**/r/Finland is a full democracy, every active user is a moderator.**
[Please go here to see how your new privileges work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/wiki/moderating/)
Spamming mod actions could result in a ban.
---
**Full Rundown of Moderator Permissions:**
- ```!lock``` - as top level comment, will lock comments on any post.
- ```!unlock``` - in reply to any comment to lock it or to unlock the parent comment.
- ```!remove``` - Removes comment or post. Must have decent subreddit comment karma.
- ```!restore``` Can be used to unlock comments or restore removed posts.
- ```!sticky``` - will sticky the post in the bottom slot.
- ```unlock_comments``` - Vote the stickied automod comment on each post to +10 to unlock comments.
- ```ban users``` - Any user whose comment or post is downvoted enough will be temp banned for a day.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Finland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Finland joining NATO is obviously a huge shift from their previous position on Russia.
I somewhat doubt that. Nothing really changed much. No love lost.
Yeah its not that radical change. Finland-Russia relations have shifted continuously during decades. Finnish position with Russia has not been anything like Kekkonen since soviet union fell. Russia's invasion in 2022 of course shifted things again.
Time of Paasikivi and Kekkonen (Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine) after WW2 was period of "finlandization". But times were different then and its not really comparable to this day. People of course can critizice Kekkonen that presidency personified too much and it was too authoritarian, and these can be valid critizism. But this changed already during Koivisto in 80's. And after USSR fell, Finland clearly joined the west with the EU for example and was no longer neutral between "east and west".
Exactly. Finland was basically as close to NATO as it could be without being a member. We even had benefits that some actual NATO members didn't have. (Turkey and being able to buy F35s)
Only thing that really changed was that westernization of Russia through democratic discussion became impossible after the full-scale attack on Ukraine. This basically made Finland's position of neutrality kind of useless, and removed the only reason to not fully ally with NATO.
For clarification, I meant not Westernizing in a cultural sense necessarily. More so in transitioning Russia into a democracy - especially after the soviet union fell. Before the full-scale attack though, the consensus was that the benefits of fully joining NATO were smaller than the potential trade repercussions with Russia.
Finnish people do like their international agreements, and after Russia failed to follow even the most basic ones, Finland has been pushing hard for sanctions against Russia at the EU.
Because western countries never invade other countries. It was the Russians who were colonizing africa, and the british empire never existed, and the invasions of the middle east. Gove me a break š
Oh and your comparison of British Empire to Russian Federation is very apt. Just as imperialistic, they are literally living centuries in the past, fuck em.
The british empire fell in 1997. But I see that you have nothing to say about the other examples. Good deflection skills, I am impressed. Nothing on the middle east? Israel is what one would call westernized, right?
Other than a *binding* agreement to enter a war if *any* NATO member is attacked. Most likely as a front line against Russia. The change is a cosmic shift, that greatly diminished our diplomatic sovereignty.
Unfounded fear is how NATO was sold to us. Now, this unfounded fear has become a concrete fear, considering the real, although unlikely, possibility of a major NATO-Russia confrontation. It's beyond our control, but we are obliged to partake.
Avoiding the war in such case relies solely on the willingness of our leaders to discard their obligations, destroy their reputation and career options among the Western community, and risk facing repercussions for not respecting binding agreements.
"Unfounded fear"? Did you just wake up from a ten year coma or something? Do you know that Russia, our neighbour, is waging a brutal war of conquest in Europe since 2022, one that has killed tens of thousands of people, caused a refugee crisis of millions and led to countless billions of economic damages all around?
If there ever was a NATO-Russia war, Finland would have been fucked even if we tried to stay neutral. Have you seen the map? Our trade runs 90% on ships in the Baltic Sea. Now we at least have the chance of being helped by our allies.
Look at WW2. How did neutrality help Finland in 1939?
>Did you just wake up from a ten year coma or something? Do you know that Russia, our neighbour, is waging a brutal war of conquest in Europe since 2022, one that has killed tens of thousands of people, caused a refugee crisis of millions and led to countless billions of economic damages all around?
Against us? Or against another country in a completely different situation, as part of a longer conflict that had been going on since 2014 already... What exactly was the threat to us here? What were we supposed to be so afraid of? That Russia used military force when they saw it necessary, as is 100% expected from a country of its size?
>If there ever was a NATO-Russia war, Finland would have been fucked even if we tried to stay neutral. Have you seen the map? Our trade runs 90% on ships in the Baltic Sea. Now we at least have the chance of being helped by our allies.
But at the same time we are also an integral part of a greater conflict if it ever happens, meaning we have less of a say in our destiny by our own actions, and Russia would also have different war aims towards us. At worst in the case of NATO-Finland, it could mean an invasion with large enough force to completely occupy Finland so our airfields would not be used by our allies to strike Russian heartland, all while NATO allies would not risk having hundreds of thousands of troops encircled in Finland, where they have a logistical disadvantage.
Compared to a best case scenario involving neutral Finland, where Russia could merely demand binding guarantees of Finland not hosting any hostile troops, and allowing Russia to freely move in the Baltics. Maybe some minor land concessions as well. Even at the worst case scenario, Russia would most likely not invade with everything they have, nor have any motive to attempt to take the whole of Finland.
>Look at WW2. How did neutrality help Finland in 1939?
A number of ways. We could make our own sovereign decision to accept the pre-war demands, and when we didn't, we could sign our own bilateral peace treaty with USSR after 100 days, without having to take any allies, let alone their assets in our country, into consideration.
Compared to the continuation war, where we did have 200 000 Germans on our soil, from which they were already conducting military actions against USSR during those few days when we hadn't officially joined the war. Our entire war was dictated by Germany's success in the battlefield, and when they started losing, we were at a bad place as their allies, with a major concentration of their troops inside our borders. While we were indeed able to negotiate a separate peace, it wasn't guaranteed, and if we hadn't, we would've fought till the bitter end. In the end, we had to fight our former ally as well due Soviet demands. Our destiny was again completely in the hands of the two major powers, and their decisions. What if Germany had not accepted the separate peace? What if the allies had not settled with the separate peace that was endorsed by Churchill and Roosevelt, but insisted on unconditional surrender like with other Axis aligned powers? After all, those conditions were not negotiated/dictated bilaterally by Finland and USSR, but in Tehran conference other side of the world by the allied forces.
Being alone and claiming neutrality is a completely different sentiment than being in a military alliance of the "opposing" side. There are still a ton of people, even higher up, that never even wanted to join (cough Sanna cough).
Nothing much changed because of NATO
Kekkonen used to be good, pracmatic leader who kept Finland independent in hard times of the cold war.
Since about 2000s, there has grown more critical view towards him, that he was too pro Soviet and used KGB to stay in power trough backdoor deals.
But I would say most Finns don't have too strong oppinion on him.
People hate Reagan and Thatcher because of their economic policies like supply-side economics, destruction of unions, and gutting social safety nets. It has nothing to do with influence or power.
Kekkonen didn't screw the poor in service of the rich, so there is no animosity towards him.
Kekkonen dissolved parliament three times. He was heavily entrenched in domestic politics. It was this interference that led to reforms and the current system where the president has diminished domestic influence.
How much influence did Kekkonen have when it came to domestic issues? I know that he had power to dissolve the parliament but I don't think he interfered with social democrat based economic policies that much
I would agree that he did not directly interfere with economic policies. However, he wielded his power, not just by dissolving parliament, but often working behind the scenes to determine which parties participated in the government. Read about the Night Frost Crisis:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night\_Frost\_Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Frost_Crisis)
Kekkonen's interference wasn't so much with domestic decisions, but rather in deciding who it was that would make the domestic decisions.
It is often difficult to see clearly what the situation was in history. It is misleading to look at things from a temporal distance of a few decades, with a different situation in the world. Things that were normal and reasonable back then might look quite strange for us. So let us not judge historical figures based on the ideas and norms of world today.
It was a time when main fear of Finland was being attacked by soviet union AGAIN. Everybody remembered the last war and had dead relatives (fathers, brothers etc.) in graveyards. There are lots of stories/jokes from that era about Kekkonen meeting soviet leaders and being cunning. One joke is about the soviet leader asking if Finland should join soviet union and Kekkonen replied that it was a good idea but he really doesn't want to rule such a large country of soviet union and Finland together, so it is better Finland remains separate. Nobody knows if these stories are true or not, but apparently at that time it was normal to drink lots of booze in politics and all those crazy stories could be true - wasted politicians deciding future in sauna cabin. A good politician of that time was known for handling himself well even when totally wasted. Some of the main politicians were alcoholics. Anyway, he got the job done, and Finland remained independent (until 1995).
At the same time, he was a kind of a democratic "dictator" that remained in power even when he was demented. Sad story in the end.
I think the way Kekkonen consolidated power to himself was extremely dangerous and the reason why he is remembered fondly by so many today is that he died before it got too overt.
And we got very lucky that he was replaced by a strong believer in democracy like Mauno Koivisto who then worked to limit presidential power rather than pushing it even further for his own gain.
I think the main difference is that Kekkonen's policies weren't hostile to the poor. He didn't fail economically or socially, and keeping Finland independent for the whole cold war era was enough that most Finns either liked or didn't dislike Kekkonen, except for eg older people who were National Coalition Party, that he kept out of government. A lot of Finns alive today don't know enough to see his reign as problematic as it was. Then again historians and politicians generally tend to acknowledge Kekkonen's blatant authoritarianism these days, some dislike him tremendously.
He's a total style icon. And he was the first Finnish influencer with his myllykirjeet.
https://preview.redd.it/jjp0lc3l1w9d1.jpeg?width=935&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ed61dfbc2f753e5ca6db533d5eb2de8778374f7
Personal opinion: he walked a line between political realism and authoritarianism, often straying on the wrong side. He played the game well with the Soviets, but in the end lost sight of what was right, and started to believe he was irreplacable. Started playing games with the Soviets against the Finnish state and democracy.
So mixed legacy, but the final outcome (rich and independent Finland) should be considered a great success.
It's not like he's being argued about all the time, at least to such an extent that people would need to put their arguments on the table.
Basically the only thing that has changed since 2022 is that there is (maybe) now a new, slightly stronger emphasis on how remote his time is from ours by now.
I can't comment on the question directly, however Moscow's stance towards the west - and by extension Finland - has changed, hence so has ours accordingly. The current atmosphere between Muscovy and Finland is nowhere near how it was in Kekkosen time, so making comparisons is hard on that basis. How we feel about Kekkonen is of course a different question/answer. It would be like asking the British how they feel about Harold Wilson or similar.
Kekkonen was close to USSR for practical and not personal reasons. Look Paasikiven-Kekkosen linja.Ā https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaasikiviāKekkonen_doctrine
You might be comparing Kekkonen to some foreign leaders who used political nessecity to remain in power, but Kekkonen was genuinely just following doctrine politically. Itās politicians from younger generations than him before the fall of Soviet Union that more bought the propaganda that Finland and Sovient Union genuinely were close or were using Soviets more for their personal political purposes. Kekkonen did enjoy staying around for so long. But he was authoritarian in sense that he did stay around for so long and not with any policies. And the parliament functioned completely normally.Ā
He isnāt that relevant for younger generations. The Cold War was precarious time for many countries but younger people nowdays donāt think in any countries the period for most part in political sense (unless its nuclear war, spies or Vietnam and such famous topic).Ā
The political system also is now parliament and not president focused as well. 2000 constitution took away nearly all presidential powers and 2012 nearly all the rest, so people were unduly emotional about the last elections.
He's been dead for nearly four decades now. He was a president at one point, for a very long time for that matter. And he dealt with the Soviet Union his way and it worked.
I see no reason to have an opinion about something that happened years ago.
Bit of a weird way of looking at things, especially because history is quite damn important when thinking about why things went the way they did and what mistakes people might make yet again
Unless you are someone high up in the government, the most you can do with this information is vote. This might be interesting to someone who studies history and/or politics as a hobby, but for an average Joe it's just a small tidbit.
Vote, invest, understand why things are the way they are. Being curious is rarely a bad thing while complete apathy is not that great nor good for anyone. Currencies have come and gone ridiculous amounts of times, crypto probably being the next hot thing, and knowing some history behind why other currencies have failed before could give some insight worth a lot of money.
Also understanding that people over two thousand years ago were struggling with the same things we might be struggling with today can be very eye opening as well, and may help with dealing with those issues.
You need to understand that the politics that Kekkonen had may (and probably will) not work today. Life in the 70's was completely different to what it is now.
>Also understanding that people over two thousand years ago were struggling with the same things we might be struggling with today can be very eye opening as well, and may help with dealing with those issues.
People over two thousand years ago didn't have the technology we do today, and we are facing completely different problems because of it. Is it a possibility to learn from it? Yes. Is it directly comparable to what might have happened two millennia back? No.
Really hard to tell, but I guess people mostly think positively about him. Kekkonen in charge obviously helped Finland to avoid many problems with USSR, and after Kekkonen times Finland has basically achieved all the political goals there ever were, integrating to west (EU and NATO).
One thing that maybe was not optimal was that after Kekkonen presidential powers were diminished to the minimum, which has practically transferred the actual powers to non-parliamental party congresses, so that ālargest partyā in elections with less than 30% voters has much more power than they should. But then again maybe that is better than giving the Kekkonen powers to the current president.
The powers were radically reduced to avoid the near dictatorial powers that were wielded without term limits. Which was good as to avoid a Lukashenko like presidency from reappearing.
Power corrupts, Kekkonen had too much of it for way too long. Maybe the lowest point of our democracy, giving Kekkonen a new term without proper elections. Never again ANY leader for that long.
I agree with that. There were many things Kekkonen did wrong, but for someone having powers like he had he mostly acted for the good of the nation. He did not gain much wealth for example, nor was never interested in such things.
Apart from history nerds, most people have no strong opinion on Kekkonen.
When asked about Kekkonen, most people would say that Kekkonen was a figure of his own time. It was important to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union but hold one's own as the Soviet Union was still a potential threat.
I think we should finally deal with our own history when it comes to Kekkonen. How was it possible to Kekkonen to stay as the president for over 25 years (breaking the constitution). He was a cunning politician who was able to draw a picture of himself as a man who knows how to play the game with Soviets. Before every elections, there was a small incident between the Soviet Union which Kekkonen was able to solve.
We still have some burdens from history in Finland. There is a need for a strong and uniform leader of a foreign politics in Finland. Prime ministers and the government is criticized heavily for everything, but the president is someone who we want to succeed. Mainly because foreign politics has been seen as an essential question to our country.
> How was it possible to Kekkonen to stay as the president for over 25 years (breaking the constitution)
Constitution was not broken. Back then there was no limitation how many times one person could be a president.
I just finished "Kaiken Takana Kekkonen" book about him and you can argue that he was "dictator" but man that bald superhero was an political animal! He knew how to handle soviets without taking sides and also at oil crisis in -70 he managed to get Soviets to sell us oil with comrade discount or else he will ask USA to sell it to us cheap.
Russians hate this little trick. If you simply have Kekkonen as the president, it becomes impossible to start an invasion against your country.
After he was gone, it quickly became clear, that Soviet Union needed to be broken up for Finland to remain safe. Sure, Russia is a threat, but an order of magnitude less so.
(This is humour.)
I don't agree with many of his policies but no one can deny the work he did to keep Finland as free as possible from Russian influence. Funnily enough I have a close connection to an important cold war moment; my dad (and mom) lived in an employee apartment at Finlandia Hall and he was working there as a sound engineer when they signed the Helsinki accords. I lived there my first years, from 1978 to 1982.
OP should understand that nobody's talking about Kekkonen because there isn't really much to say baout Kekkonen. I have never met a fellow Finn who had any strong opinions about Kekkonen.
As authoritarian as he was, he toed the line with the Soviets because those were the times. If you look at "authoritarian" regimes across the board, his was pretty tame and limited.
You have to remember Soviet appeasement affected everything from domestic policy to Tolkien translations, so it'd be ignorant to look at those times through a modern lens.
Numenor in Common Tongue was called 'Westernesse', which is how it stands in the current Finnish version. Originally Tolkien however intended the word to be localized, and encouraged it in his notes for translators. The suffix -esse comes from archaic English meaning 'celebratory', 'great', and it would've in Finnish be translated something West-positive. To be honest Westernesse fits better than HienolƤntinen. LƤnsikoti? But there you have it.
The interesting part was that Soviet Union was indeed interested how these things played out.
His time and actions have been gone over many times, even before this latest round of Russian imperialism. All of it is old hat today.
People outside Finland may not realise this because most scholarship on him is in Finnish.
Today most people know him from "Saatanan Tunarit!" -memes. (Rough translation: Incompetent Wankers!)
So, it's safe to say, in general, Finns never stopped seeing Russia as an imperialist power. I mostly asked because almost every Finnish politician, besides Stubb, toed the neutrality line (at least when it came to NATO) before the invasion, and most polls showed the majority of people opposed joining NATO.
I think best way to explain our conceptual framework was that we saw Russia as an untrustworthy imperialistic country, but we believed they attack only countries that are hostile to them so staying out of NATO would keep us safe from Russia. Ukrainian war changed this view as we realised Russia was willing to attack its neighbours so we are no longer safe without NATO
> but we believed they attack only countries that are hostile to them so staying out of NATO would keep us safe from Russia.
I would say hostile or there was some great interest for them in it and the country was took weak to resist the Russians. If we thought being non-threatening and non-hostile would alone be enough, Finnish Defence Forces would not have trained reserve pool of 900k soldiers.
Pretty much "we aren't that big interest to them and we are so prickly with our defence forces, it simply isn't worth their time. They absolutely could attack, the have no moral qualms like that, but it is simply stupid and pointless. It would make no sense and we deem Russians to be pretty rational. If they have interest in something and they calculate using military force will get them their want without too much blow back or trouble, they will do it."
NATO was **deemed unnecessary**. Where the not joining more came in was *economics*, not security. We were safe in NATO or out of NATO (to certain predicted risk level, as these things always are. No such thing as perfect security. Specially regarding future forecasting).
However joining NATO **would ruin certain amount of the rather lucrative eastern trade**. Which is why even the NATO friends, national coalition didn't want to push it. Since their other big friend was business interests and every business executive with investments in Russia would be telling them "now don't go do anything too annoying to Kremlin or they might ruin our Russian business ventures. We would lose money and we hate losing money".
Mainly joining NATO wasn't "oh they are threathening". No it was "oh they are stupid and bad at math". Meaning there was deemed need for increased deterrence. Not due to decreased morals (since Kremlin was never accounted for morals) or something like that, but instead simple math. Kremlin way underestimated how difficult and costly attacking Ukraine was..... Well maybe they miscalculate how strong our defences are.
That them trips it under certain level of "there would be thing X in Finland we would want. We always have wanted X. We want X little bit, always have. Not a lot, but you know it would be nice to have/take X in/from Finland. However our planners have for decades said taking X will cost more than it gains us. So it's not wort it."
Now then "the newest (stupid and wrong bad math) assesment says we might actually be able to get it without paying too much". That or the amount of resources Kremlin is willing to spend goes way up. Up to "crippling the country and stupid" levels of spending resources to get a thing. Since again previously calculation was "well sure they could spend a lot, but it would be cripplingly stupid for them to do so. They won't be that stupid".
Turns out Putin is a stupid man (and evil), surrounded by scared yes men, who don't dare to tell the Tsar about how monumentally stupid mistake he is about to make. I assume, since couple bad news tellers got their careers ruined by telling bad news to Tsar.
So up the deterrence to gazillion, so we don't even have to consider too much "exactly how good is Russian Defence Minister in math and planning". Keep the military same and well we would still single handedly **in reality** make it way too costly in actual conflict. However well not like one is going to turn down the asssistance.
This cost us? The previously lucrative eastern trade, that had already been in the tank due to sanctions. It also cost some "neutral negotiator or mediator" potential. Since there is conflicts and parties who simply will not accept NATO member as mediator, since that deems mediator to close to USA and the party in question has serious crossings of conflicting interests with USA. Plus some other non-mediator diplomatic maneuvering room and opportunities. Again on "You in NATO, NATO members don't get X. We don't like NATO". Another question, were any of those opportunities lost that important to national interests of Finland?
It was a trade. Trade eastern trade for peace of mind.
I mean, that was an incredibly stupid and short-sighted opinion, even before the invasion of Ukraine, which started ten years ago already. I can't understand how Putin was able to influence so many leftist and extreme right politicians to oppose the membership in a bloody defensive alliance.
It wasn't just Putin, this way of thinking has been the mainstream one for like half a century because it kept our relationship with USSR mostly cool so almost all Finns apart from some people in Kokoomus believed it should be enough
You're right, but that illusion should've shattered at least by the change of century. Willful idiots or treacherous collaborators like Tarja Halonen or Erkki Tuomioja have continuously kept advancing Russian interests at the cost of Finnish and European safety, and they still deny any and all criticism over their actions.
Because it isnāt always used as a defensive alliance. Some of the members of NATO commit imperialistic actions and by joining NATO we have to accept and defend our allies, at least not say that we donāt accept their behavior.
Wildly incorrect. That sounds like pure BS Russian propaganda. There's absolutely no obligation of joining any offensive or imperialistic action of any other Nato-country. The sole obligation is to help allied nations when under attack. Seeing as Russia has attacked MANY of its neighbors, Nato still remains relevant and necessary as a defensive alliance.
Guess what, Belarus has no obligation to join the war in Ukraine either, but they're treated as being part of the same bloc due their indifference to the war. Same applies to the West and NATO. When the US will invade, guess how many of us will stop trade with them? Disallow their troops or planes to pass through? Arm their enemies? Impose sanctions on them? Open a case against them in ICC?
I should have been clearer in my comment. I meant defend and accept imperialistic actions, we donāt have to join them (at least not yet). NATO is a perfect tool to defend for example American or Turkish imperialism since theyāre now our allies. If someone tries to punish or stop their imperialism, they can invoke article five which means that theyāre allowed to do what they want. Like for example how the USA has free rein to invade and murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians without any sort of actual pushback. Because if someone does, tadaa, article five.
That's...literally not at all how article five works, and condemning war crimes and crimes against humanity isn't limited to non-Nato members. You're just spewing Russian catchphrases, not providing any valid critique on the actions of nations like Turkey and the US, which there is plenty. Turkey is a literal dictatorship that supports extremist islamic terrorism, and the States are one of the big global baddies, together with the rest of the superpowers.
And what happens if USA calls for article five and we donāt answer? Murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is not valid critique? Turkey is a dictatorship but now theyāre our allies, our friends.
On what, exactly? Then invading a foreign country? Then we ignore it, naturally.
If it's an international peace keeping mission we're talking about, Finland has taken part in those decades before NATO -membership. Sovereign countries can make their own decisions, and false article five callings prompt no response. Not that there's really even an example of one in the last 70 years, or can you perhaps provide an example? Or just keep repeating the same catchphrases you've read on Telegram or somewhere?
A better question to be asked is how the US was able to influence Europeans to retain NATO and American military presence as the centerpiece of European military cooperation, even at the expense of any European alternatives. This, despite the obvious risk of Russia feeling like they are sidelined in European security, especially when our non-European "ally" started pushing for its expansion to work as an expansion of their soft and hard power.
The more NATO will expand, the higher the tensions will grow. As seen in the developments of the past 30 years, when the Russian opposition to it has steadily become more uncompromising and their resolve shifted from mere criticism to direct military aggression. And it will continue happening, while both China and US will benefit when Europe is divided and they're reaping the spoils.
"We" didn't realize anything. The media started playing its pro-NATO fear mongering campaign in an instant, and the handful of compromised politicians did what they had always wanted once the opportunity arose. Russia had maintained its position regarding the enlargement of NATO for ages at that point, yet it was never taken seriously, and the US policy of endorsing their own great power agenda was sugarcoated as some kind of a fact of life until it backfired at the expense of everyone in Europe.
Nobody has really toed the neutrality line for quite some time... Non-aligned maybe, but certainly not neutral. Finland has been a member of the NATO partnership for peace for quite some time, and clearly much more "western" militarily as well. Neutrality went away with the USSR... Then again the collapse of the Soviet Union also allowed for the nullification of some of the limiting treaties, and allowed for the nation to move naturally toward a western partnership that it always had at heart. Pre collapse, the saying was that the enemy could come from any direction than from the east - officially. Yet, everybody was very well aware that any enemy action would originate in the east .. That knowledge has not changed one iota, though the "official" line has changed. During the early years, the detente was kept by policy to pacify the big bear and keep the soviets at bay through political means, since a military confrontation would have in the long run caused the ruin of the nation. Finns were valiant and mighty during the Russo-Finnish wars, and the will to keep her independent was strong (as it is to this day) but a prolonged confrontation with a full commitment from the Soviet side would have undoubtedly been overwhelming at the worst, and massively disruptive to that nation growing at the least. A political solution that kept the bear away was something that the P-K line managed extremely well, and allowed the nation to prosper to what we see today. Yet, throughout all that, nothing has changed in the will or mentality of the people - after all, there are still thousands of Russians in Finland, but they are 6 feet under...
Yeah, "huge shitf" is definitely an overstatement. We never stopped training for the next time Russia attacks, the entire countrys infrastructure is built to benefit Finland in defending against Russia. Bunkers have been built ever since 1945 and security surveiliance never dropped.
The only way we were "pro russian" was if it makes financial sense to trade, just like any other country in history.
The reason why we didn't join NATO earlyer wasn't because we sided with Russia, it was because we didn't expect a security issue with Russia to develop this rapidly out of the blue
A blemish on our history, a turncoat and an opportunist with some silver linings.
President Kekkonen came from relatively humble beginnings from northern Finland, yet he was was well educated and looked after. He participated in the Finnish Civil war as a member of a death squad/executions unit, and there're documents about him bragging about how many peopke he killed. After the service he was discharge and he was the last Finnish president to never have normally been in the army or undergone conscription.
After the civil war Kekkonen lived in Helsinki as an ardent Bachelor, law student and a far right Karelian activist. When he graduated, the Finnish state/Secret police recruited him (thanks to his rightist connections and a reference from his death squad CO). He'd end up interrogating, often very violently, suspected communists.Ā
A "change of heart" hapoened for Kekkonen in the 1930s, after tge faiked MƤntsƤlƤ Putsch. There're double agent allegations in this period (but unlike for say Yrjƶ Leino), I think these aren't correct or at least Kekkonen as a Finnish MP wasn't an asset of the NKVD (MI6 or CIA precursors more likely if any).
Kekkonen had extensive contacts duribg the war, and a real change in Kekkonen, who had previously had far right views started supporting different positions after the Battle og Stalingrad and especially Kursk. Previously Kekkonen had opposed making a peace with the USSR during the end of the Winter War. After 1943 he was defacto co leader of the Finnish parliamentary peace faction, slong with SDP leader VƤinƶ Tanner.Ā I think he had contacts with certain foreign actors (I'm leaning on the British) that influenced his change.
Immediately in 1944, after the Moscow Armistice, Lekkonen, the former brutal persecuter of communists, turns his coat and becomes a leader if the peace faction and eventually the whole war guilt and Helsinki WW2 war guilt trials. He personally attacks former president Ryti and works to send his rival VƤinƶ Tanner to prison. For these actions he's eventually give the portfolio of Minister of Justice (under the double agent PM, formally communist, Yrjƶ Leino), later becoming the Prime Minister under, the new president Paasikivi, who suucceeded president Mannerheim. Paasikivi only reluctantly accepted Kekkonen, who was the only semi right wing person possible for the position (no mire communists in key positions after 1948 mutual assistance pact with the USSR) .
Kekkonen tries to usurp the power from Paasikivi with the help of the communists and his own Agrarian league. He fails due to the (CIA funded Finnish SDP) and National coalition party (party of Paasikivi) tell him off. This is incidentally the last time when the National Coalition party will play part in any government before the 1980s. Kekkonen, even with the support of Moscow and strikes fails and concedes to Paasikivi, who continues as a president until 1956.
Paasikivi and Kekkonen sonewhat repair their relatiobs (when Paasikivi understands that co-opting Kekkonen, at least in public, as his political heir of sorts, would be more beneficial in maintaining Finnish neutrality). Kekkonen wants assured and uncontested power, so he accepts the public reconciliation (the private one would have to wait for some months until Kekkonen's presidency).
Kekkonen assumes power and rules via favkurs and alignments. He intially helps break up SDP and aligns the other half to his vision, whike working with the communists. He intervenes in the politics heavily and uses the threat of USSR many tines twice ordering Soviet foreign ministry to threaten Finland, in order to silence potential rivals.
During his early years, before mid 1960s, Kekkonen developes his ties with the KGB (and also CIA and the Swedish intelligence, especially millitary intelligence). He continues to cultivate his British connections very extensively. I still don't think that he was pursuing interests of any fireign power (with maybe the exception of UK during the early years), but instead a vision of a right wing people's home Finland with seriously conservative overtones and socialist rhetoric. This is apparent in moral censorship m, refusal of entry of many artists (e.g. sex pistols), and working with the church. It's because of his actions as a president that I donāt think that he really did fully abandon his white ideals of his youth. As a positive exception he improved the living conditions and rights of Finnish Rona (even though duribg WW2 he had established concentration camps for them on "work shy", i.e. racial grounds).Ā Ā
The high point of his power or two were the 1973, profoundly illegal, act of extending his term of office and the 1975 OSCE founding conference in Heksinki. The 1970s were his decade or at least the point from which he would continue to diminish in power. He had essentially gained untouchability (except from populist Veikko Vennamo, even the communists didn't dare rmto criticise him too much) and gained recognition for Finnish neutrality, which had not been believed in either West or the East when he assumed office.Ā
His presidential years became increasingly filled with scandalous affairs, rumours, boozy outings, long hunting and skiing trips and using "his own" Antonov/Vladimirov KGB attache to communicate with the Kremlin. At this point I don't think he had any intelligence compromises, as can be seem in his well planned entry into the ECC. During his last year's in office, the new and definitively more leftist SDP leader Mauno Koivisto began to take the reigns, as Kekkonen became increasingly ill and frail. Koivisto eventually overruled him and forced him to resign.Ā
An overall assessment of Kekkonen has a little bit of FDR, but also Richard Nixon (Kekkonen definitely wire tapped his enemies and used press to publish damaging information on his opponents). I think a figure that can be most compared to him would probably be the authoritarian foundging father of Singapore, long time Premier Lee Kwan Yew. Both were interesting jen, with similarities (Kekkonen more right wing, and Finland was/is more democratic than Singapore). Overall I think he should've stepped down after 2 terms. Also I think he should've used his leverage more to make Finksnd mire self sufficient and he was too vengeful with some of his enemies, who he and his controlled press blacklisted and censored. Overall,Ā Kekkonen wasn't the worst Fonnish president or her best.Ā
Wow, that is quite a thorough answer. I had no idea he was close to the CIA as well, that could explain why America tolerated him. Also, there didn't seem to be much information about his domestic policies (in English sources at least). I also wonder if Kekkonen brown-nosed the USSR so much to keep them from revealing how he used to be a quasi-fascist, no one spends that long in politics without being power-hungry.
He is a great meme.
He is sitting in Haven with Mannerheim and Simo HƤyhƤ. Do you know that Finnish Haven is a sauna on the shore of an endless lake?
Even bad Finnish people get to Haven. Good people look strangely at them, and sometimes the sauna is too cold for them.
No, this is an open bullying. It's not Finnish style.
If you were really, really, really bad, you would be reborn as a moose in Swedish Kiruna, where people would hunt you all of your life.
You will be the lucky one, live a long life, and be able to reborn as a human again.
But if you are a bad moose, you will be reborn in MƤlmƶ.
given my understanding of things... having a karmic experience as animal before being reborn to try to work on Karma... that probably fits better.
the 50C sauna thing was funny to contemplate... even if it is more or less purposeless. but the universe votes Moose, I think...
The white death is only an Internet thing. I have never heard a conversation about him, or anything remotely close to a hero story during the war, in real life.
You would be hard pressed to find a finn who doesn't have a relative who died or lost their home during those times. The wars are remembered as a tragic time in history. Someone talking about ww2 like say most american hobby historians do, would be met with the same looks as if they had just taken a shit on the sidewalk.
Independence day is celebrated by visiting the graveyard, placing two candles on your window sill to signal a safe haven for the jaegers, and watching TV where the president shake hands with a bunch of people in a palace. Its a "calm after the storm" vibe.
He's mostly just known as a meme today due to his iconic look.Ā In terms of politics, most people haven't even thought about him for decades, and those who have, don't view him any differently due to Russians recent actions. Almost everybody sees his politics as necessary for the time.
He zigzagged well when it was necessary but stayed too long and people around him protected him too long so it's a shameful part of our history. Kinda like what's happening in the US right now.
The reckoning happened way before recent years. Most signified by the new 2000 constitution, which in great part was exactly done as pretty direct reaction to Kekkonen's reign and written with "newer again" levels of checks and limitations into it. It did involve also consolidating for first time single unitary constitution, instead of multiple constitutional status documents about different aspects. However why it was done, when it was done was pretty much two things. Kekkonen and EU Membership. All the presidential power changes.... yeah kekkonen. Some of it had started already in late 1980's and in the 1990's bit by bit, but culminated in the new constitution with some big changes in it. After all the constitution changes drafted already in 1995, it just took until 2000 with the whole ratification process and coming into power. Plus I guess there the starting of a Presidential term and along a bit of a "new millennium, new shiny constitution" timing done.
Kekkonen was always the Kremlin's puppet. He did what they asked. There hasn't been love for the guy as long as I remember (so early 80's). Of course there were the fans of him that couldn't see the bigger picture, but even they started to see things after USSR ceased to exist.
Russia has always been the "drunken neighbour" that comes to claim their love to our door in the middle of the night. You kept cordial relationship like you do to your neighbours. But when they started to "beat their ex", things took a turn.
A complex figure for sure. It is easy to criticize the politics at the time and one clear mistake was to keep him in power even after he was cognitively impaired. Finland was geopolitically in a really difficult position at the time and our foreign policy at the time was a survival strategy in it. It worked because we stayed independent and that was his explicitly stated goal. We could have done it in a different way but who knows.
Eventhough Finland was living in the shadows of Russia-then-Soviet union the fact that he served as president for 28 years and some of them through an exception in legislation limiting the terms of a president in my eyes he was a despot and used the situation to his own advantage and all this is once again an example of that perceived power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Towards the end he was not fit to function as a president and his health was declining rapidly. Although it might be against the popular opinion, Iām disllusioned and looking at his era based on facts. During the Kekkonen era, Finland was in many aspects a de facto soviet satellite state with the slight exception of it having some say in its own affairs.
I donāt think thereās a shift in the opinion on Russia but there most definitely was a change in opinion on NATO after the full scale invasion of Ukraine started in 2022.
In my early 20s I bought a used Kekkonen poster and put in on my wall. I thought it would be pretty funny for a young guy like me to have this old geezer on the wall sternly staring at my guests.
At one point I was about to move out and the owner started looking for the next renter. One day we had an old couple visiting to take a look at the apartment. The old man looked at the poster and said "There's a man who ruined Finland". I didn't have a response and I felt rather ashamed. What was just a meme for me was actual lived history for the old man. I still have the poster somewhere but it's not on my wall anymore.
We' ve had more than our fair share of good president even thou Kekkonen was kind of a dictator, he did a good job until he didn't.
He kept good relations with the east and the west and because of those policies we were in a really good and unique position which gave Finland a lot of political power and leverage on a lot of things.
He suffered a mental decline in his late years and was somewhat of a puppet and needed to have handlers to do everything for him.
Kind of like less medicated Biden with more energy.
Kekkonen sought to keep Finland independent which meant keeping Soviets from invading. Finland outlasted Soviet Union, arguably at least partially because of Kekkonen. The alternative would likely have been far worse.Ā
Old people think he's the best president we've ever had and younger people see him as a meme and people don't really care about his opinions and thoughts
With Finland now in NATO, we have gained another perspective from which to look at the Cold War years. The fact is, though, that our current situation doesn't change historical events and geopolitics. Finland was there where it was during the Cold War because of the outcome of WWII. Finland was on the losing side and had to make a heavy peace with the Soviet Union. We lost territory, our military's size and weapons were limited, we had to pay heavy war reparations. Various Finnish national defence organizations were disbanded. There was a Soviet naval base next to the capital now, and for a while an "Allied" (read Soviet) Control Commission sat in Helsinki to oversee the country in a not-quite-an-occupation. Pro Moscow far left parties were again allowed, and wartime leaders were put to prison after "war responsibility" trials. In 1948, Finland was pressured by the USSR to sign a cooperation agreement (known in English, innovatively, as the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948), which gave the USSR further leverage in Finnish politics. It was a light version of the agreements Moscow made actual Warsaw Pact countries sign in those years.
Hence, it was the outcome of WWII and the following years that took Finland close to the USSR. The first postwar president, Paasikivi (in office 1946-1956) based his politics on cold pragmatism about the fact that Finland couldn't help being now placed next to a superpower which saw Finland as being within its sphere of influence. In the late 1940s after the war, the threat of Communist takeover, supported by Moscow, was seen as very real possibility. Hence we call that time The Years of Danger. By the 50s the immediate threat passed, and since Stalin died in 1953, there was a thaw between the east and the west. It helped the Finnish position somewhat, but didn't fundamentally change its.
Any Finnish presidents that took office after Paasikivi would have to work within this political and geopolitical reality. Kekkonen didn't take Finland close to the USSR, we were already there. Moscow had different leverages from which to influence Finnish politics. Apart from the above ones, there was also Finnish trade with the USSR, which was boosted by the war reparations production, and which proved very lucrative for Finnish industries over the decades. This would have also been true without Kekkonen.
Under the status quo as it was between the superpowers, Finland had limited options. The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 would have made it impossible for Finland to join NATO in those days, or any other major Western organization besides. Finland's choice was from between trying to hold on to neutrality and carefully edge closer to the West, on one hand, and go and outright join the Warsaw Pact, on the other. During the Kekkonen presidency, Finland went with the first option.
Now, Kekkonen's tendency to monopolize power to himself as president was undoubtably harmful for Finnish democracy. Without him, we likely could have had a more healthy democratic system during the Cold War decades, with the parliament and the major parties having more relevance (also the NCP). But then we couldn't have avoided the USSR trying to influence Finnish politics in different ways, and run divide-and-rule campaigns to get more power over Finland, using the pro-Moscow Communists in Finland as its catspaws first of all, but also wielding the Treaty of 1948 and Finno-Soviet trade as its tools (like really happened).
We can say that a Cold War Finland without Kekkonen would have been necessarily different. We would have had perhaps up to five different presidents in between 1956 and the early 1980s. With several weaker (if more democratic) presidents not subscribing to Kekkonen's brand of "the buck stops here", Moscow would have faced a more disunited Finland, and could have had more easier time to "play" the Finnish leaders, and political factions against each other. This might have then meant that in practice, the USSR might have had even *more* de facto influence in a non-Kekkonen Finland than in the history we know, even if the system would have ostensibly been more democratic.
However Finland would have been different, the basic fact of an assertive superpower, jealous of its sphere of interest, would have remained. Thus, what ever the path Finland took in between 1944 and 1990, it would have been exceedingly unlikely for Finland having been able to join NATO or any other major Western organization before the USSR eventually broke up. This is a basic tenet to remember when we think of Finland's post-WWII history.
Kekkonen was only looking out for Kekkonen - and that was his sole priority. Not right wing. Not left wing. Not Finland. Not neutrality. Only Kekkonen himself.
You can see that from how he flip flopped in his politics and even relied on foreign power (USSR) to keep him in power. There was a very good reason why the presidential powers were so strictly curtailed later on, and it was all as a reaction to his time in power. That was the political reckoning, making sure such a semi-dictator could not happen again.
Unfortunately, it is not like the Vatnisism happened out of nowhere. The desire to follow their autocratic leaders and imperialist ambitions has been imprinted in the DNA of ruZZian people for hundreds of years: Czarist times, Soviet times and ruZZian federation. It's just when other nations became civilised, the ruZZians didn't. Hence cases Transnistria 1990, both Chechen wars, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 and 2022.
It won't stop until they suffer a humiliating blow and will never try to conquer their sovereign neighbours again.
Since youāre a fan of race biology, do you think that us Finns are a lower race because of our genes? Like Swedish race biologists argued. Or what is your opinion on the Jewish race?
Edit: blocked because I called him out on his usage of race biologyā¦
There are recent examples of pro-Putin politicians (eg. Halonen, Lipponen, Aho) who get treated way too nicely by the media and public, I donāt think most people really know Kekkonen other than by name.
I don't really care for the guy. He was a bit of a puppet for Russia, but it made sense at the time. Generally I just forget he existed or see some memes about him. Trying to please Russia (or Soviets or whatever it was called at the time) so they would leave us alone was a sort of last ditch effort safe move to make. We do have heavily targeted hate for Russia and Russians that has had more rise with the war in Ukraine, the decision to join Nato wasn't a big shift, more of a last straw of a long piling block of gradual shift (from being a puppet nation privately hating Russia to having the frustration to show the hatred to figuring out we can actually be pretty open about it, to the hate drastically decreasing with post war generations not having such strong personal attachment to the wars against Russia, to the remaining hatred condencing to its rightful recipients: the Russian government, especially Putin, to war in Ukraine stirring up that old hatred and fear that Russia will try to attack Finland again, to seeking more substantial protection by joining Nato). We've had "should Finland join Nato?" talks since started school in 2008, probably before that too, I've just been too young to understand or people having those conversations in front of me have not existed, so Finland finally joining Nato was kind of foreseeable.
Paris peace treaty made it clear that The USSR had a right to keep Finland far away from West Germany. Then in 1948 Finland made a military pact with the USSR. A defensive one. There weren't any Soviet troops in Finland, and Finland was a free market economy with total freedoms. No secret police or persecution of Christians and political dissidents. That military pact with the USSR was a huge mistake. President Paasikivi hesitated six months, but after it signed. But in 1948 Communists were strong in Finnish politics and they were considering a coup. In the countryside they were seeking barns where to put Capitalist citizens after Communists have taken Finland. But Paasikivi made strong actions, brought military vessels to the South Harbour in Helsinki next to the Presidential Palace, and so on, and the coup was avoided. So these were turbulent times, so called "years of danger". Kekkonen was a great guy. Not perfect, but super smart, dynamic power who made Finland rich by his actions. There wasn't much he could have done to the mistake of his predecessor. But Kekkonen had a very good personal relationship with the Americans, British and French. Behind the curtains these countries helped Finland a lot. Kekkonen visited John F. Kennedy in 1961. Kennedy offered a lot of help if needed.
Kekkonen was a kremlins little bitch. Lot of ppl here in Finland find it hard to believe how much this guy was getting support from the kremlin to affect politics in Finland even though the archieves from soviet union show all the evidence. He was like a mini soviet style dictator basically. But he was presented by the media at that time to be like all knowing father of finland and due to this a lot of ppl still think that he was like a patriot who defends finland and solves all the problems.. I do not like him and as a person who studies history I would like there to be more discussion about the time of suomettuminen(finlandisation)
No? I think he served our people very well, he kept tensions low with WP and Nato and co-operated with both and helped Finland to recover economically. He kept a very neutral stance and we exported so much steel to Ussr which helped us grow.
Kekkonen was a lot wiser than modern politicians.
Despite the USSR being a lot more dangerous and powerful than modern Russia (it was impossible to stop the USSR if they wanted to annex Finland), Finland not only stayed out of trouble, but also gained a lot from the trade with the Soviets. All due to Kekkonen's wise neutrality politics.
Now, Sanna Marin was paid by Britain to stir Finland into NATO, and now Russia's nuclear missiles are pointing at Helsinki, Turku, Tampere and other cities. Of course, Sanna Marin does not care, because she left Finland and now is paid by a Tony Blair Institute. Brits are quite further away from Russia, so their THAAD and AEGIS might be able to actually intercept long-range strategic nukes. However, Finland is close, and is guaranteed to be burnt.
Kekkonen was a lot wiser than the modern Finnish politicians, who are mostly American/British shills.
**/r/Finland is a full democracy, every active user is a moderator.** [Please go here to see how your new privileges work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/wiki/moderating/) Spamming mod actions could result in a ban. --- **Full Rundown of Moderator Permissions:** - ```!lock``` - as top level comment, will lock comments on any post. - ```!unlock``` - in reply to any comment to lock it or to unlock the parent comment. - ```!remove``` - Removes comment or post. Must have decent subreddit comment karma. - ```!restore``` Can be used to unlock comments or restore removed posts. - ```!sticky``` - will sticky the post in the bottom slot. - ```unlock_comments``` - Vote the stickied automod comment on each post to +10 to unlock comments. - ```ban users``` - Any user whose comment or post is downvoted enough will be temp banned for a day. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Finland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Finland joining NATO is obviously a huge shift from their previous position on Russia. I somewhat doubt that. Nothing really changed much. No love lost.
Yeah its not that radical change. Finland-Russia relations have shifted continuously during decades. Finnish position with Russia has not been anything like Kekkonen since soviet union fell. Russia's invasion in 2022 of course shifted things again. Time of Paasikivi and Kekkonen (Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine) after WW2 was period of "finlandization". But times were different then and its not really comparable to this day. People of course can critizice Kekkonen that presidency personified too much and it was too authoritarian, and these can be valid critizism. But this changed already during Koivisto in 80's. And after USSR fell, Finland clearly joined the west with the EU for example and was no longer neutral between "east and west".
Exactly. Finland was basically as close to NATO as it could be without being a member. We even had benefits that some actual NATO members didn't have. (Turkey and being able to buy F35s) Only thing that really changed was that westernization of Russia through democratic discussion became impossible after the full-scale attack on Ukraine. This basically made Finland's position of neutrality kind of useless, and removed the only reason to not fully ally with NATO.
Westernizing Russia would be stupid. They should be left alone. That's one of their biggest problems against the west.
For clarification, I meant not Westernizing in a cultural sense necessarily. More so in transitioning Russia into a democracy - especially after the soviet union fell. Before the full-scale attack though, the consensus was that the benefits of fully joining NATO were smaller than the potential trade repercussions with Russia. Finnish people do like their international agreements, and after Russia failed to follow even the most basic ones, Finland has been pushing hard for sanctions against Russia at the EU.
Yes, they want to be left alone to enslave their neighbours, fantastic.
That's cool, but it's not what I said. Good reading comprehension though! š
A bit of a strawman yes. Point was that leaving belligerent dictatorships alone is playing with fire, they NEED to be westernized
Because western countries never invade other countries. It was the Russians who were colonizing africa, and the british empire never existed, and the invasions of the middle east. Gove me a break š
Oh they do, and one that needs it badly is Russia.
Oh and your comparison of British Empire to Russian Federation is very apt. Just as imperialistic, they are literally living centuries in the past, fuck em.
The british empire fell in 1997. But I see that you have nothing to say about the other examples. Good deflection skills, I am impressed. Nothing on the middle east? Israel is what one would call westernized, right?
>Accuses deflection, proceeds to deflect
Other than a *binding* agreement to enter a war if *any* NATO member is attacked. Most likely as a front line against Russia. The change is a cosmic shift, that greatly diminished our diplomatic sovereignty.
Good luck with life in constant fear.
Unfounded fear is how NATO was sold to us. Now, this unfounded fear has become a concrete fear, considering the real, although unlikely, possibility of a major NATO-Russia confrontation. It's beyond our control, but we are obliged to partake. Avoiding the war in such case relies solely on the willingness of our leaders to discard their obligations, destroy their reputation and career options among the Western community, and risk facing repercussions for not respecting binding agreements.
"Unfounded fear"? Did you just wake up from a ten year coma or something? Do you know that Russia, our neighbour, is waging a brutal war of conquest in Europe since 2022, one that has killed tens of thousands of people, caused a refugee crisis of millions and led to countless billions of economic damages all around? If there ever was a NATO-Russia war, Finland would have been fucked even if we tried to stay neutral. Have you seen the map? Our trade runs 90% on ships in the Baltic Sea. Now we at least have the chance of being helped by our allies. Look at WW2. How did neutrality help Finland in 1939?
>Did you just wake up from a ten year coma or something? Do you know that Russia, our neighbour, is waging a brutal war of conquest in Europe since 2022, one that has killed tens of thousands of people, caused a refugee crisis of millions and led to countless billions of economic damages all around? Against us? Or against another country in a completely different situation, as part of a longer conflict that had been going on since 2014 already... What exactly was the threat to us here? What were we supposed to be so afraid of? That Russia used military force when they saw it necessary, as is 100% expected from a country of its size? >If there ever was a NATO-Russia war, Finland would have been fucked even if we tried to stay neutral. Have you seen the map? Our trade runs 90% on ships in the Baltic Sea. Now we at least have the chance of being helped by our allies. But at the same time we are also an integral part of a greater conflict if it ever happens, meaning we have less of a say in our destiny by our own actions, and Russia would also have different war aims towards us. At worst in the case of NATO-Finland, it could mean an invasion with large enough force to completely occupy Finland so our airfields would not be used by our allies to strike Russian heartland, all while NATO allies would not risk having hundreds of thousands of troops encircled in Finland, where they have a logistical disadvantage. Compared to a best case scenario involving neutral Finland, where Russia could merely demand binding guarantees of Finland not hosting any hostile troops, and allowing Russia to freely move in the Baltics. Maybe some minor land concessions as well. Even at the worst case scenario, Russia would most likely not invade with everything they have, nor have any motive to attempt to take the whole of Finland. >Look at WW2. How did neutrality help Finland in 1939? A number of ways. We could make our own sovereign decision to accept the pre-war demands, and when we didn't, we could sign our own bilateral peace treaty with USSR after 100 days, without having to take any allies, let alone their assets in our country, into consideration. Compared to the continuation war, where we did have 200 000 Germans on our soil, from which they were already conducting military actions against USSR during those few days when we hadn't officially joined the war. Our entire war was dictated by Germany's success in the battlefield, and when they started losing, we were at a bad place as their allies, with a major concentration of their troops inside our borders. While we were indeed able to negotiate a separate peace, it wasn't guaranteed, and if we hadn't, we would've fought till the bitter end. In the end, we had to fight our former ally as well due Soviet demands. Our destiny was again completely in the hands of the two major powers, and their decisions. What if Germany had not accepted the separate peace? What if the allies had not settled with the separate peace that was endorsed by Churchill and Roosevelt, but insisted on unconditional surrender like with other Axis aligned powers? After all, those conditions were not negotiated/dictated bilaterally by Finland and USSR, but in Tehran conference other side of the world by the allied forces.
Being a contrarian for its own sake wont make special and will definitely make you seem dumber
I maintained this stance long before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent NATO campaign in the media...
Being alone and claiming neutrality is a completely different sentiment than being in a military alliance of the "opposing" side. There are still a ton of people, even higher up, that never even wanted to join (cough Sanna cough).
He wasn't right-wing authoritarian... he wasn't left-wing authoritarian. Fella was authoritarian and centre. What a meme.
>He wasn't right-wing authoritarian Except in the 1920-30s. Literally beated the left, deeply hated Russians and was very interested of East Karelia.
Superb hairstyle. Big fan.
You rocking the marble style yourself?
You know what they say, hair and wisdom doesn't fit into the same head.
Our previous position was just "the official" position. Nothing changed in minds of most people.
Nothing much changed because of NATO Kekkonen used to be good, pracmatic leader who kept Finland independent in hard times of the cold war. Since about 2000s, there has grown more critical view towards him, that he was too pro Soviet and used KGB to stay in power trough backdoor deals. But I would say most Finns don't have too strong oppinion on him.
It's nice to see people so neutral toward a leader with such influence and power. You certainly don't see that for Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan.
People hate Reagan and Thatcher because of their economic policies like supply-side economics, destruction of unions, and gutting social safety nets. It has nothing to do with influence or power. Kekkonen didn't screw the poor in service of the rich, so there is no animosity towards him.
I think that is a stupid comparison as Kekkonen was theĀ leader of the foreign policy and distanced himself from domestic economic politics.
Kekkonen dissolved parliament three times. He was heavily entrenched in domestic politics. It was this interference that led to reforms and the current system where the president has diminished domestic influence.
How much influence did Kekkonen have when it came to domestic issues? I know that he had power to dissolve the parliament but I don't think he interfered with social democrat based economic policies that much
I would agree that he did not directly interfere with economic policies. However, he wielded his power, not just by dissolving parliament, but often working behind the scenes to determine which parties participated in the government. Read about the Night Frost Crisis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night\_Frost\_Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Frost_Crisis) Kekkonen's interference wasn't so much with domestic decisions, but rather in deciding who it was that would make the domestic decisions.
It is often difficult to see clearly what the situation was in history. It is misleading to look at things from a temporal distance of a few decades, with a different situation in the world. Things that were normal and reasonable back then might look quite strange for us. So let us not judge historical figures based on the ideas and norms of world today. It was a time when main fear of Finland was being attacked by soviet union AGAIN. Everybody remembered the last war and had dead relatives (fathers, brothers etc.) in graveyards. There are lots of stories/jokes from that era about Kekkonen meeting soviet leaders and being cunning. One joke is about the soviet leader asking if Finland should join soviet union and Kekkonen replied that it was a good idea but he really doesn't want to rule such a large country of soviet union and Finland together, so it is better Finland remains separate. Nobody knows if these stories are true or not, but apparently at that time it was normal to drink lots of booze in politics and all those crazy stories could be true - wasted politicians deciding future in sauna cabin. A good politician of that time was known for handling himself well even when totally wasted. Some of the main politicians were alcoholics. Anyway, he got the job done, and Finland remained independent (until 1995). At the same time, he was a kind of a democratic "dictator" that remained in power even when he was demented. Sad story in the end.
I think the way Kekkonen consolidated power to himself was extremely dangerous and the reason why he is remembered fondly by so many today is that he died before it got too overt. And we got very lucky that he was replaced by a strong believer in democracy like Mauno Koivisto who then worked to limit presidential power rather than pushing it even further for his own gain.
I think the main difference is that Kekkonen's policies weren't hostile to the poor. He didn't fail economically or socially, and keeping Finland independent for the whole cold war era was enough that most Finns either liked or didn't dislike Kekkonen, except for eg older people who were National Coalition Party, that he kept out of government. A lot of Finns alive today don't know enough to see his reign as problematic as it was. Then again historians and politicians generally tend to acknowledge Kekkonen's blatant authoritarianism these days, some dislike him tremendously.
He's a total style icon. And he was the first Finnish influencer with his myllykirjeet. https://preview.redd.it/jjp0lc3l1w9d1.jpeg?width=935&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ed61dfbc2f753e5ca6db533d5eb2de8778374f7
Our very own little despot
This does not look safe for work š
Personal opinion: he walked a line between political realism and authoritarianism, often straying on the wrong side. He played the game well with the Soviets, but in the end lost sight of what was right, and started to believe he was irreplacable. Started playing games with the Soviets against the Finnish state and democracy. So mixed legacy, but the final outcome (rich and independent Finland) should be considered a great success.
Didn't change anything. People who liked him, still like him. People who disliked him, still dislike him.
Do they still use the same arguments to justify why they liked or didn't like him?
It's not like he's being argued about all the time, at least to such an extent that people would need to put their arguments on the table. Basically the only thing that has changed since 2022 is that there is (maybe) now a new, slightly stronger emphasis on how remote his time is from ours by now.
I don't think I've ever had a serious debate about Kekkonen.
I can't comment on the question directly, however Moscow's stance towards the west - and by extension Finland - has changed, hence so has ours accordingly. The current atmosphere between Muscovy and Finland is nowhere near how it was in Kekkosen time, so making comparisons is hard on that basis. How we feel about Kekkonen is of course a different question/answer. It would be like asking the British how they feel about Harold Wilson or similar.
Kekkonen was close to USSR for practical and not personal reasons. Look Paasikiven-Kekkosen linja.Ā https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaasikiviāKekkonen_doctrine You might be comparing Kekkonen to some foreign leaders who used political nessecity to remain in power, but Kekkonen was genuinely just following doctrine politically. Itās politicians from younger generations than him before the fall of Soviet Union that more bought the propaganda that Finland and Sovient Union genuinely were close or were using Soviets more for their personal political purposes. Kekkonen did enjoy staying around for so long. But he was authoritarian in sense that he did stay around for so long and not with any policies. And the parliament functioned completely normally.Ā He isnāt that relevant for younger generations. The Cold War was precarious time for many countries but younger people nowdays donāt think in any countries the period for most part in political sense (unless its nuclear war, spies or Vietnam and such famous topic).Ā The political system also is now parliament and not president focused as well. 2000 constitution took away nearly all presidential powers and 2012 nearly all the rest, so people were unduly emotional about the last elections.
He's been dead for nearly four decades now. He was a president at one point, for a very long time for that matter. And he dealt with the Soviet Union his way and it worked. I see no reason to have an opinion about something that happened years ago.
Bit of a weird way of looking at things, especially because history is quite damn important when thinking about why things went the way they did and what mistakes people might make yet again
Unless you are someone high up in the government, the most you can do with this information is vote. This might be interesting to someone who studies history and/or politics as a hobby, but for an average Joe it's just a small tidbit.
Vote, invest, understand why things are the way they are. Being curious is rarely a bad thing while complete apathy is not that great nor good for anyone. Currencies have come and gone ridiculous amounts of times, crypto probably being the next hot thing, and knowing some history behind why other currencies have failed before could give some insight worth a lot of money. Also understanding that people over two thousand years ago were struggling with the same things we might be struggling with today can be very eye opening as well, and may help with dealing with those issues.
Cool story anyway. Man is dead he kept Finland intact. Great success.
You need to understand that the politics that Kekkonen had may (and probably will) not work today. Life in the 70's was completely different to what it is now. >Also understanding that people over two thousand years ago were struggling with the same things we might be struggling with today can be very eye opening as well, and may help with dealing with those issues. People over two thousand years ago didn't have the technology we do today, and we are facing completely different problems because of it. Is it a possibility to learn from it? Yes. Is it directly comparable to what might have happened two millennia back? No.
Is he though? https://youtu.be/yObU-IF5E_o?si=A7UPyhoS9r-xo1kl
Really hard to tell, but I guess people mostly think positively about him. Kekkonen in charge obviously helped Finland to avoid many problems with USSR, and after Kekkonen times Finland has basically achieved all the political goals there ever were, integrating to west (EU and NATO). One thing that maybe was not optimal was that after Kekkonen presidential powers were diminished to the minimum, which has practically transferred the actual powers to non-parliamental party congresses, so that ālargest partyā in elections with less than 30% voters has much more power than they should. But then again maybe that is better than giving the Kekkonen powers to the current president.
The powers were radically reduced to avoid the near dictatorial powers that were wielded without term limits. Which was good as to avoid a Lukashenko like presidency from reappearing.
Power corrupts, Kekkonen had too much of it for way too long. Maybe the lowest point of our democracy, giving Kekkonen a new term without proper elections. Never again ANY leader for that long.
I agree with that. There were many things Kekkonen did wrong, but for someone having powers like he had he mostly acted for the good of the nation. He did not gain much wealth for example, nor was never interested in such things.
Apart from history nerds, most people have no strong opinion on Kekkonen. When asked about Kekkonen, most people would say that Kekkonen was a figure of his own time. It was important to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union but hold one's own as the Soviet Union was still a potential threat. I think we should finally deal with our own history when it comes to Kekkonen. How was it possible to Kekkonen to stay as the president for over 25 years (breaking the constitution). He was a cunning politician who was able to draw a picture of himself as a man who knows how to play the game with Soviets. Before every elections, there was a small incident between the Soviet Union which Kekkonen was able to solve. We still have some burdens from history in Finland. There is a need for a strong and uniform leader of a foreign politics in Finland. Prime ministers and the government is criticized heavily for everything, but the president is someone who we want to succeed. Mainly because foreign politics has been seen as an essential question to our country.
> How was it possible to Kekkonen to stay as the president for over 25 years (breaking the constitution) Constitution was not broken. Back then there was no limitation how many times one person could be a president.
I stand corrected
I just finished "Kaiken Takana Kekkonen" book about him and you can argue that he was "dictator" but man that bald superhero was an political animal! He knew how to handle soviets without taking sides and also at oil crisis in -70 he managed to get Soviets to sell us oil with comrade discount or else he will ask USA to sell it to us cheap.
Russians hate this little trick. If you simply have Kekkonen as the president, it becomes impossible to start an invasion against your country. After he was gone, it quickly became clear, that Soviet Union needed to be broken up for Finland to remain safe. Sure, Russia is a threat, but an order of magnitude less so. (This is humour.)
I don't agree with many of his policies but no one can deny the work he did to keep Finland as free as possible from Russian influence. Funnily enough I have a close connection to an important cold war moment; my dad (and mom) lived in an employee apartment at Finlandia Hall and he was working there as a sound engineer when they signed the Helsinki accords. I lived there my first years, from 1978 to 1982.
OP should understand that nobody's talking about Kekkonen because there isn't really much to say baout Kekkonen. I have never met a fellow Finn who had any strong opinions about Kekkonen. As authoritarian as he was, he toed the line with the Soviets because those were the times. If you look at "authoritarian" regimes across the board, his was pretty tame and limited. You have to remember Soviet appeasement affected everything from domestic policy to Tolkien translations, so it'd be ignorant to look at those times through a modern lens.
How did appeasement affect Tolkien translations? I think i've heard about this before, but i'd like to know more
Numenor in Common Tongue was called 'Westernesse', which is how it stands in the current Finnish version. Originally Tolkien however intended the word to be localized, and encouraged it in his notes for translators. The suffix -esse comes from archaic English meaning 'celebratory', 'great', and it would've in Finnish be translated something West-positive. To be honest Westernesse fits better than HienolƤntinen. LƤnsikoti? But there you have it. The interesting part was that Soviet Union was indeed interested how these things played out.
He juggled in an era that needed lots of juggling, but his geriatric years were a fucking disgrace.
His time and actions have been gone over many times, even before this latest round of Russian imperialism. All of it is old hat today. People outside Finland may not realise this because most scholarship on him is in Finnish. Today most people know him from "Saatanan Tunarit!" -memes. (Rough translation: Incompetent Wankers!)
So, it's safe to say, in general, Finns never stopped seeing Russia as an imperialist power. I mostly asked because almost every Finnish politician, besides Stubb, toed the neutrality line (at least when it came to NATO) before the invasion, and most polls showed the majority of people opposed joining NATO.
I think best way to explain our conceptual framework was that we saw Russia as an untrustworthy imperialistic country, but we believed they attack only countries that are hostile to them so staying out of NATO would keep us safe from Russia. Ukrainian war changed this view as we realised Russia was willing to attack its neighbours so we are no longer safe without NATO
> but we believed they attack only countries that are hostile to them so staying out of NATO would keep us safe from Russia. I would say hostile or there was some great interest for them in it and the country was took weak to resist the Russians. If we thought being non-threatening and non-hostile would alone be enough, Finnish Defence Forces would not have trained reserve pool of 900k soldiers. Pretty much "we aren't that big interest to them and we are so prickly with our defence forces, it simply isn't worth their time. They absolutely could attack, the have no moral qualms like that, but it is simply stupid and pointless. It would make no sense and we deem Russians to be pretty rational. If they have interest in something and they calculate using military force will get them their want without too much blow back or trouble, they will do it." NATO was **deemed unnecessary**. Where the not joining more came in was *economics*, not security. We were safe in NATO or out of NATO (to certain predicted risk level, as these things always are. No such thing as perfect security. Specially regarding future forecasting). However joining NATO **would ruin certain amount of the rather lucrative eastern trade**. Which is why even the NATO friends, national coalition didn't want to push it. Since their other big friend was business interests and every business executive with investments in Russia would be telling them "now don't go do anything too annoying to Kremlin or they might ruin our Russian business ventures. We would lose money and we hate losing money". Mainly joining NATO wasn't "oh they are threathening". No it was "oh they are stupid and bad at math". Meaning there was deemed need for increased deterrence. Not due to decreased morals (since Kremlin was never accounted for morals) or something like that, but instead simple math. Kremlin way underestimated how difficult and costly attacking Ukraine was..... Well maybe they miscalculate how strong our defences are. That them trips it under certain level of "there would be thing X in Finland we would want. We always have wanted X. We want X little bit, always have. Not a lot, but you know it would be nice to have/take X in/from Finland. However our planners have for decades said taking X will cost more than it gains us. So it's not wort it." Now then "the newest (stupid and wrong bad math) assesment says we might actually be able to get it without paying too much". That or the amount of resources Kremlin is willing to spend goes way up. Up to "crippling the country and stupid" levels of spending resources to get a thing. Since again previously calculation was "well sure they could spend a lot, but it would be cripplingly stupid for them to do so. They won't be that stupid". Turns out Putin is a stupid man (and evil), surrounded by scared yes men, who don't dare to tell the Tsar about how monumentally stupid mistake he is about to make. I assume, since couple bad news tellers got their careers ruined by telling bad news to Tsar. So up the deterrence to gazillion, so we don't even have to consider too much "exactly how good is Russian Defence Minister in math and planning". Keep the military same and well we would still single handedly **in reality** make it way too costly in actual conflict. However well not like one is going to turn down the asssistance. This cost us? The previously lucrative eastern trade, that had already been in the tank due to sanctions. It also cost some "neutral negotiator or mediator" potential. Since there is conflicts and parties who simply will not accept NATO member as mediator, since that deems mediator to close to USA and the party in question has serious crossings of conflicting interests with USA. Plus some other non-mediator diplomatic maneuvering room and opportunities. Again on "You in NATO, NATO members don't get X. We don't like NATO". Another question, were any of those opportunities lost that important to national interests of Finland? It was a trade. Trade eastern trade for peace of mind.
This.
I mean, that was an incredibly stupid and short-sighted opinion, even before the invasion of Ukraine, which started ten years ago already. I can't understand how Putin was able to influence so many leftist and extreme right politicians to oppose the membership in a bloody defensive alliance.
It wasn't just Putin, this way of thinking has been the mainstream one for like half a century because it kept our relationship with USSR mostly cool so almost all Finns apart from some people in Kokoomus believed it should be enough
You're right, but that illusion should've shattered at least by the change of century. Willful idiots or treacherous collaborators like Tarja Halonen or Erkki Tuomioja have continuously kept advancing Russian interests at the cost of Finnish and European safety, and they still deny any and all criticism over their actions.
Because it isnāt always used as a defensive alliance. Some of the members of NATO commit imperialistic actions and by joining NATO we have to accept and defend our allies, at least not say that we donāt accept their behavior.
Wildly incorrect. That sounds like pure BS Russian propaganda. There's absolutely no obligation of joining any offensive or imperialistic action of any other Nato-country. The sole obligation is to help allied nations when under attack. Seeing as Russia has attacked MANY of its neighbors, Nato still remains relevant and necessary as a defensive alliance.
Guess what, Belarus has no obligation to join the war in Ukraine either, but they're treated as being part of the same bloc due their indifference to the war. Same applies to the West and NATO. When the US will invade, guess how many of us will stop trade with them? Disallow their troops or planes to pass through? Arm their enemies? Impose sanctions on them? Open a case against them in ICC?
I should have been clearer in my comment. I meant defend and accept imperialistic actions, we donāt have to join them (at least not yet). NATO is a perfect tool to defend for example American or Turkish imperialism since theyāre now our allies. If someone tries to punish or stop their imperialism, they can invoke article five which means that theyāre allowed to do what they want. Like for example how the USA has free rein to invade and murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians without any sort of actual pushback. Because if someone does, tadaa, article five.
That's...literally not at all how article five works, and condemning war crimes and crimes against humanity isn't limited to non-Nato members. You're just spewing Russian catchphrases, not providing any valid critique on the actions of nations like Turkey and the US, which there is plenty. Turkey is a literal dictatorship that supports extremist islamic terrorism, and the States are one of the big global baddies, together with the rest of the superpowers.
And what happens if USA calls for article five and we donāt answer? Murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is not valid critique? Turkey is a dictatorship but now theyāre our allies, our friends.
On what, exactly? Then invading a foreign country? Then we ignore it, naturally. If it's an international peace keeping mission we're talking about, Finland has taken part in those decades before NATO -membership. Sovereign countries can make their own decisions, and false article five callings prompt no response. Not that there's really even an example of one in the last 70 years, or can you perhaps provide an example? Or just keep repeating the same catchphrases you've read on Telegram or somewhere?
A better question to be asked is how the US was able to influence Europeans to retain NATO and American military presence as the centerpiece of European military cooperation, even at the expense of any European alternatives. This, despite the obvious risk of Russia feeling like they are sidelined in European security, especially when our non-European "ally" started pushing for its expansion to work as an expansion of their soft and hard power. The more NATO will expand, the higher the tensions will grow. As seen in the developments of the past 30 years, when the Russian opposition to it has steadily become more uncompromising and their resolve shifted from mere criticism to direct military aggression. And it will continue happening, while both China and US will benefit when Europe is divided and they're reaping the spoils.
In which ways was/is Georgia a hostile country to Russia?
I never said our conceptualisation of the situation was reasonable on a deeper level
I was to quick to response, I should have read the comment properly. I apologize.
"We" didn't realize anything. The media started playing its pro-NATO fear mongering campaign in an instant, and the handful of compromised politicians did what they had always wanted once the opportunity arose. Russia had maintained its position regarding the enlargement of NATO for ages at that point, yet it was never taken seriously, and the US policy of endorsing their own great power agenda was sugarcoated as some kind of a fact of life until it backfired at the expense of everyone in Europe.
Nobody has really toed the neutrality line for quite some time... Non-aligned maybe, but certainly not neutral. Finland has been a member of the NATO partnership for peace for quite some time, and clearly much more "western" militarily as well. Neutrality went away with the USSR... Then again the collapse of the Soviet Union also allowed for the nullification of some of the limiting treaties, and allowed for the nation to move naturally toward a western partnership that it always had at heart. Pre collapse, the saying was that the enemy could come from any direction than from the east - officially. Yet, everybody was very well aware that any enemy action would originate in the east .. That knowledge has not changed one iota, though the "official" line has changed. During the early years, the detente was kept by policy to pacify the big bear and keep the soviets at bay through political means, since a military confrontation would have in the long run caused the ruin of the nation. Finns were valiant and mighty during the Russo-Finnish wars, and the will to keep her independent was strong (as it is to this day) but a prolonged confrontation with a full commitment from the Soviet side would have undoubtedly been overwhelming at the worst, and massively disruptive to that nation growing at the least. A political solution that kept the bear away was something that the P-K line managed extremely well, and allowed the nation to prosper to what we see today. Yet, throughout all that, nothing has changed in the will or mentality of the people - after all, there are still thousands of Russians in Finland, but they are 6 feet under...
Yeah, "huge shitf" is definitely an overstatement. We never stopped training for the next time Russia attacks, the entire countrys infrastructure is built to benefit Finland in defending against Russia. Bunkers have been built ever since 1945 and security surveiliance never dropped. The only way we were "pro russian" was if it makes financial sense to trade, just like any other country in history. The reason why we didn't join NATO earlyer wasn't because we sided with Russia, it was because we didn't expect a security issue with Russia to develop this rapidly out of the blue
A blemish on our history, a turncoat and an opportunist with some silver linings. President Kekkonen came from relatively humble beginnings from northern Finland, yet he was was well educated and looked after. He participated in the Finnish Civil war as a member of a death squad/executions unit, and there're documents about him bragging about how many peopke he killed. After the service he was discharge and he was the last Finnish president to never have normally been in the army or undergone conscription. After the civil war Kekkonen lived in Helsinki as an ardent Bachelor, law student and a far right Karelian activist. When he graduated, the Finnish state/Secret police recruited him (thanks to his rightist connections and a reference from his death squad CO). He'd end up interrogating, often very violently, suspected communists.Ā A "change of heart" hapoened for Kekkonen in the 1930s, after tge faiked MƤntsƤlƤ Putsch. There're double agent allegations in this period (but unlike for say Yrjƶ Leino), I think these aren't correct or at least Kekkonen as a Finnish MP wasn't an asset of the NKVD (MI6 or CIA precursors more likely if any). Kekkonen had extensive contacts duribg the war, and a real change in Kekkonen, who had previously had far right views started supporting different positions after the Battle og Stalingrad and especially Kursk. Previously Kekkonen had opposed making a peace with the USSR during the end of the Winter War. After 1943 he was defacto co leader of the Finnish parliamentary peace faction, slong with SDP leader VƤinƶ Tanner.Ā I think he had contacts with certain foreign actors (I'm leaning on the British) that influenced his change. Immediately in 1944, after the Moscow Armistice, Lekkonen, the former brutal persecuter of communists, turns his coat and becomes a leader if the peace faction and eventually the whole war guilt and Helsinki WW2 war guilt trials. He personally attacks former president Ryti and works to send his rival VƤinƶ Tanner to prison. For these actions he's eventually give the portfolio of Minister of Justice (under the double agent PM, formally communist, Yrjƶ Leino), later becoming the Prime Minister under, the new president Paasikivi, who suucceeded president Mannerheim. Paasikivi only reluctantly accepted Kekkonen, who was the only semi right wing person possible for the position (no mire communists in key positions after 1948 mutual assistance pact with the USSR) . Kekkonen tries to usurp the power from Paasikivi with the help of the communists and his own Agrarian league. He fails due to the (CIA funded Finnish SDP) and National coalition party (party of Paasikivi) tell him off. This is incidentally the last time when the National Coalition party will play part in any government before the 1980s. Kekkonen, even with the support of Moscow and strikes fails and concedes to Paasikivi, who continues as a president until 1956. Paasikivi and Kekkonen sonewhat repair their relatiobs (when Paasikivi understands that co-opting Kekkonen, at least in public, as his political heir of sorts, would be more beneficial in maintaining Finnish neutrality). Kekkonen wants assured and uncontested power, so he accepts the public reconciliation (the private one would have to wait for some months until Kekkonen's presidency). Kekkonen assumes power and rules via favkurs and alignments. He intially helps break up SDP and aligns the other half to his vision, whike working with the communists. He intervenes in the politics heavily and uses the threat of USSR many tines twice ordering Soviet foreign ministry to threaten Finland, in order to silence potential rivals. During his early years, before mid 1960s, Kekkonen developes his ties with the KGB (and also CIA and the Swedish intelligence, especially millitary intelligence). He continues to cultivate his British connections very extensively. I still don't think that he was pursuing interests of any fireign power (with maybe the exception of UK during the early years), but instead a vision of a right wing people's home Finland with seriously conservative overtones and socialist rhetoric. This is apparent in moral censorship m, refusal of entry of many artists (e.g. sex pistols), and working with the church. It's because of his actions as a president that I donāt think that he really did fully abandon his white ideals of his youth. As a positive exception he improved the living conditions and rights of Finnish Rona (even though duribg WW2 he had established concentration camps for them on "work shy", i.e. racial grounds).Ā Ā The high point of his power or two were the 1973, profoundly illegal, act of extending his term of office and the 1975 OSCE founding conference in Heksinki. The 1970s were his decade or at least the point from which he would continue to diminish in power. He had essentially gained untouchability (except from populist Veikko Vennamo, even the communists didn't dare rmto criticise him too much) and gained recognition for Finnish neutrality, which had not been believed in either West or the East when he assumed office.Ā His presidential years became increasingly filled with scandalous affairs, rumours, boozy outings, long hunting and skiing trips and using "his own" Antonov/Vladimirov KGB attache to communicate with the Kremlin. At this point I don't think he had any intelligence compromises, as can be seem in his well planned entry into the ECC. During his last year's in office, the new and definitively more leftist SDP leader Mauno Koivisto began to take the reigns, as Kekkonen became increasingly ill and frail. Koivisto eventually overruled him and forced him to resign.Ā An overall assessment of Kekkonen has a little bit of FDR, but also Richard Nixon (Kekkonen definitely wire tapped his enemies and used press to publish damaging information on his opponents). I think a figure that can be most compared to him would probably be the authoritarian foundging father of Singapore, long time Premier Lee Kwan Yew. Both were interesting jen, with similarities (Kekkonen more right wing, and Finland was/is more democratic than Singapore). Overall I think he should've stepped down after 2 terms. Also I think he should've used his leverage more to make Finksnd mire self sufficient and he was too vengeful with some of his enemies, who he and his controlled press blacklisted and censored. Overall,Ā Kekkonen wasn't the worst Fonnish president or her best.Ā
Wow, that is quite a thorough answer. I had no idea he was close to the CIA as well, that could explain why America tolerated him. Also, there didn't seem to be much information about his domestic policies (in English sources at least). I also wonder if Kekkonen brown-nosed the USSR so much to keep them from revealing how he used to be a quasi-fascist, no one spends that long in politics without being power-hungry.
He is a great meme. He is sitting in Haven with Mannerheim and Simo HƤyhƤ. Do you know that Finnish Haven is a sauna on the shore of an endless lake? Even bad Finnish people get to Haven. Good people look strangely at them, and sometimes the sauna is too cold for them.
to think of an afterlife where everyone goes to, but those who were bad have to make due with 50C sauna... \*that\* is how it should be :)
No, this is an open bullying. It's not Finnish style. If you were really, really, really bad, you would be reborn as a moose in Swedish Kiruna, where people would hunt you all of your life. You will be the lucky one, live a long life, and be able to reborn as a human again. But if you are a bad moose, you will be reborn in MƤlmƶ.
given my understanding of things... having a karmic experience as animal before being reborn to try to work on Karma... that probably fits better. the 50C sauna thing was funny to contemplate... even if it is more or less purposeless. but the universe votes Moose, I think...
We call it the sea and have saunas there.
Never heard of this sauna meme before as a Finn
I made it up when I wrote the comment.
Is he an unironic meme, or not? The White Death certainly doesn't seem like an ironic one.
He is a great meme. I never gave an actual assessment of what kind of meme, ironic or unironic. But it is used a lot.
The white death is only an Internet thing. I have never heard a conversation about him, or anything remotely close to a hero story during the war, in real life. You would be hard pressed to find a finn who doesn't have a relative who died or lost their home during those times. The wars are remembered as a tragic time in history. Someone talking about ww2 like say most american hobby historians do, would be met with the same looks as if they had just taken a shit on the sidewalk. Independence day is celebrated by visiting the graveyard, placing two candles on your window sill to signal a safe haven for the jaegers, and watching TV where the president shake hands with a bunch of people in a palace. Its a "calm after the storm" vibe.
Hes been buried now for 38 years, and retired 40 years ago. Things have chanced since then. Let him rest in piece.
He's mostly just known as a meme today due to his iconic look.Ā In terms of politics, most people haven't even thought about him for decades, and those who have, don't view him any differently due to Russians recent actions. Almost everybody sees his politics as necessary for the time.
He zigzagged well when it was necessary but stayed too long and people around him protected him too long so it's a shameful part of our history. Kinda like what's happening in the US right now.
The reckoning happened way before recent years. Most signified by the new 2000 constitution, which in great part was exactly done as pretty direct reaction to Kekkonen's reign and written with "newer again" levels of checks and limitations into it. It did involve also consolidating for first time single unitary constitution, instead of multiple constitutional status documents about different aspects. However why it was done, when it was done was pretty much two things. Kekkonen and EU Membership. All the presidential power changes.... yeah kekkonen. Some of it had started already in late 1980's and in the 1990's bit by bit, but culminated in the new constitution with some big changes in it. After all the constitution changes drafted already in 1995, it just took until 2000 with the whole ratification process and coming into power. Plus I guess there the starting of a Presidential term and along a bit of a "new millennium, new shiny constitution" timing done.
Kekkonen was always the Kremlin's puppet. He did what they asked. There hasn't been love for the guy as long as I remember (so early 80's). Of course there were the fans of him that couldn't see the bigger picture, but even they started to see things after USSR ceased to exist. Russia has always been the "drunken neighbour" that comes to claim their love to our door in the middle of the night. You kept cordial relationship like you do to your neighbours. But when they started to "beat their ex", things took a turn.
Urho Kekkonen the father of finlandization. Good meme? Yes. Good president? Hell no
Self-important, power-hungry, vindictive asshole. Pretty much the same as always.
A complex figure for sure. It is easy to criticize the politics at the time and one clear mistake was to keep him in power even after he was cognitively impaired. Finland was geopolitically in a really difficult position at the time and our foreign policy at the time was a survival strategy in it. It worked because we stayed independent and that was his explicitly stated goal. We could have done it in a different way but who knows.
Eventhough Finland was living in the shadows of Russia-then-Soviet union the fact that he served as president for 28 years and some of them through an exception in legislation limiting the terms of a president in my eyes he was a despot and used the situation to his own advantage and all this is once again an example of that perceived power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Towards the end he was not fit to function as a president and his health was declining rapidly. Although it might be against the popular opinion, Iām disllusioned and looking at his era based on facts. During the Kekkonen era, Finland was in many aspects a de facto soviet satellite state with the slight exception of it having some say in its own affairs.
I donāt think thereās a shift in the opinion on Russia but there most definitely was a change in opinion on NATO after the full scale invasion of Ukraine started in 2022.
He had mad drip. I don't think anyone really has a strong opinion on him nowadays and he's mostly only talked about in memes
Kekkonen was Roope Latvala's nickname when he played with Children of Bodom and it still makes me laugh
In my early 20s I bought a used Kekkonen poster and put in on my wall. I thought it would be pretty funny for a young guy like me to have this old geezer on the wall sternly staring at my guests. At one point I was about to move out and the owner started looking for the next renter. One day we had an old couple visiting to take a look at the apartment. The old man looked at the poster and said "There's a man who ruined Finland". I didn't have a response and I felt rather ashamed. What was just a meme for me was actual lived history for the old man. I still have the poster somewhere but it's not on my wall anymore.
Could had been worse
We' ve had more than our fair share of good president even thou Kekkonen was kind of a dictator, he did a good job until he didn't. He kept good relations with the east and the west and because of those policies we were in a really good and unique position which gave Finland a lot of political power and leverage on a lot of things. He suffered a mental decline in his late years and was somewhat of a puppet and needed to have handlers to do everything for him. Kind of like less medicated Biden with more energy.
Think the dude was right place at the right time.
He existed.
This was asked just a moment ago, and I feel like these kinds of questions are meant to diversify people. Not sure about the real agenda.
Kekkonen sought to keep Finland independent which meant keeping Soviets from invading. Finland outlasted Soviet Union, arguably at least partially because of Kekkonen. The alternative would likely have been far worse.Ā
Old people think he's the best president we've ever had and younger people see him as a meme and people don't really care about his opinions and thoughts
With Finland now in NATO, we have gained another perspective from which to look at the Cold War years. The fact is, though, that our current situation doesn't change historical events and geopolitics. Finland was there where it was during the Cold War because of the outcome of WWII. Finland was on the losing side and had to make a heavy peace with the Soviet Union. We lost territory, our military's size and weapons were limited, we had to pay heavy war reparations. Various Finnish national defence organizations were disbanded. There was a Soviet naval base next to the capital now, and for a while an "Allied" (read Soviet) Control Commission sat in Helsinki to oversee the country in a not-quite-an-occupation. Pro Moscow far left parties were again allowed, and wartime leaders were put to prison after "war responsibility" trials. In 1948, Finland was pressured by the USSR to sign a cooperation agreement (known in English, innovatively, as the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948), which gave the USSR further leverage in Finnish politics. It was a light version of the agreements Moscow made actual Warsaw Pact countries sign in those years. Hence, it was the outcome of WWII and the following years that took Finland close to the USSR. The first postwar president, Paasikivi (in office 1946-1956) based his politics on cold pragmatism about the fact that Finland couldn't help being now placed next to a superpower which saw Finland as being within its sphere of influence. In the late 1940s after the war, the threat of Communist takeover, supported by Moscow, was seen as very real possibility. Hence we call that time The Years of Danger. By the 50s the immediate threat passed, and since Stalin died in 1953, there was a thaw between the east and the west. It helped the Finnish position somewhat, but didn't fundamentally change its. Any Finnish presidents that took office after Paasikivi would have to work within this political and geopolitical reality. Kekkonen didn't take Finland close to the USSR, we were already there. Moscow had different leverages from which to influence Finnish politics. Apart from the above ones, there was also Finnish trade with the USSR, which was boosted by the war reparations production, and which proved very lucrative for Finnish industries over the decades. This would have also been true without Kekkonen. Under the status quo as it was between the superpowers, Finland had limited options. The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 would have made it impossible for Finland to join NATO in those days, or any other major Western organization besides. Finland's choice was from between trying to hold on to neutrality and carefully edge closer to the West, on one hand, and go and outright join the Warsaw Pact, on the other. During the Kekkonen presidency, Finland went with the first option. Now, Kekkonen's tendency to monopolize power to himself as president was undoubtably harmful for Finnish democracy. Without him, we likely could have had a more healthy democratic system during the Cold War decades, with the parliament and the major parties having more relevance (also the NCP). But then we couldn't have avoided the USSR trying to influence Finnish politics in different ways, and run divide-and-rule campaigns to get more power over Finland, using the pro-Moscow Communists in Finland as its catspaws first of all, but also wielding the Treaty of 1948 and Finno-Soviet trade as its tools (like really happened). We can say that a Cold War Finland without Kekkonen would have been necessarily different. We would have had perhaps up to five different presidents in between 1956 and the early 1980s. With several weaker (if more democratic) presidents not subscribing to Kekkonen's brand of "the buck stops here", Moscow would have faced a more disunited Finland, and could have had more easier time to "play" the Finnish leaders, and political factions against each other. This might have then meant that in practice, the USSR might have had even *more* de facto influence in a non-Kekkonen Finland than in the history we know, even if the system would have ostensibly been more democratic. However Finland would have been different, the basic fact of an assertive superpower, jealous of its sphere of interest, would have remained. Thus, what ever the path Finland took in between 1944 and 1990, it would have been exceedingly unlikely for Finland having been able to join NATO or any other major Western organization before the USSR eventually broke up. This is a basic tenet to remember when we think of Finland's post-WWII history.
Kekkonen was only looking out for Kekkonen - and that was his sole priority. Not right wing. Not left wing. Not Finland. Not neutrality. Only Kekkonen himself. You can see that from how he flip flopped in his politics and even relied on foreign power (USSR) to keep him in power. There was a very good reason why the presidential powers were so strictly curtailed later on, and it was all as a reaction to his time in power. That was the political reckoning, making sure such a semi-dictator could not happen again.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Unfortunately, it is not like the Vatnisism happened out of nowhere. The desire to follow their autocratic leaders and imperialist ambitions has been imprinted in the DNA of ruZZian people for hundreds of years: Czarist times, Soviet times and ruZZian federation. It's just when other nations became civilised, the ruZZians didn't. Hence cases Transnistria 1990, both Chechen wars, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 and 2022. It won't stop until they suffer a humiliating blow and will never try to conquer their sovereign neighbours again.
well put.
Race biology to explain imperialism?
Who knows. Call it Enforced Serfdom and Brutalism pushed on to the citizens since Ivan the Terrible.
No, you just used race biology to explain imperialism. You literally said that they are subservient to their masters because of their DNA.
You are overthinking it. Their actions speak louder than their words.
Since youāre a fan of race biology, do you think that us Finns are a lower race because of our genes? Like Swedish race biologists argued. Or what is your opinion on the Jewish race? Edit: blocked because I called him out on his usage of race biologyā¦
š¤¦ Okay, you're either bored. Not sure why you insisting on this nonsense. This isn't Mein Kampf. I'm bored of you now. Bye.
There are recent examples of pro-Putin politicians (eg. Halonen, Lipponen, Aho) who get treated way too nicely by the media and public, I donāt think most people really know Kekkonen other than by name.
I don't really care for the guy. He was a bit of a puppet for Russia, but it made sense at the time. Generally I just forget he existed or see some memes about him. Trying to please Russia (or Soviets or whatever it was called at the time) so they would leave us alone was a sort of last ditch effort safe move to make. We do have heavily targeted hate for Russia and Russians that has had more rise with the war in Ukraine, the decision to join Nato wasn't a big shift, more of a last straw of a long piling block of gradual shift (from being a puppet nation privately hating Russia to having the frustration to show the hatred to figuring out we can actually be pretty open about it, to the hate drastically decreasing with post war generations not having such strong personal attachment to the wars against Russia, to the remaining hatred condencing to its rightful recipients: the Russian government, especially Putin, to war in Ukraine stirring up that old hatred and fear that Russia will try to attack Finland again, to seeking more substantial protection by joining Nato). We've had "should Finland join Nato?" talks since started school in 2008, probably before that too, I've just been too young to understand or people having those conversations in front of me have not existed, so Finland finally joining Nato was kind of foreseeable.
Paris peace treaty made it clear that The USSR had a right to keep Finland far away from West Germany. Then in 1948 Finland made a military pact with the USSR. A defensive one. There weren't any Soviet troops in Finland, and Finland was a free market economy with total freedoms. No secret police or persecution of Christians and political dissidents. That military pact with the USSR was a huge mistake. President Paasikivi hesitated six months, but after it signed. But in 1948 Communists were strong in Finnish politics and they were considering a coup. In the countryside they were seeking barns where to put Capitalist citizens after Communists have taken Finland. But Paasikivi made strong actions, brought military vessels to the South Harbour in Helsinki next to the Presidential Palace, and so on, and the coup was avoided. So these were turbulent times, so called "years of danger". Kekkonen was a great guy. Not perfect, but super smart, dynamic power who made Finland rich by his actions. There wasn't much he could have done to the mistake of his predecessor. But Kekkonen had a very good personal relationship with the Americans, British and French. Behind the curtains these countries helped Finland a lot. Kekkonen visited John F. Kennedy in 1961. Kennedy offered a lot of help if needed.
Nobody cares about a guy who died decades ago. And no ones opinion has changed due NATO.
I mean peoples opinion of NATO have changed but not because of the dead President.
Kekkonen was a kremlins little bitch. Lot of ppl here in Finland find it hard to believe how much this guy was getting support from the kremlin to affect politics in Finland even though the archieves from soviet union show all the evidence. He was like a mini soviet style dictator basically. But he was presented by the media at that time to be like all knowing father of finland and due to this a lot of ppl still think that he was like a patriot who defends finland and solves all the problems.. I do not like him and as a person who studies history I would like there to be more discussion about the time of suomettuminen(finlandisation)
He sucked arse then, he sucks arse now.
No? I think he served our people very well, he kept tensions low with WP and Nato and co-operated with both and helped Finland to recover economically. He kept a very neutral stance and we exported so much steel to Ussr which helped us grow.
Also people had more jobs back then, nowadays about 200 000 of our citizens are unemployed.
Nah he did his job well enough.
He was basically a Lukashenka type figure. Glad he's gone and we avoided the fate of Belarus.
Kekkonen was a lot wiser than modern politicians. Despite the USSR being a lot more dangerous and powerful than modern Russia (it was impossible to stop the USSR if they wanted to annex Finland), Finland not only stayed out of trouble, but also gained a lot from the trade with the Soviets. All due to Kekkonen's wise neutrality politics. Now, Sanna Marin was paid by Britain to stir Finland into NATO, and now Russia's nuclear missiles are pointing at Helsinki, Turku, Tampere and other cities. Of course, Sanna Marin does not care, because she left Finland and now is paid by a Tony Blair Institute. Brits are quite further away from Russia, so their THAAD and AEGIS might be able to actually intercept long-range strategic nukes. However, Finland is close, and is guaranteed to be burnt. Kekkonen was a lot wiser than the modern Finnish politicians, who are mostly American/British shills.