Talk:Civil War in Finland

TRansferred POV speculation to here - User:213.173.156.37

But this was only the initial cost.

Through the pre-war development, the war itself, and the harsh treatment of the defeated population, Finland and the Finns earned an international reputation as confrontative and aggressive.

A possessive reaction on the Åland Islands' wish to return to their mother country in the Åland Crisis, and a war of conquest in the Russian part of Karelia, followed by rebellions supported/initiated by Finnish Freikorps, obstacled confident relations to Finland's larger neighbours Sweden and USSR for decades. Without the Civil War, expeditions to Russian Karelia seem unlikely, and also the relations to Sweden had had a chance of a more positive development.

After the Civil War strong anti-Socialist sentiments dominated Finland - which also was a serious obstacle in the relations to the dominant Social Democrats in Sweden, and the dominant Bolshevists in Russia.

The Civil War, and not the least the pre-war polarization, can be argued to have been decissive for the development leading to the Winter War and the harsh Moscow Peace Treaty (1940):

The consequence of the Civil War was that closer and cordial relations to Sweden couldn't be realized in time, why Finland stood alone when USSR attacked.

And it can be argued that without the Civil War, USSR would been much less inclined to launch the Winter War at all, as:

* There wouldn't have been any German military intervention in 1918, less of ties between Germany and Finland in the inter-war years, and hence no reason to fear a German assault on Saint Petersburg via Finland.

* There wouldn't have been the vitrious anti-Socialism in the Finnish debate, giving the impression that Finland was a threat for the Soviet Union.

* There wouldn't have been any colony of exiled Red leaders in Moscow, giving an exaggerated picture of the Finns' division and their longing for Socialism.

(Note! A Red victory in the Civil War would however have led to even worse consequences, including Finland's close association to the USSR, brain drain, and a massive westward surge of refugees.)

---

Also I considered the paragraphs above, but didn't really have time (yet) to make any fundamental editing. (I put it on my Consider-To-Do-List and did a minor rewrite some 20 hours ago.) As the prose was understandable, the logic and presentation reasonably clear, and more or less in line with how Finns have used to depicture their history for me, I didn't consider a total removal, but felt a need of time, reflection and research to balance the text above, considering the following paragraph from Neutral point of view:

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

So, the main question is: Whose view is reflected in the removed paragraphs, and which view is it opposing?

So far, I'd considered balancing it with the widespread fear/belief that Russian expansionism "only needs excuses", and that the Paasikivi-balance of 1948 could be established first after Winter War and Continuation War.

-- Ruhrjung 13:10 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)