90 years ago in Germany

Exactly ninety years ago president Hindenburg of Germany nominated a new chancellor for his country. The name of the new leader was Adolf Hitler, who was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), that had a bit earlier become the biggest party in the parliament. 

After those developments a Dutch communist set on fire the Parliament building of the country which probably helped NSDAP to gain such popularity that in Elections in March the Nazi Party's share of the votes increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired further seats in the Parliament. 

Thereafter Hitler was able to rise to a position of a true dictator of Germany via a "law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich" with the help of the small Centre Party. Today it is politically correct to call all of this a mistake and a huge disaster to the whole world - which I believe we all agree on - and not to think about anything about the alternatives of that time.

In order to consider alternatives, we should understand that Hitler started his political life in the Weimar republic, established after the loss of Germany in World War I. That suffered on many problems before mid-1920´s, but the society settled by the end of the decade, until the Great depression changed everything.  

According to Wikipedia: "the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), until then a minor far-right party, increased its votes to 19%, becoming Germany's second largest party, while the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) also increased its votes; this made the unstable coalition system by which every chancellor had governed increasingly unworkable. The last years of the Weimar Republic were marred by even more systemic political instability than previous years, as political violence increased."

And in another Wikipedia chapter: "from 1928 onwards (after Stalin reinstated Thälmann as KPD leader against the majority of the KPD central committee..., the party followed the Comintern line and received funding from the Comintern... the party was closely aligned with the Soviet leadership headed by Joseph Stalin; Thälmann has been described as ´the driving force behind Stalinization´... and ´Stalin’s right hand in Germany´. 

And somewhat later continues: "in February 1932, Thälmann argued that ´Hitler must come to power first, then the requirements for a revolutionary crisis [will] arrive more quickly´. In November 1932, the KPD and the Nazis worked together in the Berlin transport workers’ strike."

The question arising is: what was the alternative for Hitler in the Germany of 1930´s. Was it a democracy or was it a communist revolution supported by Josif Stalin. People of 2020´s probably think only about the first option, but in reality, it could as well have been a stalinistic Germany. 

What happened in early Soviet Union in 1930´s was not much different from what happened in Hitler´s Germany. People were massacred and both countries acquired military power. And it is also probable, that Stalin was planning on an attack towards the West in early 1940´s but Hitler started his operation Barbarossa before him. 

The question is that if such an attack would have occurred in collaboration with stalinistic Germany, would Western Europe have lost the war, and stayed under the occupation of Russian communists until the late 1980´s? And if so, would that have been better or worse than the German occupation for few years in 1940´s?

 

Naturally I have no answer to this question, because history is an invalid research topic where no repeated experiments can be organized. However, we may be happy to celebrate - instead the Hitler´s rise to the power 90 years ago - his loss of life in May 1945. And again, we can rejoice in the 70th anniversary of Josif Stalin's death on the fifth of March, just a bit more than a month from now.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago
Tradition of low professional ability among Russian security agency and dictators
An ignorant mediahouse failed again in historical facts

Finnish Winter war showed the way to help Ukraine

Exactly 83 years ago Soviet Union attacked Finland without any warning. Or actually, Stalin´s troops shot some of its own soldiers in Raivola, and used their death as a false excuse for the attack. 

Finland had had a brutal civil war just 21 years before, and Stalin - the head of the Soviet Union - thought that communists would join them, and therefore it would take just few weeks for Russians to get in Helsinki. That did not happen, although soviet army did its best for 105 days, killed ca 26 000 Finns and lost itself some 126 000–168 000 soldiers as dead or missing. 

Not to mention the loss of 260–500 aircrafts and 1 200–3 500 tanks by Russians. Such material losses were gigantic compared to losses of the Finnish army: some 20–30 tanks and 62 aircrafts. And still they did not make their way to Helsinki. And the western great powers did not provide any countable help despite several requests.  

Whatsoever, after 105 days Finland made the biggest mistake independent Finland has ever made. Namely, a small group of Finnish leaders decided to agree with Russians on a peace treaty with extremely unfavorable conditions. 

That was because Hermann Göring of Germany - at the time still an ally of Soviets - had secretly promised Finland that it would regain its losses during a becoming war. The agreement included a cover story - only partially true, but still commonly believed in Finland - that the Finnish army would have been collapsing in any minute. That was, however, not the case - not in the front, and definitely not in the light of  western powers finally being ready to help. 

But western reaction was too slow, and as a consequence, Finland joined operation Barbarossa in 1941, although its military lead refused to join the German attack against Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) despite Hitler´s demands. And ultimately Hitler failed there and everywhere. 

However, while Germany´s military power collapsed by the end of the war, the Finnish army managed to stop the Russian mass attack in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala in 1944 - with altogether some 35 000 Russian and Finnish casualties - and succeeded in making a separate peace, which saved Finland´s way of life as a democracy, but doomed its leaders to suck up Russians for half a century until their communist great power collapsed. 

* * *

During the last few years Finnish Winter War has become common knowledge throughout the world due to its many similarities to Russian´s unjustified attack against Ukraine. And there is a lesson to be learned. 

Namely, at this time the western nations must remember, that heroic defenders under unjustified attack must be supported against dictatorships as long as it takes. That will direct history towards a fair future, and strengthen global values against wrongdoing. 

For Ukrainians the western support will build up the first step towards a western way of life. That is, less corruption as well as more human rights, economic freedom and sustainable society. But we must remember to continue the support even after the war - encouraging and demanding Ukrainians to change their eastern attitude towards more western one at the same time they keep the best parts of their own cultural heritage. And rewarding them as soon as they qualify a true member of the Western world.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland after the Russian war in Ukraine
Vakartšuk of the Okean Elzy: Finnish history inspires Ukrainians
It takes heroes to avoid genocide

Wishes to hell by novelist Itkonen

A novelist Juha Itkonen told to a Finnish afternoon-newspaper that he yielded to passing Nazi-demonstrators that they should go to Hell. Thereafter his seven-year old child got frightened and started to cry. The story describes that the reason was his fathers behavior and not the Nazis themselves, but the title was designed so that a reader understood otherwise. Clickbait jounalism, what else?

There was, however, an interesting point in the article. That is because the novelist was wondering that "what should I have done? Stand there calm and correct just like there would not have been anything special ongoing? At least the boys saw, that you do not need - or you are not even allowed - to accept everything."

I do not know Itkonen´s political views, but his attitude is typical to many Finnish cultural figures and other urban elitists - like a left-wing novelist and writer Pirkko Saisio had to learn, when she brought up her own sober thoughts about the stuffy thoughts of feminists. I mean that - using the wording of  novelist Itkonen - it is a problem if you do not need or you are not even allowed - to accept everything. "Everything" meaning here all those who have views differing from your own.

It is true that neo-Nazis are disgusting creatures. Wretches who are fantasizing that something good would grow out from an ideology, that led to pogroms and to the second world war with tens of millions losses of human life. So, something similar to communists, whose ideology also led to wide pogroms and self-created famine.

In Finland the total number of neo-Nazis are between 60 and 70, which in my opinion is 60 to 70 too many. On the other hand, we have two communist parties, that together got 8 659 votes in the last elections. That is 8 659 votes too much.

Despite what I wrote above, I am strongly supporting the freedom of speech. And that is why I do not loudly wish journeys to Hell for neo-Nazi nor communist demonstrators. Instead I give them a right to walk in peace and embarrass themselves with the absurdity of their ideology.

They deserve the right for that by the general tolerance and freedom of speach, and also because of the constitutional law of Finland. In section 12 it says that "everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive
information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone."

Of course the same constitutional law assures the right of the novelist Itkonen to swear and wish journeys to hell to those passing by. And at the same time scare his little child. The job for us others is then to evaluate why the intolerant behavior of the novelist ended in newspaper pages, and what should we think about that?

I want to end this thought by sharing a comment by a 97-year old veteran of the second world war. According to him the demonstrators during the Independence day of Finland are living proofs for the usefulness of their sufferings in the front. That is because in the Soviet Union organizing that kind of demonstrations would have been considerably more difficult.  It would be great if also novelist Itkonen would have noticed this statement - and learned its deep message.

The original Professor´s thought in Finnish:
Kirjailijan helvettiin-toivotukset päätyivät lehden sivuille