Most popular posts right now

Showing posts with label 1930s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1930s. Show all posts

19 January 2025

Are We on the Brink of World War III?

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), has given an interview in which he has, so to speak, painted devils on the wall. In other words, he has expressed fears that the Third World War may already be underway, but people are unwilling to recognize it.

According to him, the current situation is similar to the one leading up to the Second World War in the late 1930s. Therefore, I thought I would remind you, dear readers, of what happened back then.

* * *

One of the causes of the Second World War is considered to be the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed after the First World War. Its terms were regarded as overly harsh in Germany. After all, German soldiers had still occupied enemy territories in both the east and the west at the end of the war, unlike at the conclusion of the Second World War.

In addition to territorial losses, Germany’s military was drastically reduced. However, Hitler disregarded this and began rebuilding his country's military strength in the mid-1930s. This went unchallenged; for example, Britain signed a naval agreement with Germany, allowing its navy to be 35% the size of Britain’s own – then the most powerful in the world.

The Second World War was preceded by the Spanish Civil War, which ended with General Francisco Franco coming to power by overthrowing the democratically elected left-wing government. In this conflict, Germany and Italy supported Franco, while the Soviet Union backed the Republicans. This war provided an opportunity for these powers to test their weaponry and assess their military needs.

In 1936, Hitler capitalized on Germany's increased military strength by remilitarizing the demilitarized Rhineland. France protested, but Britain accepted the action, and no military threat was posed to Germany. Instead, Hitler orchestrated a "referendum" in the Rhineland, where 98.8% of those who voted supported his actions.

Hitler also engineered Austria's annexation into Germany, despite this being prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. He received support from Italy for this move.

Some Austrians opposed the loss of independence and organized protests. However, these ended when Austrian Interior Minister Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who facilitated the unification, invited Hitler's army to restore order.

The next step in Hitler’s march towards war was the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs wanted to defend themselves, but their allies, France and the Soviet Union, refused to assist them. Thus, the issue was resolved through the Munich Agreement, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, which granted the Sudetenland to Germany.

After acquiring the Sudetenland, Hitler annexed the Czech region outright and reduced Slovakia to a puppet state. Shortly thereafter, Hungary annexed the Hungarian-speaking areas of Slovakia.

Following these events, Hitler demanded the transfer of Memel (now Klaipėda) to Germany. Once again, the victim, Lithuania, sought help from foreign powers, but assistance was denied.

It should also be remembered that before the Second World War, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between them. Under this agreement, Hitler invaded Poland in early September 1939, and the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part of the country.

As a result, France and Britain eventually declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. Thus, the Second World War had begun, even though little fighting occurred along the German-French border until May 1940. Before that, Hitler had already occupied Denmark and advanced into northern Norway, prompting a response from France and Britain – though, at this stage, they suffered defeats.

* * *

If we examine the events I described earlier in light of Halla-aho’s perspective, we can make the following observations.

Firstly, it seems that Putin views the collapse of the Soviet Union as a comparable event to the Treaty of Versailles for Germany. After all, Russia lost a vast portion of the territories it controlled, from the Baltic states to the newly independent nations of Central Asia.

Russia’s actions in Syria were successful and undoubtedly reinforced Putin’s perception of the effectiveness of his military, much like the Spanish Civil War shaped the views of Hitler and Mussolini. However, unlike Hitler’s army, Putin’s forces have not been able to use their experiences in Syria to improve their available weaponry. A particularly striking example of this is the widely advertised Armata tank, which has proven incapable of participating in the war in Ukraine despite being a flagship product of Russia’s defense industry.

We have yet to see an event analogous to the unification of Austria and Germany, but the recent discussions surrounding Belarus being integrated into Russia would correspond quite closely. Additionally, it seems to me that Russia’s annexation of Crimea mirrors the events in Czechoslovakia in 1938: Ukraine wanted to fight, but Western nations at the time denied it military support and left it just as isolated as Czechoslovakia had been.

Furthermore, parts of occupied Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) were, for a time, turned into puppet states of Russia, much like Hitler had done with Slovakia. The West sought to legitimize all this through the so-called Minsk Agreement, which closely parallels the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate.

Hitler’s invasion of Poland can, of course, be quite effectively compared to Ukraine’s situation from 2022 onward. Western nations have not declared war on Russia, but then again, the Western Front of 1939 didn’t see much actual fighting either.

However, Western countries are providing Ukrainians with some military aid, which—alongside the courage of the Ukrainians themselves—has enabled them to defend their country, though not to drive the aggressor out entirely. Poland, on the other hand, received no such support during the rapidly progressing war and wasn’t even provided with weapons in time.

* * *

And is there a modern-day Chamberlain and a 1930s-style Britain? Isn’t this self-evident?

What else are we to think of Germany’s Olaf Scholz, who has done his utmost to minimize military aid to Ukraine, thereby playing into Russia’s hands in much the same way as Britain’s prime minister did back then?

What I’ve written above shows that the Speaker’s view of the similarities between the current situation and the events leading up to the Second World War is astonishingly accurate. However, I also see some differences.

The most significant of these is that Putin’s Russia is not a great power comparable to Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Russia possesses nuclear weapons, but wars fought with them have no winners. At least not in a large-scale war, where a U.S. counterstrike would be inevitable and therefore too great a risk for the Russians.

* * *

On the other hand, we also have China, which is rising as an increasingly powerful military force. It certainly has its own interests, particularly regarding Taiwan, but would it go to war as Russia’s ally against the entire world?

In my view, the answer is unequivocal. And it is a resounding "no"—especially regarding direct warfare. China will not engage in a large-scale war against the West, at least not as long as it can gain power and wealth through other means.

However, the question remains whether China might exploit Russia’s weakness and seize old Chinese territories in East Asia. Since the situation is quite similar to Taiwan, the answer is "possibly yes." But in that case, we are no longer talking about a Third World War but rather localized military actions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that although I do not believe, for the reasons outlined above, that a Third World War is about to break out, I do agree with Speaker Halla-aho (and many others) that it is better to prepare for war before it begins than to be naïve.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

11 January 2025

Germany Then and Now Resemble Each Other

In the early years of the Weimar Republic, during the 1920s and the early 1930s in Germany, power was held by the Social Democrats. Nevertheless, the far-left caused unrest and incited workers to go on strikes. Eventually, they even attempted a violent revolution, inspired by Vladimir Lenin.

As a result of all this, a backlash arose among the German populace, which was temporarily interrupted when moderate parties formed governments in the mid-1920s. However, the far-left increased its popularity towards the end of the decade, as the runaway inflation caused by war reparations made life increasingly difficult for the people.

For the same reasons and due to the unrest caused by the far-left, national socialism—or the Nazi Party—also gained traction, ultimately taking power in January 1933. This led the country, after various developments, into two interlinked catastrophes: the Second World War and the Holocaust.

* * *

This came to my mind when I read that in Germany, thousands of leftist protesters gathered on Saturday in front of the party congress of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. As a result, the start of the congress was delayed by two hours because the protesters blocked party members from entering the venue.

A large police presence was also on-site, dispersing a sit-in protest that had partially blocked an intersection. They also intervened to stop acts of violence, as some protesters launched fireworks at the police.

It would be worth asking these protesters whether they have any understanding of what happened in Germany between the world wars, and whether they realize that their current actions bear an unsettling resemblance to the behavior of the German left during the Weimar Republic era, which, as a backlash, resulted in the rise of the Nazi regime.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Strengthening Christmas Market Security: Lessons from Magdeburg
The Fall of Germany’s Government Could Open the EU’s Path to a Better Future
Will immigration give rise to a National Socialist party in Finland

9 August 2023

History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

This is the fourteenth part of a blog post series where I go through the significant events in Finnish history. In the thirteenth post, I described how Finland managed to develop again through peaceful democratic means after the rise of the extreme right-wing following the civil war initiated by the old Social Democratic Party.

As my esteemed reader well remembers, this development was interrupted by World War II. For Finland, the most significant chain of events occurred already before the Winter War.

I'm referring to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, in which Finland was defined as part of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence. As a result, the Kremlin offered our country a trade-off, in which we would give up areas on the Karelian Isthmus and Hanko, seen as important for the security of Leningrad, but would receive land in East Karelia in return.

Finland refused the trade mainly because the government believed that the Soviet Union was just bluffing. Not even the fact that Hitler's closest confidant - Marshal Hermann Göring - advised Finland to accept the offer, hinting that our country would get its losses back with interest during the coming major war. In the Baltic countries, Göring's similar speeches were believed and they agreed to Moscow's demands, which later, in a changed situation, led to the occupation of these countries.

As a result of Finland's stubbornness, Russia began to threaten our country through its media and moved its troops to the border. Since these methods did not make the Cajander government yield, Stalin also staged the shelling in Mainila and denounced the non-aggression treaty between the countries.

Even these measures did not change the Finnish government's position because it could not believe in an attack, at least not without an ultimatum or a threat to start a war. Moscow, on the other hand, could not give such a declaration because it would have been contrary to the propaganda image it created of the Soviet Union as a peace-loving state.

Therefore, the Soviet army eventually crossed the border, citing the shots fired at Mainila. This surprised the Finnish government, which believed in the impossibility of war, and it fell. After that, a new government tried to agree on a territorial exchange with Stalin. However, it was already too late, as Stalin was only discussing with the puppet government led by Otto Wille Kuusinen that he had established.

During the Winter War, the Finns remembered Göring's offer, which led to Finland's submission to the harsh peace terms of the Winter War, despite the still unbeaten army and military assistance offered - although not given - by England and France. However, the latter made Stalin begin negotiations with Finland.

At this point, the Finnish leadership had assessed that Germany would win the upcoming great war, at least against Russia, and that Finland would get its losses back with interest. This view was based mainly on the fact that Russia had also suffered a defeat during the First World War against Germany, which later lost the war.

Thus, our country was drawn into the Continuation War, in which the objectives were set clearly beyond the borders of 1939. Finland became dependent on Germany for both energy and food self-sufficiency. As a side note, it should be mentioned that the extradition of some Jews to the Nazis was done because Germany required it as a condition for grain deliveries.

In Finland, it was understood no later than 1942 that Germany would not win the war. This led to peace enquiries, during which Stalin was proposed to withdraw to the borders prior to the Winter War, which, of course, did not suit to the Generalissimo, who demanded the peace borders of the Winter War. This was not accepted, so Stalin agreed on future borders with other allies at the Tehran Conference in 1943, receiving in return permission to retain the Baltic states - that had previously "voluntarily" joined the Soviet Union - as his own after the war.

Thus, Finland's fate was left to weapons, and the solution proved to be the breaking of the front in the battles of June 9-10. After that, President Risto Ryti made his famous personal agreement with Hitler to receive military support, and the Commander-in-Chief transferred troops from Olonets Karelia, where the Soviet war machine was once again stopped - primarily due to the technically superior artillery fire of the Finns.

After this, a peace process was initiated as the Soviet Union needed its soldiers in the race to Berlin. Finland got its post-Winter War borders with Petsamo reduced and exchange of Hanko peninsula to the Porkkala peninsula closer to Helsinki. Additionally, Finland committed to clearing Lapland of German troops and paying heavy war reparations.

The war marked the end of the era of the first republic, often referred to as White Finland. During this time, the society that was extremely divided after the Civil War had gradually and especially during the Winter War, grown into a unified state, where the old aristocracy had been ousted and the working class had taken its place.

It was a world of peasants, businessmen, higher civil servants, and the intelligentsia, where even working-class families had dreams of social advancement by sending their children to study and thus pursue success in society. In other words, this was the foundation for poor Finland's development into one of the world's best places to live.

The original blog post in Finnish:
Suomen ensimmäisen tasavallan loppu

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future

4 August 2023

History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion

This is the thirteenth part of a blog post series where I go through the most significant stages of Finnish history. In the twelfth post, I described how Finland gained democracy after its independence and the Civil War, characterized by an exceptionally strong executive power.

Like many other European countries, Finland also experienced attempts by the far right to seize power in the 1920s and 1930s. This movement emerged as a reaction to the active activities of communist groups supported by the Soviet Union that were channeled into trade unions and resulted in continuous strikes.

Initially, these strikes were attempted to be suppressed with strikebreakers, which were mainly collected from Southern Ostrobothnia. When this did not work, the right-wing became increasingly radicalized and formed the violent Lapua Movement, which targeted communists and those believed to be sympathetic to them.

Finnish right-wing radicalism was strongest in the region of South Ostrobothnia, as the region had traditionally adopted a more active attitude towards economic activity through tar burning and other pre-capitalist activities, but the landless population that generally created instability had left - inspired by the same activity - to seek their fortune in America. Thus, the population of South Ostrobothnia was wealthy and economically unusually equal.

As a result, the people who remained in the region adopted a more conservative attitude towards world events than the rest of the country. In the 1920s, this even took on some far-right characteristics: particularly Italian Benito Mussolini was admired.

However, there were only a few openly fascist people in South Ostrobothnia. In addition, the majority of the population remained on the side of legality, which had a decisive impact on later events in 1932.

The support for the far-right first rose all over Finland but turned quickly to decline after representatives of the Lapua Movement mistakenly abducted the former President Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg and his wife on October 15, 1930. At the same time, the core of the far-right movement radicalized further, and in February-March 1932, they rebelled against the lawful authority in Mäntsälä, South Finland.

The rebellion was stopped by a speech by President Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, emphasizing the importance of legal proceedings for the whole nation, and the Lapua members, who attempted to recruit people from the countryside, failed to gather support in Mäntsälä. As a result, the entire movement was banned, and the Patriotic People's Movement, that emerged from its ruins never became a significant political force.

Thus, Finland returned to being a law-abiding and peaceful democracy, with the Social Democrats and the Agrarian League, who had distanced themselves from the far-left, being its guarantors. The Agrarian League's peasant supporters had already refused to join the far-right's bandwagon earlier. As a result, the grip of the far-left and the far-right, which had created successive pressures at the beginning of Finland's independence, loosened, and the country could be developed through peaceful politics towards a better future.

The original blog post in Finnish:
Äärioikeiston kapina

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future