatically.

djtrix · Post by **djtrix** » Mar 26 2004

That has frustrated me to no end in games like Civ3 and others... I build up a superpower with huge landmass, armies, population, etc. I put the smack down on country X which made the mistake of testing my limits. Now country Y is on my western border and they are dwarfed by my power. I expect to be able to send a request for aid and get it every time.

Sometimes I expect country Y would be resistant to helping me inspite of my power. In this case I could grab some border lands and push into their country abit and force their hand.

In that thought, what options will there be for ending a conflict? As I see it here are the options:
1. Ceasefire (neither side has an advantage)
2. Peace (Conflict is completely absovled)
3. Alliance (One country tells the other that if they stop their aggression they will help them)
4. Colonization (One country agrees to be a colony of the other in order to stop the aggression)
5. Total domination (invading country takes over completely)

I think that these options would add alot to the game (if they aren't there already). For example, if you end a war with colonization, that country may switch to your control, but it's loyalty to the previous country would wain faster.

What do you guys think?

[ This Message was edited by: djtrix on 2004-03-26 03:46 ]

prime_642 · Post by **prime_642** » Mar 26 2004

would someone mind telling me precisely when Finland was dominated by Russia? I mean, The only thing i know about Finland/Russian affairs is that they fought a war when Russia invaded it during WW2. According to the accounts i read the Finns fought bravely but where overwhelmed by Russian numbers and tanks although the Russians had quite a bit of trouble hauling them through the snow. And if Russia bullied Finland during the Cold War, then there are plenty of countries also bullied by Russia, and the US, for that matter. Why did they chose Finland in order to name the effect?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Mar 30 2004

"Colonization"

It's probably the only option from your list we don't have. Everything else seems covered.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Mar 30 2004

Its alittle more complicated than that,but thats a good start.
And yes ,it could be applied to other countries -poland is a good example.

It was oringinally coined by either the UN or a German political scientist.Depends on the time and the story.

Originally it meant- " We know you are being bullied by russia(we being the US),but we are not happy enough with you and your recent past actions to intervene on your behalf due to the possible results of said action.
What the US was primarily not happy with finland about,was during ww2 thier alliance and fighting alongside of germany against the russians.
Oddly though,the US did not declare war on finland during ww2.

So,when ww2 ended,russia who had been an "ally" was allowed to bully Finland becuase the US really didnt want to risk another war-with russia-over finland-who some in the US said at the time "deserved what they got".

The term later changed a little and was used by the Fins themselves to describe a so called "nuetral stance" that they claimed in the 50s and 60s during the cold war .A stance of course "encouraged"
(cough,cough)by russia.
American troops in germany,protecting western germany from russian intentions was the opposite side of the coin.With the term Finlandization describing why finland was given no such "protection" from russia's intentions towards it.

Like i said, its complicated

.You might say it represented a distancing of a nation from the US perspective and the lack of actions by the US to help such nations as a result.

OXA · Post by **OXA** » Apr 15 2004

Actually Finish ww2 history is very interesting and complicated. I read a few books about it since an older member of my family was fighting on the finish side of the war as a part of the Swedish volentary forces assisting Finland against Russia.

Unfortunally it would seem like a few ppl prematurly judge the finns as pro natzi when they hear that they allied with Germany.. history is however usually more complicated then ppl in hindsight make it out to be.

Anyone interested in War history should get a book about the finnish-russian ww2 conflict IÂ´m sure they will find it most rewarding.

Post by **George Geczy** » Apr 15 2004

Chris Crawford's game 'Balance of Power' also covered the concept of "Finlandization", as I recall. In situations like these the term is usually applied to the early post-WWII years and the way in which Finnish politics had to walk the tight rope of being somewhat "western" yet not raising the ire of the USSR. The Encarta encyclopedia describes it as the "finely tuned sensitivity to Soviet wishes that Finns not engage in activities deemed detrimental to USSR interests".

Certainly the Finns had a bit of a raw deal from WWII - they were generally not pro-German, yet they were invaded by the Soviets, and so could not get assistance from the US or UK who were allied with the Soviets against Germany... It's the kind of mix-up jumble of alliances that I usually only see in a large multiplayer game of SR2010

The SR2010 diplomatic model allows 'Finlandization' concepts, and already many multiplayer games tend to find weaker players towing the line of their larger neighbors to avoid an early conflict. The AI will, depending upon the region's 'personality', also follow this concept to various degrees.

-- George.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Apr 15 2004

You have to remember there were actaully 2 wars with finland and russia during ww2.First circa 1939 to circa march 1940.Finland lost this war and agreed to russia's terms.

Finland then allied with germany circa sept 1940, allowing german troops free passage thru finland to norway and to attack russia.
Which germany did circa june 1941,with finland then joining germany in attacking russia later the same month.

Like poland,Finland was not so much pro one side ,as much as they were ,pick what they felt was the best of the bad choices available to them.

But that choice in finlands part was an alliance with germany,which no matter how u look at it, makes them less than innocent.
And when you look at poor poland, who was allied with the allies, and was still handed over to russia,well its obvious that finland really didnt have a "good" choice open to them anyway.

There was also a third war-in which finland was forced by russia to declare war on germany. circa sept 1944- after signing a peace treaty with russia.

All this added up in the allies minds.

[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2004-04-15 20:07 ]

OXA · Post by **OXA** » Apr 16 2004

ItÂ´s great to hear that the AI will be sensitive to requests from larger regions and differences in power. I always found it extremly irritating when in Civ3 a small region insists on violating my borders with his legions even though I can roll over him with my tanks any day of the week.

tkobo,
DonÂ´t forget however that Finland refused Germanys demands to continue the andvance into Russia after they had liberated the occupied areas and established a security zone. Finland also refused to aid the Germans in capturing the Murmansk railway.

Ofcouse it is impossible to really know what would had happened in the war if the murmansk railway had been cut.. but surely Russia would have been much worse off without the aid comming in from the allied. It is also clear that the Finns were the only ones with the capability to fight wars in the forests regions surrounding the railway. That way it might be argued that the Finns saved Russia from being defeted by Germany =).

It is also interesting to note that the Germans got so upset over the finns refusal to help them that they practicly occupied the northern region of Finnland way before the finns was forced by Russia to drive them out by force (and hence the war between Finland and Germany).

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Apr 16 2004

Not sure where you get that finland refused to help the germans
advance on and
try to take the murmansk railway.
Although they failed, they did indeed help.
If im not mistaken that would be the Kestenga(sp) sector and finish troops did indeed participate in the advance there - circa summer of 44- finnish J division ?

Also yuo cant have it both ways.Either the finish didnt advance into russia OR they set up the security zone-
Since this security zone consisted of russian territory-Soviet Karelia (sp).
Also , if yuo check you'll see that finnish troops took part in the drive on Leningrad and its siege-I Corps and IV Corps i believe.

[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2004-04-16 03:32 ]

OXA · Post by **OXA** » Apr 16 2004

ThatÂ´s what I meen when I say that history is complicated =). It can usually be interpreted both ways.

IÂ´m not familiar with the exact unit placement or exactly what units were deployed and at what timeintervalls.

IÂ´m sure your information is correct. However just because some units did participate doesnÂ´t meen there was a full support from the government.

As I have read it the finish government did indeed refuse to use large units to help the germans in there push for Leningrad. They also refused to push ahead and capture the murmansk railway even though it was well within there grasp. Instead they halted after establishing a security zone (and I agree with you that it was within russian territory so of cause it can be discussed if that was something the finns should have done or not).

The point about the finnish-russian war (or wars if you want) that I wanted to make was that it is a very complicated and interesting story and something I would recomend ppl to look at if they have a ww2 interest.

But if we should get into a discussion about exact placement of troops etc. then I would have to start checking sources both my own and yours (one should always consider that hitorical sources are at risk of being in some part propaganda and reconstructions to fit a political agenda) and I donÂ´t really feel like doing that. I hope you donÂ´t mind. Cheers..

[ This Message was edited by: OXA on 2004-04-16 06:22 ]

[ This Message was edited by: OXA on 2004-04-16 06:24 ]

red · Post by **red** » Apr 16 2004

George answered my question perfectly. I didn't intend for all the debate.