For sure. But both sides saw another war coming and with how close Finland was to being fully occupied, the worry was that this time Soviet Union wouldn’t stop until they had achieved that. Understandable worry in my opinion, even though fighting alongside Nazis is a black mark on Finnish history.
No I really meant that both sides knew that this wasn’t over. Both considered it unfinished (heh) business.
The same USSR that recognized Finnish independence in 1918?
The very same (or well, it had changed a bunch but still). Though the Soviet attempt to conquer Finland during Winter War, that had just happened, might’ve been a bit more prominent in peoples’ minds than 1918.
I don’t think it was unavoidable, I hope it didn’t come off like that. Generally there are three schools of thought about this. Historically the “drift wood” theory has been the most prominent one. It argued that Finland was drift food flowing in the rapids of world events. It argues that Finland just “drifted to Germany’s side”. It has been popular because Finland had to come to grips with what happened during WW2. And that theory was the copout, basically. “We didn’t choose this, it just happened”. It was basically the “official truth” for the longest time and even though professional historians abandoned the theory I think since the 70’s, it has been the popular explanation among non-historians for the longest time, with it still being somewhat popular. Another theory (not very popular) was that Finland was the willing aggressor and had been seeking out Germany the whole time since independence and wanted to join Germany and jumped at the opportunity. This you can still see in more far-left circles and I think the idea is more popular abroad. It’s been brought up here too. Then there’s the theory that has since replaced driftwood theory, with a more nuanced and I think historically sound take. It argues that Finland wasn’t a driftwood but more a “whitewater boat” I guess. The rapids of world events did influence Finland majorly, but there was also conscientious effort from Finnish side to seek closer ties with Germany. And that’s the one I personally believe in. Finland didn’t helplessly and unavoidably drift into an alliance with the Nazis, but rather it was influenced by what was happening around Finland, experience of being left alone during Winter War and how close to total defeat Finland was and fears about the unsettled business with Soviet Union. I think seeing all those factors, it’s understandable from the POV of the leadership at the time (though not morally defensible) to see why Finland became Nazi Germany’s ally.
For sure. But both sides saw another war coming and with how close Finland was to being fully occupied, the worry was that this time Soviet Union wouldn’t stop until they had achieved that. Understandable worry in my opinion, even though fighting alongside Nazis is a black mark on Finnish history.
Not if they accepted the loss.
The same USSR that recognized Finnish independence in 1918?
No I really meant that both sides knew that this wasn’t over. Both considered it unfinished (heh) business.
The very same (or well, it had changed a bunch but still). Though the Soviet attempt to conquer Finland during Winter War, that had just happened, might’ve been a bit more prominent in peoples’ minds than 1918.
Alright, man. I’m getting frustrated here, but that’s just because I’m not as knowledgeable on the topic as I should be.
It feels to me like you’ve presented joining with the Nazis as an unavoidable move for the Finns.
I feel like it’s clear that it could’ve been avoided, but I’m just not knowledgeable enough to drag that argument down by the hamstring.
I’ve got some reading to do, thanks for the replies.
I don’t think it was unavoidable, I hope it didn’t come off like that. Generally there are three schools of thought about this. Historically the “drift wood” theory has been the most prominent one. It argued that Finland was drift food flowing in the rapids of world events. It argues that Finland just “drifted to Germany’s side”. It has been popular because Finland had to come to grips with what happened during WW2. And that theory was the copout, basically. “We didn’t choose this, it just happened”. It was basically the “official truth” for the longest time and even though professional historians abandoned the theory I think since the 70’s, it has been the popular explanation among non-historians for the longest time, with it still being somewhat popular. Another theory (not very popular) was that Finland was the willing aggressor and had been seeking out Germany the whole time since independence and wanted to join Germany and jumped at the opportunity. This you can still see in more far-left circles and I think the idea is more popular abroad. It’s been brought up here too. Then there’s the theory that has since replaced driftwood theory, with a more nuanced and I think historically sound take. It argues that Finland wasn’t a driftwood but more a “whitewater boat” I guess. The rapids of world events did influence Finland majorly, but there was also conscientious effort from Finnish side to seek closer ties with Germany. And that’s the one I personally believe in. Finland didn’t helplessly and unavoidably drift into an alliance with the Nazis, but rather it was influenced by what was happening around Finland, experience of being left alone during Winter War and how close to total defeat Finland was and fears about the unsettled business with Soviet Union. I think seeing all those factors, it’s understandable from the POV of the leadership at the time (though not morally defensible) to see why Finland became Nazi Germany’s ally.
Sorry for the long post.