U.S. secretly helps rebuilding Finland after WWII
Interesting article about how the United States was a major contributer towards the rebuilding of Finland after the war - totaling several billion of old markka, this support from the U.S. has remained a secret until very recently…
Nearly every week, for several years on end, a ship docked in the harbours of Helsinki, Hanko, Turku, or Rauma with American goods in the cargo hold. This was different from the American post-war humanitarian aid packages. This flow of goods across the Atlantic was not extensively written up in the Finnish press of the time - and nor was it much spoken about. As a rule, customs declarations found their way to the incinerator after being stored for eight years. It is the purest coincidence that these carbon-copy sheets have survived to this day.
[...]It was in Washington’s interests that Finland remained a capitalist country, even if the Americans were rather sceptical that some of the items they were selling to the Finns might end up helping the Soviet Union instead. Janne Nokki points to the fact that the cargo ships kept coming on a more or less regular basis, even though Finland’s position on the superpower chessboard changed several times during the same period.
[...]What is doubly curious, then, is that the customs declarations found by Nokki indicate that Western fears of Finland “going under for the third time” seem to have had little or no impact on the trade dealings. The shipments kept on coming in a steady flow, regardless of political developments. They were a fragile lifeline for a very poor country.
On behalf of my Grandparents whose tax dollars funded those shipments I would like to say you´re welcome Finland . That being said, I wonder how this sits in light of the current Anti-Americanism that is present in Finland now. Its so hard to retain any historical perspective these days on both sides of the ocean. Politics of today (Anti-bushism) too easiely cloud what has been a great historical relationship between U.S and Europe as a whole.
Comment by Unit — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
I completely agree, Unit. And it makes me quite proud that my home country had supported my new country in such a time of need.
While it would be easy to point fingers towards Europe and scold them for quickly forgetting all the U.S. has done for them - one should really point the fingers at Bush for singlehandedly ruining making Europeans doing a complete 180. (although I think anti-Americanism in Europe started a long time before Bush)
Comment by Phil — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
I don’t know if the shipments themselves are really such a surprise. Our lukio history teacher told us about the importance of American finacial and material aid to Finland in the aftermath of second world war. The scope of the shipments on the otherhand is very much a surprise. So thanks for that America
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
This was news to me, and changed my view of post-WW2 Finland somewhat. At what timeperiod did the ships come here?
Comment by iJusten — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
I find the international politics of that era so much more dynamic and interesting than the mud slinging that we get to observe on a daily basis. Life must have been a bit frightening for the Finns in those precarious years after the War. To me, as an American living in Finland, this helps explain further the so called “winter war” mentality that so many Finns have in regards to being content with what you have and not complaining easily.
Comment by Unit — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
While it would be easy to point fingers towards Europe and scold them for quickly forgetting all the U.S. has done for them
Like helping Stalin to enslave half of Europe, you mean? It’s amazing that Americans tend to forget this side of the story, that in fact the “Europe” they saved meant only a few western countries, Great Britain naturally at the top of the list. Even Finland had to fight against American weapons (or, to be more precise, mostly other kind of help was delivered to Stalin, but that’s besides the point). If I didn’t knew how sceptical Americans are, not to mention the anti-war libertarians, I’d say that they’ve been brainwashed
But hey, nevertheless, you were certainly among the good guys (which probably tells something about the overall ethics of any warfare, or lack of it, but let’s not go into that …)
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
“Like helping Stalin to enslave half of Europe, you mean? ”
So in your enlightend opinion, after the Race to Berlin, the United States and Co. should have continued to fight against the Russian military. After 291,557 American deaths, completely weakened allies, a small insurgency already in Deutschland, we need to continue fighting?
Its that type of thanklessness which you epitomize which causes Americans to charecterize Europeans as unthankful.
“meant only a few western countries” such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg,United Kingdom,and France.
Not to mention the threat of future Nazi agression toward Sweden and Norway. Oh yeah, let us not forget Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel who a great Nazi general in……… Northern Africa. In terms of brainwashing, look no further than your bathroom mirror.
Comment by Unit — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
infinndel also adds,that it is well known in the Finnish community in America,that during WW2,there was help being sent to Finland by Finnish -American organizations and private individuals .
Money ,clothing,and other basic items for survival,were actively collected and sent to help Finnish people during those terrible times.
But because of the evident hatred for Americans and our government,I doubt Finland will EVER again get support from our Finnish -Americans or the U.S.government.
Remember:do not bite the hand that fed and clothed Finland.
Yes, Finland by it’s own forgetfulness, and blind rejection,of that past history,has damaged and tarnished Finland’s image in infinndels eyes FOREVER….
Comment by inFINNdel — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
Its that type of thanklessness which you epitomize which causes Americans to charecterize Europeans as unthankful.
Sorry, thank you for helping Stalin to fight against us. May I thank on the behalf of the Estonians, Lativans, Poles, Hungarins and so on, too?
Now, I can perfectly well understand your side of the story. And, as I said, you certainly were one of the good guys. But amazingly enough, many Americans just seem to be uncapable of understanding our side of the story. Time and again, when somebody tells you that the USA didn’t save Europe (the way I did above) you seem to answer like you just did, as if the words in this particular case just couldn’t penetrate your brain. It’s interesting. I’m sure it has something to do with general psychological laws. When a belief is strong enough it’s very hard to break it even with logic and evidence.
Or do you really think that Stalin didn’t enslave half of Europe? Or that the USA didn’t help him?
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
This is an interesting sidelight on that story.
http://205.188.238.109/time/magazine/article/0,9171,886681,00.html
It seems that the US were equally glad to get rid of the stuff, some of which was hard to sell, and helping Finland “stay in the fold” was a nice bonus. Anyone in (Allied-occupied) Central Europe could have simply waited for the goods to rust a bit more, and they’d have got it for nothing. The Finns, of course, had no such luck.
As for “tax dollars funding those shipments”, that’s really a bit of a stretch. These were items primarily already bought and paid for as part of the war effort. The tax dollars had gone to defeating Nazism. Not to helping Finland.
But all the same, many thanks for a helping hand when it was more than needed.
Comment by kylmä totuus — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
“While it would be easy to point fingers towards Europe and scold them for quickly forgetting all the U.S. has done for them - one should really point the fingers at Bush for singlehandedly ruining making Europeans doing a complete 180. (although I think anti-Americanism in Europe started a long time before Bush) ”
It did and the Bush-hate manifested itself right after the 2000 election. And yes, you can point fingers at Europe. They were busy taking oil-for-food bribes from Saddam in exchange for defending Iraq against the US.
Oops. Sorry for the tangent. Real interesting story.
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Unit, The point is not about fighting, but that during the ww2 allied supported ussr with supplies. Murmansk’s port was very important supply port for ussr, because allied ship loaded supplies of there all year round during the war. That’s why finnish sent demolitions teams to blow up murmansk’s railway again and again. It stopped the supply flow for couple days and destroyed some supplies, before soviets got the rail repaired.
US seems to support that side, which fits in to its political and security agenda at the moment. I think this is one thing which makes fins little bit suppicious about USA. Knowing that before supporting you the same group has supported your enemy doesn’t rise much trust.
Comment by hopeatikari — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Thank you America for helping our country when we needed it most.
Without allied troops Stalin or Hitler would have conquered whole Europe.
Comment by Timo L. — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
Most probably this is not a new piece of news. If the article refers to so called Marshall aid, many European countries received it. This anti-american thing is also not true in Finland. This is one of the most pro American countries in Europe. Just many are critizing the policies of Bush, but perhaps less here than in the States. Many do not want Finland to join Nato. Perhaps more here than in the States. This is based on t he bigger military budget and on the fear that Finland can not decide itself any more where to send the Finnish troops and soldiers. Despite these facts most are very pro-America.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Well, yes, the generation of FDR, Truman, Kennan, Marshall and others actually used to be the bete-noire of the extreme right wingers in America. They were statesmen that believed in genuine coalitions and treated Europe not only with firmness but also with great respect. Eisenhower came from this tradition as well. The present fear mongering Republicans that seem to hate the welfare statist Europe more than Al Qaida are something else completely. It is not the America of liberty hating George W. and his awful minions that I feel enormously grateful to but the America of Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy.
Comment by mjr — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
So what if the US helped USSR during the WW2? What the hell were they supposed to do? Help the Nazis? Stand by idly? They chose the smaller of two evils and helped beat the bigger evil. It’s not like they could’ve won the war without soviet help.
Comment by Terppa — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Tomi, hopeatikari —
You have both presented the case very effectively. Aside from America inadvertently helping Russia, our enemy, Finland was the last and most insignificant concern for the United States. The official policy was: Sink-or-swim, let’s see what happens to that little nation of insignificant peasants. But that’s fine, and we don’t complain about it here in Finland.
After the war, when America became involved in a superpower battle against a very formidable Soviet Union, the western European continent became transformed into a launching pad for America’s Cold War offensive. If Europe had fallen, then guess who would have been next?
Not only would America’s trans-Atlantic, corporate business venture come to an abrupt end, but America’s own physical security would have been risked. So, whereas America didn’t care the slightest bit about Finland’s plight against the Russians during the war (but let’s face it, America doesn’t fight against formidable enemies anyway; even Germany was all but conquered by British forces when the US arrived) it suddenly realized that tiny Finland successfully, and singlehandedly, defended its own border (not to mention America’s border) between East and West.
But hey, those were old times and old generations. I’ve never heard my grandparents, nor any other relatives ask, “Why didn’t America actually help us during the war?” They knew the score. And, as for any naive Americans who questions Finland’s stance against the atrocities committed by America in the current day, you can take solace in knowing that well over 60% of your own population holds those exact same sentiments. In fact, maybe it’s over 70% now?
By the way, thanks for the crates of stuff. And we hope you get some better leadership in the future—for your own sake. We’re always looking for competent business partners……………and so are you.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
So what if the US helped USSR during the WW2?
It’s about this strange notion that “the USA saved Europe” that many Americans (and Europeans too) use - often out of ignorance, sometimes for political reasons. Ask Estonians if they did. But it’s true that the Finns in particular should have no difficulties understanding the American side of the story. Both countries chose to side with a dictator. There are a few differneces, though, perhaps most notably the fact that Stalin was at the time by far more of a mass murderer compared to Hitler.
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
I feel enormously grateful to but the America of Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy.
Roosevelt? He was at the time a weak old man who couldn’t put up a fight against Stalin. With a stronger man as a president at least part of the eastern Europe could in all likelyhood have been saved, perhaps even the Baltic countries - and along the countries the hundreds of thousands of people Stalinists murdered there.
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Tomi wrote: With a stronger man as a president at least part of the eastern Europe could in all likelyhood have been saved, perhaps even the Baltic countries - and along the countries the hundreds of thousands of people Stalinists murdered there.
I find this difficult to believe. At the end of the war Soviet troops occupied most of Eastern Europe and greatly outnumbered Western Allied troops in Europe. Decreasing the Soviet post-war sphere of influence through negotiations would have been difficult, possibly impossible, for any president.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
If the WWII would have gone, as the finnish leadership of the time wished it would go, the Germans would have defeated Soviet Union and the western allies would have defeated Germans. Well, that didn’t happen and we had to cope with the paranoid next door, who probably would have been very happy to see Marshall aid dollars in hard work 150km from Leningrad, while he was trying to break us with the war reparations for the war he started.
There are many interesting twists in the story of keeping the western windows open during the cold war. For example, magnetrons for the first finnish-built air surveillance radars arrived hidden in banana cargo. I wonder, whether the customs had documented those.
There are some other examples. If you drive towards Ilomantsi along the russian border from south, there is a small village named Hoilola with a little church. That church was constructed in the late 40’s with donations from the U.S. lutheran churches. Also, there are still some old books in the Oulu university library with a stamp saying approximately, “This book is a gift from the people of United States, presented as a token of good will they hold towards people of Finland”
I guess we were in reasonably good books for paying that old american WWI loan all the way to the end. I think the last payment was around 1976. For the last couple of decades the U.S. congress used the payments to fund Fulbright scholarships for Finnish students.
So thank you America, but I still reserve the right to disagree with messrs. pundit and winter any time.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
If USA “saved” Europe then France saved The USA in their struggle for independence.
What say you americans, do you want to be forever grateful for those “evil white flag waving” frenchies?
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
14. If the article refers to so called Marshall aid, many European countries received it.
It *is* a new piece of news. Finland refused from “Marshall Aid”. That is, officially Finland never was a part of it as the tightrope with USSR required signing of the Mutual Co-Operation and Assistance Pact in 1948. Marshall Aid would have been siding with the “other side” and pissing off the guys that had tanks and artillery 50km from Helsinki…
This gives a good idea of the “tightrope” the politicians had to do to “keep up appearances” with the Control Commission and communists running the Ministry of the Interior during the “Dangerous Years”.
Comment by Hank W. — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
Ah, the evil USA. We take over countries, then give them aid to recover. But of course, because we did not go on and finish the Soviet Union off, we get put back in the evil side again.
Humm, and the little german insurection, that went on for 5 years after the war was over. Did we quit giving the Germans aid, did we surrender and go home. Me thinks we had a spine back then, and didn’t follow the French White flag of surrender route.
Comment by winter — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
This is great news! Thanks to America! I had heard about the packages, that individual Americans sent to poor Finnish families during the war, but not about this.
Hank, if I’m not totally wrong, it was part of the peace treatment, that Finland was not allowed to receive Marshall aid, so this hush-hush help from Americans must have been more than welcome.
Comment by Kaislis — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
OK, so the Soviets were evil. Then how is it that the european Socialists have been blocking attempts for the European Commission to investigate the crimes of communism. (socialists are the second largest voting block in Europe and have voted against and investigation.)
Take this Finn:
Didn’t you know. The communists are your friends.
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
According to the article, the aid took the form of the US selling surplus military material to Finland. The aid must have been in the price of the merchandise. Does anyone know how big of a discount Finland got? Could the US have gotten more money for the same stuff had they not sold it to Finland?
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
Winter: Do you even know how few tanks did US have at the beginning of WWII? Just a FEW! So compare that the German armada of 2600 modern tanks and over 3500 planes in 1940! The superiority of German second-generation tanks was not even met until the end of the war.
So quit your stupid french white flag crap. France, even with the assistance of UK troops, did not have a chance in hell in stopping those German Army Groups A, B and C. Germans had been preparing for all-out war at least five years at full speed.
US would have lasted maybe one week, even less than France, if Germans or Japan had attacked your country back in 1940. You boys would have run like hell all the way to Mexico.
Americans had a lot of time to prepare for war in full safety and with plenty of raw materials available, without being constantly attacked, except for one lousy bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
tim73
but, but we are the evil USA. How could we want to have any tanks at the beginning of the war, when we had all the working tanks at the end. Now that’s pure evil, to win, and then give aid to the losers. But its even more evil, to give aid to Finland, when we told the world we would not.
We are such an evil country, giving aid to those we take over, I am ashamed.
Comment by winter — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 7:32 pm
I find this difficult to believe. At the end of the war Soviet troops occupied most of Eastern Europe and greatly outnumbered Western Allied troops in Europe.
Yeah, by then the only thing to do was to minimize the damages in countries like Italy. But already in 1942 Roosevelt (and Churhill, of course) promised the Baltic countries, Finland included, to Stalin. Later on he showed so little balls that some Americans have speculated that some sort of a treason was going on, either by Roosevelt himself or rather behind his weak back. More common, I think, is the interpretation that he was just unrealistic, naive even, trusting a known mass murderer, Uncle Joe, to play a fair game. And, sure, there are those who have different ideas as always when talking about history …
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
It’s just that if Finland didn’t have the luxury not to ally ourselves with an awful dictatorship, so didn’t the USA. Yes, Roosevelt really made some bad mistakes, but at first he had to battle the forefathers of winter and Finnpundit that were screaming America Firsters and isolationists. They had that nice mr Lindbergh that would have made such a great Leader. I’m sure it would have been welcome to have some strict words for dear Uncle Joe, but he wasn’t really a man much impressed with words. What the Red Army occupied, he kept. In retrospect everything is always so easy: in the end the West prevailed, as led by Roosevelt and Churchill. Luckily the USA had a great supply of wise statesmen those days and not moral and intellectual pygmies like George W. Or his screeching know-nothing supporters.
Comment by mjr — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
“We are such an evil country, giving aid to those we take over, I am ashamed.”
Just like “helping” Iraqis? Over 600 000 dead this far and many areas contaminated with depleted uranium shells, just for starters. Country shot to pieces and all-out civil war going on, it is much worse already than in Jugoslavia. 1000 casualties PER WEEK and rising. Hundreds of thousands of refugees in Syria and in other surrounding countries. All you can control there, is your Green Zone in Baghdad.
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
tim73 wrote: US would have lasted maybe one week, even less than France, if Germans or Japan had attacked your country back in 1940.
As much as I hate to intrude when someone is abusing the always moronic winter, I must disagree here. Neither Germany nor Japan had the naval capability to mount a serious attack on US mainland in 1940.
Tomi wrote: But already in 1942 Roosevelt (and Churhill, of course) promised the Baltic countries, Finland included, to Stalin.
As far as I know, this isn’t entirely correct. The Tehran conference, in which the fate of the Baltic countries and Finland was discussed, took place in November 1943. Stalin presented his idea of a “security belt” running through Eastern Europe, including the Baltic countries and Poland at least, but Finland was not promised to him.
In any case, Stalin was in such a strong negotiating position because Soviet Union did most of the heavy lifting to defeat Germany. Had Western Allied troops liberated Lithuania, I rather doubt it would have ended as a part of Soviet Union after the war.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Check out this one for example:
http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/discovery/disc1997v14n2/disc-roosevelt.html
Fortunately things didn’t turn out his way … only from Finland’s perspective naturally:
“Roosevelt was concerned about the fate of the Baltic peoples who might not wish to live under Soviet rule and had suggested that a clause be added to the treaty permitting the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Finns affected ‘to leave those territories with their properties and belongings’.”
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
Do you even know how few tanks did US have at the beginning of WWII? Just a FEW! So compare that the German armada of 2600 modern tanks and over 3500 planes in 1940!
Or compare the size of American army to the one of Poland in 1939. It was smaller. Then just try to grasp how quickly the US war-machine was built up.
There’s a new book worth reading: Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory, by Norman Davies. I’ve got a chance to read only small bits, but it seemed like proper myth-bashing.
Nonetheless. Those military leftovers that USA sold to Finland greatly contributed to our national survival. So whatever was the motive behind it, I’m grateful.
Comment by Aapo — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
“If USA “saved†Europe then France saved The USA in their struggle for independence.”
You have obviously never been in an American school during history class. The role of the French in our fight against the British is rightfully documented, and I never heard any whining or complaining that they didnt do enough to help.
Comment by Unit — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
#35
Tell that to the average american Joe not to me. So should you be forever grateful for what they did for you and just shut up when you don’t agree with them like winter and his ilk are suggesting the Europeans to do when they criticize the actions that USA makes in todays world?
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
The way French surrender in WW2 is always dredged up as an example of their cowardice is just ridiculous. Has anybody crowing about surrender monkeys actually bothered to read about what happened when Nazis attacked them?
OK, so the core of French army, with British expeditionary force, move northeast to meet the German armies advancing through Belgium. They clash, and Allies start getting beaten by Nazis who use divebombers to support their ground forces, and whose tanks are massed into panzer divisions rather than distributed in small packets to support infantry. Then, another German army group moves through Ardennes forest, breaks into their rear and encircles the Allies. Some escape to UK, but most are killed or captured. French lose all their best divisions, and most of their tanks, artillery etc. Effectively they had already lost at this point.
So, they form a new defensive line inside France, and actually put up a pretty good fight for a week or so, now that they know how Germans are fighting. But, it’s hopeless. After that catastrophic defeat in the north, Nazis have vastly superior forces. They break through and tanks are streaming towards Paris. At this point the white flag goes up.
I’d be really interested in hearing just how they could have continued fighting back after that. Or if US would actually behave any differently after being beaten as decisively.
Comment by Semtex — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
Tomi, thank you for posting the link. That was a very interesting article.
As for the quote, “Roosevelt … suggested that a clause be added to the treaty permitting the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Finns affected ‘to leave those territories with their properties and belongings’.†As I understand it, the territories under discussion here were the Soviet possession at the time of the German invasion. “[T]he Soviet leaders proposed a treaty of alliance that not only provided for wartime cooperation but contained a secret protocol guaranteeing the Russian frontier as it stood at the time of Hitler’s invasion in June, 1941.” In other words, the Finns in question were those who lived in the areas ceded after the Winter War.
The article notes that in the end the 1942 Anglo-Soviet treaty did not promise even the Baltic countries to Stalin, in part due to American opposition. “At the first meeting with Molotov, Eden held out on the territorial issue, stressing American opposition and the need for the three nations to work closely together. When Hull read a report of this meeting, he immediately drew up a very strongly worded memorandum telling the British that the United States could not remain silent if they signed a treaty with Russia recognizing the 1941 Soviet frontiers. Roosevelt approved this message, and it was sent to the American ambassador in England on May 22. Four days later, Molotov signed an alternate treaty put forward by Eden which provided for a twenty-year military alliance without reference to frontiers.”
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
#17 “even Germany was all but conquered by British forces when the US arrived”
I beg to differ. I can assume that you have heard of the Battle of Normandy. If not I will give you a few relavent numbers; The American troops who participated in the Normandy invasion numbered at 73,000, their British counterparts were numbered at 61,715. There were some 20,000 brave Canadians as well.
Normandy was the first foothold that the Allies had into Europe, With American troops in the majority of the operation. It was the first major offensive into Western Europe on the Allies side. This being said, I wonder how you can assert “even Germany was all but conquered by British forces when the US arrived”. I suppose that they were conquering the Nazis while hiding down in the tube from Luftwaffe.
Perhaps you were refering to the noble R.A.F defeating the Luftwaffe
in the Battle of Britain. This, However, can hardly be constructed as conquering Germany. Preventing your country from being bombed daily is a far different thing than Conquering Berlin.
Comment by Unit — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
“The way French surrender in WW2 is always dredged up as an example of their cowardice is just ridiculous. Has anybody crowing about surrender monkeys actually bothered to read about what happened when Nazis attacked them?”
I agree completely. They did fairly well considering that they were faced with a completly new type of warfare in the Blitzkrieg. Furthermore, the French Resistance formed quickly after their defeat and was a perpetual thorn in the German War Machine.
I like to tell people to read the book Papillon by Henri Charrière(true story) to get a true feel of how Frenchmen are.
Comment by Unit — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
lamb, I was afraid that the article wasn’t exactly proving my point, I should have read it! My impression of what happened are about one year old, from the time when these things were discussed. Certain Baltic presidents refusing to go to Moscow to celebrate the end of the WWII etc. I was pretty sure that the kind of a secret agreement I was talking about would have existed even before Teheran. Perhaps it was somebody’s speculation which my brain turned into a fact over time. These kinds of thing happen to me alarmingly often.
Thanks for reading the whole article! I stand corrected.
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
Kristian: “even Germany was all but conquered by British forces when the US arrived)”…Operation Market Garden, ring a bell? Germans lost the war on the eastern front and the western front was basically mess of rivalcy between brits and yankees.
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Dec 13th, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
#1 “On behalf of my Grandparents whose tax dollars funded those shipments I would like to say you´re welcome Finland.”
The implication in this opening salvo is that the Finns are ungrateful beneficiaries of American magnanimity. The goods were certainly welcome, but delivering them was no great American sacrifice, as has been established. And it seems that both governments kept it hushed up for whatever reason, so I’m sure Finland will be forgiven for not naming a major thoroughfare in Helsinki after the “Office of the Foreign Liquidation Commissioner”.
“That being said, I wonder how this sits in light of the current Anti-Americanism that is present in Finland now.”
So out of appreciation for war surplus stuff that the USA was happy to get rid of six decades ago, Finns are supposed to pretend that the sun shines out of Duya’s ass! Dream on!
“Politics of today (Anti-bushism) too easiely cloud what has been a great historical relationship between U.S and Europe as a whole.”
Anti-bushism isn’t the problem. Bush is. And by now, most Americans agree.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 12:48 am
“Just like “helping†Iraqis? Over 600 000 dead”
has been debunked so many times. But please try again with those tails of woe.
If you want to see how your media is working: 2006 Dishonest Reporter of the Year Award
You know “fauxtography?”
The Green Helmet guy
NY Times was caught up in the fauxtography scandal “the dead guy”
Time wrote a caption stating the fire was started by a downed Israeli jet. But Israel didn?t lose any aircraft over Lebanon. In fact, the fire was started by exploding Hezbollah rockets destroyed in an air strike.
Lebanese child stands next to an unexploded Israeli shell
UN Secretary General, who joined the global chorus unfairly blaming Israel for the Gaza Beach incident
the list is long……
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:17 am
“The shipments kept on coming in a steady flow, regardless of political developments. They were a fragile lifeline for a very poor country.”
Humm
sounds like the evil USA keeps its word. The results 50 years later are excellent. We have good trade, and culture exchange (you give us good hocky players, we give you mcDonalds).
What will we all be saying in 50 years about Iraq?
One just wonders. Does Iraq have good “Foot Ball” players?
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:37 am
“Just like “helping†Iraqis? Over 600 000 deadâ€Â
I think that you were referring to Saddam’s tally. Anyway, it is the Iraqis and the Iranians killing each other now.
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:37 am
“I think that you were referring to Saddam’s tally. Anyway, it is the Iraqis and the Iranians killing each other now.”
Now, you after 2003. Where the fuck you get your news?
Comment by tim73 — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:43 am
Oh how un PC of me.
I just correlated Iraq to Finland. Darn, must get back in the bashing USA spirit, as nothing good can come from keeping your word, and supporting a young country as it struggles.
Anyone see the link on Iraq making 40 Billion from oil? That’s going to make a big impact on their economy. No wonder they are fighting it out.
Now stop that winter. We all know the USA stole that 40 Billion in oil and sent it to the USA.
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:49 am
600 000 dead, was just what was found in all the mass grave sites.
Tim must be confused again.
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:50 am
Wait…. I figured it out Tim73 is hooked on BBC. You know they have not figured out the USA has taken Bagdad. So he must be stuck in the Sadam days, where over a Million were killed.
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:55 am
#27… Lamb in the dark.
That HS article at least does not go into the discounts being offered, but the Time magazine piece does seem to imply that at least in the early stages the Army Surplus stuff was by no means an easy sell. Countries in which the items were located did not feel much obligation to BUY them, knowing that the US were reluctant to ship them back across the Atlantic anyway. The thinking might have been a pragmatic “sooner or later they’ll just give them away”. Finland, however, did not have these things lying around in troop depots on their soil, so they would have had to import them anyhow. It appears to me as though several threads came together at one time: the Finns needed the stuff, the Americans needed or wanted to get shot of it, even at 25 cents on the dollar, and Finland’s preservation - however unlikely it might have seemed at the time - was worth investing in.
There was a reference earlier to demolition of the Murmansk rail link. Does the poster think the Finns would have been unable to cut that link comprehensively while they were advancing eastwards (largely unopposed) in 1941? The fact that they chose not to - against the express wishes of their German co-belligerents - suggests that someone realised there was a limit to how much they could get away with without all kinds of shit eventually raining down on their heads. Maybe they backed the Soviets to win in the fourth quarter anyhow, go figure. Or maybe they were even enduring that outcome. Arguably, the Finnish refusal to sever the northern link into Leningrad was a tipping-point in the war on the Eastern Front.
Comment by kylmä totuus — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:29 am
Ensuring, even, not enduring. Damn thick fingers!
Comment by kylmä totuus — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:30 am
Tim73: Operation Market Garden, ring a bell? Germans lost the war on the eastern front and the western front was basically mess of rivalry between brits and yankees.
Tim—Yes, now after a quick web search, it rings a bell! I’d forgotten the operation’s name, but I lived in Arnhem for a while. So, I’m familiar with the happening.
My reference to Britain was due to its aerial bombing campaigns against the Germany, which had weakened the German population and its industrial centers since around 1940—long before America arrived on the scene, shortly before the war’s end.
But you’re absolutely right in attributing the main reason for Germany’s loss to the eastern front. There were two prongs: one prong north-eastward to Moscow and one prong south-eastward to get oil from the Caucasus. Same reason for why Yugoslavia was bombed not so long ago!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Balkans/Pipelines.html
History repeats itself. But perhaps this time there were (American) corporate interests at stake, rather than purely (German) nationalistic interests. I guess those same corporate interests are why Finland has a semi-trusting view toward America. Corporate interests might decide that Finland is important and worth saving, or they could just as easily determine that Finland isn’t relevant.
So, whereas we should be thankful to Finnish-American groups and individuals for their donations and help during-and-after WW2—after all, their efforts were spawned by kindness and compassion—far less thanks should go to official policy makers or anonymous tax payers of the US. For them, Finland was merely a Cold War pawn that ensured their own wellbeing.
Luckily for Finland, it was able to benefit from the post-war alignment of interests somewhat. But it really is only due to luck. If American policy makers had decided against Finland for strategic reasons, then they would have simply deserted it. Just like during WW2, when America supplied those who aggressed against Finland.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 4:33 am
“perhaps this time there were (American) corporate interests at stake,”
we took out the Yugo factory, because they made ugly cars.
You need to get the PC story right. This PC line of american corporate interests just gets on my nerves. That had UGLY cars. Thats all we needed to take them out.
Please, don’t go ugly on us.
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:16 am
winter—Thanks to überhigh Nordic taxation, the Yugo is still a common car here!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yugo.jpg
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:26 am
” Yugo is still a common car here!”
Yuk… we did the world a favor, by getting rid of the factory.
You do the world a dis-favor by keeping them around.
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:30 am
Fascinating to read all the blather coming from the usual roster of Finnish anti-American bigots here, attempting to spin this new bit of historical news into another light. Suffice it to say that it only serves to highlight the hatred of today’s Finnish people towards America.
Which is a good thing. Americans, take note. The Finns are, ultimately, your enemies.
Comment by Finnpundit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 6:10 am
Off the medications again, Finnpundit? By your reckoning I think about 60-70% of Americans are anti-American, so we are in good company at least!
Comment by mjr — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 8:04 am
I wonder why the article can’t be found in the Finnish language edition of Helsingin Sanomat. Or maybe I’m just too blind to see.
Comment by Jukka M — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 9:15 am
59. Back from your loftie aerie again, mjr? You simply can’t help but return and troll, again and again. Perhaps there simply are no dreams to be dreamt of in your high-flying philosophistries.
60. I wonder why the article can’t be found in the Finnish language edition of Helsingin Sanomat.
That wouldn’t be surprising. Any bilingual European can tell that the anti-American venom is usually toned down on the English-language versions of European publications, whatever they may be.
Comment by Finnpundit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 9:25 am
“Corporate interests might decide that Finland is important and worth saving, or they could just as easily determine that Finland isn’t relevant.”
Yep, there was this Exxon tanker that took an U-turn in Kruunuvuorenselkä when the Winter War broke out…
With our fighter plane fuel in it.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 9:37 am
#45 “has been debunked so many times. But please try again with those tails of woe.”
Denied certainly, but not debunked.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 9:39 am
“What will we all be saying in 50 years about Iraq?”
The Bush apologists are really desperate now! The present situation is such an obviously hopeless quagmire, that they want to defer any debate on the issue for five decades.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 9:44 am
I wonder if the USA still has Finnish cities as targets for its nuclear missiles. Hardly, but who knows.
Comment by Tomi — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 9:45 am
“I wonder why the article can’t be found in the Finnish language edition of Helsingin Sanomat. Or maybe I’m just too blind to see.”
Sunday, December 10, section D, page 6.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 9:50 am
Finnpundit following up on the canard in #60: “That wouldn’t be surprising. Any bilingual European can tell that the anti-American venom is usually toned down on the English-language versions of European publications, whatever they may be.”
How about a few examples to back up that sweeping generalisation?
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 9:54 am
@31,
there is nothing, repeat nothing isolationist in Finnpundit. The isolationists wanted to let the rest of the world look after itself. Every nation has the right to do that. Finnpudit hates the rest of the world and wants to do it as much damage as he can.
@52,
‘Kyllä täällä kaatuakin voidaan’, by Matti Turtola argues that the Finnish government deliberately sabotaged the attempt to cut the Murmansk line by e.g. holding back reinforcements. Local commanders like Turtola’s uncle Jussi were not informed of the reasons for this, and ended up killing themselves in a tragic and pointless attempt to do the impossible.
@54,
actually the Bomber Command came close to losing the war for the Brits, as they genuinely believed they could win the war by just dropping bombs on German cities and regarded anything else as a distraction. The Navy tried to spell it out: Britain is an island with no oil, all fuel has to be shipped in, if the Germans sink enough tankers the RAF won’t be able to fly. If we lose the war at sea, we lose the war, period. So how about some planes for anti-submarine operations? Never got into Butcher Harris’ thick head.
Comment by prince of dorkness — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 10:02 am
Well, I think that his (and his unfortunate ilk) combine the worst aspects of both America First and aggressive interventionism. The neo-conservatives wanted the US free of permanent alliances that could tie it down during her (brief as it seems) moment of supermacy. How stupid can you get? Anyway, I must say that winter used to provide the comic relief here (combining absolute ignorance with total absence of logical thought), Finnpundit is far nastier but somehow he seemed more clever, also he seemed to have grasped at least a few elementary facts of politics and history. This is quite under doubt now - I suppose it’s better not to take him seriously either.
Comment by mjr — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 10:30 am
Finnpundit wrote: “That wouldn’t be surprising. Any bilingual European can tell that the anti-American venom is usually toned down on the English-language versions of European publications, whatever they may be.”
Bullshit. This is not my pentalingual English-Polish-Spanish-French-Finnish experience. If true, this would be a cause célèbre in the media.
Your bigotry is disgusting.
Comment by Oregon — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 11:13 am
Maybe be I missed it here but I’ve read in a german history forum that the USA never declared war against Finland, but Britain did. If true certainly an astonishing fact.
Comment by Jens-Olaf — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 11:35 am
#71 It’s true. Exactly which part of that do you find so astonishing - the British delcaration of war, or the lack of one from the USA?
There were some Finnish-Americans who actually tried to persuade the US Government to issue a formal declaration of war against Finland - one reason being that it might have been helpful from Finland’s point of view to have an American moderating influence at the peace negotiating table.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 11:40 am
Unit you really are a “unit”. I would like to say on behalf of my French ancestors, you’re welcome. Now lick my boots as you owe us your life for our “unselfish” acts for you and your ancestors.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
“I wonder how this sits in light of the current Anti-Americanism that is present in Finland now”
I think that after 70+ responses we can all see that even historical acts of good will can be smeared by the rabid anti-American Finns.
Comment by Unit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
OK, thanks - sincerely - to the United States for giving Finland stuff that the Americans didn’t need any more, but which were quite useful for Finland.
Negative feelsings that Finns, as well as other Europeans (and apparently, a majority of Americans) have toward the current US administration are a separate matter.
Just because your grandparents’ generation did a nice thing doesn’t mean we have to kiss your collective ass forever.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
@mjr,
they have some of the rhetoric, but none of the actual aims or beliefs of isolationism. Just like winter is against big government but supports a US government that tries to run as much of the planet as it can occupy. Big government doesn’t get any bigger than that, but try telling him. Fake isolationism, fake minarchism, fake conservatism.
Comment by prince of dorkness — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
“Just because your grandparents’ generation did a nice thing doesn’t mean we have to kiss your collective ass forever.”
Where has anybody mentioned ass-kissing other than yourself. My original ponderance was how a HISTORICAL act would be viewed in todays anti-American environment.
Comment by Unit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
#74
I can say after 76 comments filled with idiotic babble made by you and other americans like winter and Finnpundit we can pretty much say that the americans are filled with hatred and stupidity (luckily not all americans are as self-righteous as you are).
Now when will you lick my boots you owe it to us Frenchies.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
#77
Maybe you should read your first comment here post #1
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Are there anti-American Finns here?
I didn’t notice any. In my experience, most Finns are very capable of discerning between those Americans who are sincere, intelligent and globally-minded……..from those who merely want to twist ancient WW2 rhetoric to advance their current-day pro-aggression agenda.
Make no mistake about it, we Finns (or at least I) stand solid with the 65% to 70% of Americans who seek peaceful solutions in the world. And we (or I) outright reject the increasingly irrelevant minority of Americans who attempts to coerce us into joining their sick atrocities.
America deserves better leadership, and we sincerely wish you Americans the best in getting it. Looking forward to a better future. And no more Monkey Face.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Maybe you should read your first comment here post #1
Comment by Anonymous
I have read my post number one, after all I did write it. Perhaps you have a problem in reading comprehension. I understand the diffuculty, as I find reading in Finnish quite hard as well.
“I can say after 76 comments filled with idiotic babble made by you and other americans like winter and Finnpundit we can pretty much say that the americans are filled with hatred and stupidity (luckily not all americans are as self-righteous as you are).
Now when will you lick my boots you owe it to us Frenchies. ”
You sir, are a source of idiotic babble. Funny how you hide behind the name Anonymous. You and your ilk always do. Perhaps AnonyMouse would be more fitting for you.
Comment by Unit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Hey, it’s just this one young American (plus Phil, I guess) who hasn’t learnt how to deal with different opinions. Growing up in a super-hyper power apperanly does that to you.
Comment by Tomi — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
“Funny how you hide behind the name Anonymous. You and your ilk always do.”
So am I right to assume that “Unit” is your real name, since you are so contemptuous of people hiding behind pseudonyms?
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
What I meant was that he sees anti-Americanism in places where it really doesn’t exist. What I didn’t mean is that all post here would have been PC … or non BS.
Comment by Tomi — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
“from those who merely want to twist ancient WW2 rhetoric to advance their current-day pro-aggression agenda.”
I disagree. Simply because one has a different viewpoint of a historical event does not mean that they are twisting ancient rhetoric. There are different faces and sides to historical events.
“Make no mistake about it, we Finns (or at least I) stand solid with the 65% to 70% of Americans who seek peaceful solutions in the world. And we (or I) outright reject the increasingly irrelevant minority of Americans who attempts to coerce us into joining their sick atrocities.”
At what point did you connect this topic with the War in Iraq? You are making blind connections from history to modern day, not I.
And also, when did we attempt to coerce Finland into joining our “Sick atrocities”?
Comment by Unit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
Anyway, we all still love you unit and your country!
Comment by Tomi — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
me71, I am German with some Estonian descent, I blame the Estonian goevernment to held secret talks in Moskva 39, that they gave up Estonia, secretly advised my grandfather an officer to leave the country in 1939 already. The public had no clue. Estonia paid a high price for not doing resisdence like the Finns, fighting from the beginning for independence. Then they had to fight on both sides Soviet and Nazi side, they had to do underground war against both, they got colloaboration with the Nazis and families send to Siberia ending in the Gulag. The Holocaust happened as well in Estonia, and the Estonian Swedes had to leave. They lost all of their parlamentarians, the statehood. Now Finland did not face this cause they did the right thing without time for big diplomacy. And the USA did not declare war against Finland. There must be more documents about why and who in America acted different than other allies in WWII. But without this documents it is hard to discuss here. There is no anti-american connotation in it.
Comment by Jens-Olaf — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
“So am I right to assume that “Unit†is your real name, since you are so contemptuous of people hiding behind pseudonyms?”
No, it is not my real name. However, on these types of comment boards you build a reputation as far as your politics and what type of beliefs you have by adapting a user name. Often times, those who post under the standard Anonymous name resort/stoop the the realms of name-calling and other personal attacks. This makes for less interesting debate in my opinion.
For example, I would never call you a Poopyhead to your face, but I might call you a Poopyhead anonymously.
Comment by Unit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
#85 “At what point did you connect this topic with the War in Iraq?”
The connection with Iraq was implicit in your first post, where you mentioned “the current Anti-Americanism that is present in Finland now”.
Iraq is the main factor in this, although there are plenty of other examples of contemptible behavior on the part of the United States that Finns and others have every right to be critical of - in spite of an act of mutually beneficial trade that happened 60 years ago.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
“The connection with Iraq was implicit in your first post, where you mentioned “the current Anti-Americanism that is present in Finland now—
You inferred my statement incorrectly. If you read my post at face value(No need to look to deep) I simply question how a Historical event would be observed in todays atmosphere, which is incidently, anti-American.(For Iraq,Bush ect- I make no judgement on it)
For example, if this article was printed on 9-12-2001 perhaps it would have gotten better reception as world opinion of the U.S was considerably different than it is now. Ymmärrätkö?
Comment by Unit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
“Hey, it’s just this one young American (plus Phil, I guess) who hasn’t learnt how to deal with different opinions. Growing up in a super-hyper power apperanly does that to you.”
How did you know that I am only 12?
Comment by Unit — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Jens-Olof, of course you’re sure that your grand parents were not among the age-old, hated German aristocracy. I mean, they were told to “return” to Germany by Hitler. Most did.
Comment by Tomi — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
Tomi, Estonian , an estonian officer not baltic German. Too complicated here to tell the details. If you don’t believe.
Here is a postcard when he first was an officer in the Russian army before joining th estonian army.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65817306@N00/59639055/in/set-1265357/
Comment by Jens-Olaf — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
#90 OK, if that’s the case, I stand corrected.
I just felt that the opening sentence - “On behalf of my Grandparents … you´re welcome Finland”, carried a tone reminiscent of the “company computer guy” sketches on Saturday Night Live.
The sketches involve a geeky computer expert who helps people in an office deal with computer problems does while heaping derision and contempt on the people he helps for not being able to do it themselves.
At the end of each sketch, before leaving the room, he always says “oh by the way, YOU’RE WELCOME”.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
“Now, you after 2003. Where the fuck you get your news?”
You know, I could explain the whole issue of Saddam killing his own people and gasing of the kurds and then taking his entire population hostage for years over the oil-for-fraud operation that was so popular in Europe as Saddam trucked out bodies ‘killed’ by sanctions. Then since the war all of the suicide attacks where it was a muslim, not an American, who was the one who went into large groups of Iraqis and then pressed a trigger blowing them all over the place. But instead, I think I will just use the first reply that came to mind when I read your disrespectful and uncalled-for comment.
I get my news from your mom.
Now, we can either discuss things like adults or we can all give in to whatever delusion is rotting your brain. Personally, I tend to ignore your comments for the crap that they are. So apologies to the others for my outburst.
Anyway Tim, take solice in knowing that once we are done killing in Iraq, we will shower those left behind with tons of surplus goods. At least we are doing something. What are you doing besides trading insults? How many holes have you punched in your walls. Does anyone take you seriously? You are thread poison. You should seen help.
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
Fred Fry wrote: At least we are doing something. What are you doing besides trading insults?
Considering that what you’ve done has been counterproductive, it’s not the best idea to bash people for not following suit. (”At least _I’m_ peeing in my pants daily. What are _you_ doing to soak your pants in urine? Answer me that, big guy.”)
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Hahaha! americans americans!
Where ever they go around this globe, they will tell everyone how good America is, and how bad others are.
They are just like their mormon bretherns, they sail the seven seas to spew their twisted propaganda.
Of course USA paid Finland, USA paid the soviets, USA paid the germans, heck USA paid everyone! USA won the World war single handedly aswell!
So IF YOU love freedom! you poor european specimen, HUG an american!
Comment by The Swede — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Lamb, Swede,
Other Governments have been acting in bad faith. But, not only do they get a free pass, but others stand up to defend them by hassling the US.
How about instead going off to the countries causing the problems and try and solve things. Did Chirac go and explain to Saddam “Hey, these idiots in America just want to know what you did with your WMD.” Then we all could have found out that he had them buried in his grandma’s backyard or that his dog ate them. But no, nobody bothered to go down that road. Instead they decided to fight the US at each step of the way.
Now, with the oil-for-food bribes still unwinding, it is pretty clear that government officials, including high UN Officials, were profitting from brigery. Once again, a free pass. Take this Opinion Journal article from today noting all the recent UN corruption. The only pressure to investigate and prosecute is coming from the US:
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
Unit yeah I am coward and you are a tad bit slow. By the way you’re welcome again on behalf of my ancestors.
I wonder how long will this current anti-France bigotry last that is present in the USA today.
Why can’t you just be forever grateful for our “unselfish” acts for you.
One serious guestion. How can you be anti-american bigot if you don’t agree with Bush and his idiotic policies? Are you an anti-Russian bigot for not supporting Putin? I just can’t understand this anti-american atmosphere thingy that you claim to be existing just because people here disagree with Bush.
Comment by AnonyMouse — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
To Fred fry brain
1. If my memory serves me correctly, the UN was in Iraq looking for the WMD’s for about 12 YEARS and didnt find shit.
2. And the Oil for food scam, US companies were also involved in it.
3. US peacekeeping missions have mismanaged $300 million, hmmm, the USA have mismanaged $300 BILLION in Iraq over phantom WMD’s
Comment by The Swede — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
correction, UN peacekeeping
Comment by The Swede — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Hmm, Fred, while you are at it, you could enlighten us about the creative book keeping of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority… Didn’t they hire 22 year old Heritage Foundation whiz kids to organize the rebuilding in the best traditions of the unregulated market…
Though of course, one wonders who this Western upmanship will benefit. Other than Beijing and Moscow. When the USA was serious about her leadership role (well basically, till Junior got elected) she actually did not pick pointless arguments or wanted to score silly rhetorical points - sometimes being a leader means that: substance counts more than rhetorics. It is very hard to see any real benefit to the USA with this extreme ideological screeching by the Republican right. Sure, Europe is somewhat different ideologically, but would you not really think that these differences are somewhat minor in this brutal world? Well, it seems to be some sort of a Republican past time to shoot oneself to foot…
Comment by mjr — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
Fred,
It seems to me that most Americans critizising UN tend to think “the UN is the others, it has nothing to do with us”. But if this idea is true, also every other country could claim the same. Especially small countries like Finland. “The UN is not us, it is the big countries like the US or Russia who are calling the shots”.
The UN is not a collection of foreign countries in opposition to the United States of America. It is a MUTUAL international organisation CREATED by the great statesman F.D. Roosevelt (who is currently spinning in his grave with serious RPM after seeing the Bush administration alienating allies left and right). I think it would help the whole international community if the US abandoned this attitude of attacking the UN from every possible angle and concentrated instead of reforming the organisation with constructive co-operation with the various member countries. Hell, it would even boost the US’s global stature and role as a truly accepted leader of the free world. To me it just seems that the American government just does not have the balls to take responsibility of the mess THEIR OWN international organization has gotten into.
But then again, this will never happen during the current neocon ascendancy. The American Right sees global political co-operation and any organisation attemping it as signs of an impending Apocalypse.
Comment by Drakon — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Fred Fry wrote: Did Chirac go and explain to Saddam “Hey, these idiots in America just want to know what you did with your WMD.†Then we all could have found out that he had them buried in his grandma’s backyard or that his dog ate them.
First of all, Jacques Chirac did not have that kind of power over Saddam Hussein. Second, Chirac was in favor of finding out Iraq’s WMD capabilities.
Third, the idiots in America didn’t want to find out what Iraq’s WMD capabilities were. They had already decided that Hussein did in fact possess WMD and had no interest in studying the question further. They forced the UN to pull out its weapons inspectors so that they could go ahead with their invasion and vilified anyone - e.g. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter - who suggested that maybe Iraq’s capabilities were not all that the US claimed them to be. Had they truly been interested in learning whether Iraq had WMD, they would have let the UN weapons inspections to run their course and they would have listened to what the weapons inspectors were telling them. That they instead rushed to invade suggests that they just wanted to depose Hussein and install a pro-US regime, never mind that Hussein wasn’t a threat to them.
Not to mention the many cases of UN peacekeeper rape that nobody is concerned about stopping.
That’s not true at all.
the simple fact that even though the US thought that helping Finland was like throwing money down a rathole, it still did it.
Is that a fact? The Helsingin Sanomat article - by Unto Hämäläinen, the guy who’s always worrying about Bush’s attitude toward Halonen - states that the trade “made sound financial sense” for the US. Does throwing money down a rat hole make sound financial sense?
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
mjr wrote: Fred, while you are at it, you could enlighten us about the creative book keeping of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority… Didn’t they hire 22 year old Heritage Foundation whiz kids to organize the rebuilding in the best traditions of the unregulated market…
It’s odd how American right-wingers natter on and on about the oil-for-food scandal, but never talk about the corruption in the Coalition Provisional Authority, even though the CPA corruption was much bigger in scale and arguably more serious in its consequences.
Another thing about which they keep quiet is the extensive American involvement in the oil-for-food scandal:
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
“The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions,” the report said. “On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
Talk about free passes…
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Just to clear the air, Any in the US with oil-for-food bribery guilt, should be sent to jail.
As for accounting problems with the CPA, that I would think is an issue for Iraq, although maybe even not them as most of the billions came from the US. Kind of hard to see how the US can be ‘profiting’ from Iraq. Saddam’s head is a very expensive thing indeed.
As for the UN inspectors. Come on. 11 years of Saddam jerking the UN around. All he needed to do was to verify that he did not have them any longer.
In the end his own senior people thought he had WMD.
Lets be real about this. He gave the US an excuse to invade. Chirac gave Saddam backing to act so boldly.
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Dec 14th, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
Fred Fry:
“Just to clear the air, Any in the US with oil-for-food bribery guilt, should be sent to jail.”
So U.S. citisens, making financial crimes worth thousands (millions) of dollars, they should be SENT TO JAIL. Unlike car-thieves doing “hundreds of dollars worth of destruction to your wife’s car in Helsinki”. They should be executed. This according to Freddy-boys razor-sharpe logic.
“Kind of hard to see how the US can be ‘profiting’ from Iraq.”
Kind of hard to see how certain companies, with whom the present government has very close ties, are NOT “profiting” from Iraq.
Freddy, why do you not demand the execution of Dick Cheney? Or do you simply rely on the hope that his hunting buddys are as dumb as he is? And save the rest of us of the trouble.
“As for the UN inspectors. Come on. 11 years of Saddam jerking the UN around. All he needed to do was to verify that he did not have them any longer.”
Any person that understands the basics of LOGIC, understands that your basics of logic are unsound.
It’s easy to verify that something exists. Say somebody tells me god exists. I say no fucking way, he doesn’t. All he has to do is get me an appointment with god so that I can see for myself.
Let’s turn it around. Somebody says god doesn’t exist. I say no fucking way, he does. How is my opponent to prove his statement. He can’t say he is not in place A right now. I can always counter-argue, “OK, so he’s maybe in place B.” etc. Ad Infinitum.
You can’t prove a negative (except in strictly axiomatic sciences). But I guess this is way too difficult for poor Fred.
“In the end his own senior people thought he had WMD.”
Soo. You have an effective propaganda machine over there in the U.S. What else is new?
“Lets be real about this. He gave the US an excuse to invade. Chirac gave Saddam backing to act so boldly.”
The excuse - if it existed - was NOT WMD. That much we can probably say at this point, with a relatively high degree of certainty (although the mother of all idiots - Rumsfeld - probably still claims that the WMD are either to the north, east, south or west of Bagdad). That was, however, the excuse the Washington Idiots offered the rest of the world at the time. The number of Iraqians dead at the hands of the Washington Idiots is astounding (and now I’m not only talking about the number killed after the latest invasion, but since the Kuwait crisis, after which the U.S./U.K. have constantly caused death to Iraqians). Now, not even claims of human right abuses, undemocracy, whatever, are believable, at least back here on earth. On the planet where G. “the dumber” Bush lives, I guess anything is possible.
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 12:34 am
Fred Fry wrote: As for the UN inspectors. Come on. 11 years of Saddam jerking the UN around.
Yet, somehow, the UN weapons inspectors did a better job of assessing Iraq’s WMD capabilities than the CIA. That’s what makes it so strange that Bush would jerk them out of Iraq at a time when Hussein was cooperating at an acceptable level.
In the end his own senior people thought he had WMD.
I must have missed this bit of news. Who were these senior people? How senior could they have been, considering that they didn’t even know what weapons their country had?
Chirac gave Saddam backing to act so boldly.
No, he didnt. All Chirac could do - indeed, all Chirac did - was to withold international sanction from the invasion. He couldn’t stop the US from attacking nor would anyone with a working brain believe that he could stop the invasion. He didn’t embolden Hussein one bit.
The other thing is that Hussein wasn’t acting boldly. The minute someone levied a credible threat of war against him, he rolled over and started cooperating with the weapons inspectors.
Thomas wrote: Now, not even claims of human right abuses, undemocracy, whatever, are believable, at least back here on earth.
You hardly have to rely on the word of the US government to arrive at the conclusion that Hussein was a brutal dictator who killed a lot of Iraqi civilians. In fact, he committed atrocities while still on the US side, for example gassing thousands of people in the village of Halabja with helicopters he got from the United States.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 1:50 am
Lamb:
“You hardly have to rely on the word of the US government to arrive at the conclusion that Hussein was a brutal dictator who killed a lot of Iraqi civilians.”
Sure, that was not my point. What I tried to say was that, given the thousands of people (since the Kuwait incident) (in-)directly killed by the US/UK, it’s rather difficult to tell who of these two parties i.e. the “US/UK-coalition” or Saddam Hussein is responsible for more civilian deaths from that time (Kuwait crisis) on. Thus, the human rights abuses argument - especially at hindsight - is invalidated. Are there any other arguments?
And if B&B have caused more deaths, shouldn’t they hang at the same time Saddam hangs? In the name of fairness. Although I oppose the death penalty.
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 2:45 am
Take this from the CIA’s own “Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD”
Nothing I can produce this will change any minds, and attempting to do so will just take time away from something more productive. Anyway, no matter this discussion it has been done.
The only relevant question is, do you want the US to win or fail in Iraq.
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 3:22 am
“Which is a good thing. Americans, take note. The Finns are, ultimately, your enemies.”
Huh.. and you don’t think we haven figured this out?
Come on we don’t have any PC in the USA for the EU. Otherwise the EU would just love the USA, and Sadam would be gassing more Kurds.
Ups, can’t say that. I mean only the USA can match Sadam in killing folks. Even if one has to call the morgue, ask a question of how many dead, and then just multiply by the number of morgues in the country to get what?????? oh 600,000 dead. Wow an accurate number, no less.
Anyone think that’s a good way to count?
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 4:31 am
#94 Kimmo OK, if that’s the case, I stand corrected.
No, your first observation in #89 was right on target. Without a doubt.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 7:06 am
Yes, the conduct of certain Finns here leaves room for improvement. Unless you say “sorry”- twice - you’ll be truly sorry. So, I’m waiting with my pals, Finnpundfit and winter … I’ve got my finger already on the button … still waiting.
Oops, it turned out that that I wasn’t a CIA fella after all but an instutionalized madman.
Comment by CIA — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 9:05 am
#110 “The only relevant question is, do you want the US to win or fail in Iraq.”
How is anything that anyone here “wants” to happen relevant? No amount of politically-mandated wishful thinking is going to change the basic fact that Bush has led the USA to failure and defeat.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 9:27 am
#112
Try reading #90 again. I explain myself clearly enough.
Comment by Unit — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
#112
“Winning” this “War” in the traditional sense is all but impossible now. The concentration needs to be on withdrawing in a manner that leaves Iraq in the best condition possible.
Comment by Unit — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
“How is anything that anyone here “wants†to happen relevant? No amount of politically-mandated wishful thinking is going to change the basic fact that Bush has led the USA to failure and defeat.”
Perhaps it was a rhetorical question. I don’t think that policy makers are regulary consulting FFT for guidance on any topic that is discussed here.
Comment by Unit — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
The concentration needs to be on withdrawing in a manner that leaves Iraq in the best condition possible.
In the real life the US government, never mind wether it’s Republican or Democratic, has to play its hand so that it can keep the oil card, the main reason why Iraq was attacked in the first place. Iraq’s “condition” has nothing to do with anything, unless it helps to secure the oil supply.
Here’s a suggestion: Give the Kurds full independence. Withdraw troops to the southern oil regions and try to set up a democracy there, then go home. Let Iran, Syria and Saudi-Arabia deal with Bagdad.
On the other hand, I’m not sure if Bush jr is reading Phil’s blog.
Comment by Tomi — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Lots of stupid anti-American bashing mixed with lots of stupid anti-Finland bashing. Oh Joy!
Comment by m — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
“Give the Kurds full independence.”
Impossible. Turks would invade.
Comment by m — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
““Give the Kurds full independence.â€Â
Impossible. Turks would invade. ”
After putting up with Saddam for as long as they did, a well armed Kurdish force would be a handful for the Turks to handle. There is a reason that the Kurdish north is the most stable region of Iraq. The ancient warrior/general Saladin was Kurdish, and his spirit lives on.
Comment by Unit — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Fred Fry wrote: Take this from the CIA’s own “Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMDâ€Â
The snippet you quoted doesn’t name a single senior person who believed that Iraq had WMD. It says right at the start, “Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD” and doesn’t really get any more specific than that. The only explicit statements regarding WMD it attributes to Saddam are those in which he said that Iraq had none.
One also wonders how many of the quoted statements were extracted through torture and should thus be doubted. Alas, the CIA doesn’t have a good track record in evaluating all matters Iraqi.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
“No amount of politically-mandated wishful thinking is going to change the basic fact that Bush has led the USA to failure and defeat.”
Huh… where. In lybia where they gave up Nukes?
In Lebanon where they voted for a peaceful government?
In Iraq, where 11 Million votes with purple fingers?
All of this with no support from the EU and against the wishes of the UN.
No wonder you hate the USA. We actually do something. Have you taken care of Darfur yet? We turned that killing of 1 million down. So did Kofi even bother to ask the EU for help there? I guess he already knew your answer.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 10:22 pm
Interestingly, no one seems to have discussed what *could* have happened, had America not funded post-war Europe, via the Marshal Plan and other sources. To begin, it might be worth mentioning that not everyone was pleased with America during the aftermath of WW2. In fact, there was a huge number of Communist sympathizers who would have much rather seen a red Europe than one draped in red, white and blue. One only needs to look at politicians, like Willy Brandt, who toed the line rather closely. Or Portugal’s near detour as late as the mid 70’s..
Many people simply didn’t feel they benefited from the ‘American plan.’ For example, although workers’ absolute wellbeing probably increased, their relative status in society suffered greatly in western Europe. Conversely, in eastern Europe, the auto mechanic was king—university-educated engineers and scientists actually earned far less! And had less respect! Imagine an entire society constructed according to such a hierarchy. Then imagine over half the planet followed that precept.
So when we conjecture about what post-war Europe would have looked like, perhaps we could envision some further wars or skirmishes…………. Maybe Russia would have rolled-over the entire continent even. But, in the big picture, without a doubt in my mind, Europe would have adopted a distinct leaning toward Moscow and its policies. Whether this would have evolved into complete subjugation by the Soviets or something more loosely coordinated is difficult to say.
After all, despite Russia’s superpower status, the rest of Europe outnumbered it by probably about two-fold. So which social and political influence would have been greater, Russia’s or the rest of Europe’s?
I think we can all be glad that it didn’t come to fruition, although there was nothing to stop it, other than the foresight of American leaders. And perhaps a receptive European population. In hindsight, I wouldn’t have wanted to grow-up in such a system. Oddly, at this point, compared to westerners, I know more people who actually grew-up in Communism. In fact, many of them were once Communist Party members. They will all tell you that, if you were raised in Communism, then you wouldn’t know the difference. You simply knew that you belonged to the ‘good guys.’ At least that’s what they were told. Should they have believed differently? Would I have believed differently?
One thing is for sure: Despite an inferior economic system, the combined strength of entire Europe and Russia, unified under a Soviet umbrella, could have wiped America clean off the map. At the very least, it would have reduced America’s international standing enormously. And consider that funding the arms race, which siphoned a large percentage of Soviet resources, would have been mostly spread over a more productive western Europe. America wouldn’t have had much of a chance to defend itself. So, if an American ever tells you how he “saved Europe.” Tell him he’s full of shit. He saved himself. With that said—again, in hindsight—I’m glad I was able to benefit from it.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
So, if an American ever tells you how he “saved Europe
I hope you actually understand the context of such a remark. First we only saved you from the Germans, then we gave you a foundation, that 50 years later, is working (Well you also give us good Hocky players as well).
And you are right, we did save europe for our own good. But we let each country go their own path to that destination, not one we forced on them. In the end europe chose the path, we just helped with some foundation work.
Sounds like Iraq to me.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
Winter :
“And you are right, we did save europe for our own good. But we let each country go their own path to that destination, not one we forced on them. In the end europe chose the path, we just helped with some foundation work.
Sounds like Iraq to me.”
So no FORCE has been used towards Iraq? Your ranting is embarrasing.
Get a life.
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
Sorry for late entrance.
USA helped Finland in early 20´s after our civil war and after WWII. Old people remember ‘American packets’ and are still grateful. Thank you America and presidents Harding and FDR!
I still feel free to criticize foreign policy of two later Texan presidents LBJ and G.W.Bush.
Comment by bu jormanen — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
First we only saved you from the Germans…….,
Interestingly, there were lots of Nazis and Nazi sympathizers, during that period in Europe. Even Germany’s enemy, France, was filled with them. The Baltics, Balkans, other parts of eastern Europe, Austria, Sweden….. They all had substantial Nazi movements and sympathizers. So, I guess their entire populations weren’t so happy about America’s interference.
But to keep things in context, the only reason that I know of, for why America fought against Hitler, is because he declared war on the US, and it was feared he’d take-over the world. Someone else might know better reasons. In any case, there was no humanitarian reason behind America sending troops to Europe at the last minute.
One might even conjecture, that if Stalin had declared war on America, then the US might have sided with Hitler instead.
But……….. Did America inadvertently save Finland from Hitler? Good question. Hitler helped us defend against Stalin. America sided with Stalin. We might have kept our eastern border in-tact, had Hitler maintained his strength a bit longer. Hard to say.
…….then we gave you a foundation, that 50 years later……
Yes, it was a fortunate alignment of interests. I suppose we were lucky pawns for America………..but pawns nonetheless.
Sounds like Iraq to me.
Depends on how much you’ve smoked
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 11:50 pm
If the Americans did not give the aid to Finland in the immediate post war period to help the Finnish war reparation requirements, it is very possible that Finland might have lost even more independence to the Soviet Union than it had, perhaps even completely.
As a result, all the above crap, both the Finn-bashing and American-bashing, would not be written here.
Because, for whatever reason, this blog would not exist, and good old Phil would still be in Baltimore, and wouldn’t dream of visiting a post-Soviet or a former super-Finlandizated Finland unless he wanted to work for a cable manufacturer/toilet paper/tyre company called Nokia.
Comment by Peter — Fri, Dec 15th, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
By the way, I don’t think we in Finland need to view Germany as being the ‘evil of the world.’ If I remember correctly, they sent massive food shipments which kept us from starving during the war. For the most part, aside from the Lapland incident, Germans are OK in my book.
But, sure, we can say that Hitler was evil, but he was no more evil than America’s ally, Stalin. In fact, Stalin was much worse.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 12:04 am
Phil would still be in Baltimore, and wouldn’t dream of visiting a post-Soviet or a former super-Finlandizated Finland………..
There were many western Europeans who would have considered it a godsend to be drawn into the Soviet sphere—industrial lethargy and shortage of house paint, notwithstanding.
Insofar as Phil coming to post-Soviet Finland……. A 23% flat tax like Estonia’s might have piqued his interest. Mine too
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 12:42 am
Kristian in 130 above:
Wasn’t Finland both Hitler’s ally for 3 years, and Stalin’s (and America’s) ally for remainder of the war?
I could see how you, as a Finn, could have the expertise to pronounce which of the two dictators was the most evil since you worked with both of them.
I also appreciated the enlightened remark that the “Germans are OK in my book.”
To be honest, I am facetious in my criticism of your remarks. I don’t believe for a moment that the overwhelming vast majority of Finns would say such dribble.
I think you were trying to say that the Finnish experience as an ally or a co-belligent with Nazi Germany was positive. They supplied food and weapons.
Why couldn’t more Finns in this thread say the same thing about the American support during the post war period that “America was OK in my book”.
Comment by Peter — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 1:01 am
Peter:
If America supported Finland materially after the WWII - without any strings attached, and actually “paying a PRICE” not simply dumping garbage - then sure THANK YOU.
But that was then, this is now.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 1:12 am
#123 (Winter pontificating on the international achievements of the Bush Administration): “In lybia where they gave up Nukes?”
If you are referring to Libya, when did that country ever have nuclear weapons?
“In Lebanon where they voted for a peaceful government?”
And things have gone SOOO smoothly there since then!
“In Iraq, where 11 Million votes with purple fingers?”
See above.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 1:17 am
You know Thomas, I’ve never once heard or read about an American who said,
“Thanks Europe, for being our front line during the Cold War. Hell, without you, *we’d* have been the front line.”
Instead, we constantly get prodded to give our thanks to those who used us as potential fodder for Soviet cannons. But we say Thank You anyway. I suppose it’s the polite thing to do.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 1:55 am
“front line during the Cold War”
sorry boys, but the old Soviet Union had forces all over the world. Your little cold spot, was just the tail of the dog. Maby even the fly on the nose of the dog.
Your role was that small.
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 1:59 am
“pontificating on the international achievements of the Bush Administration”
and so where are yours?
Are you claiming the current civil war in the new country of Palestinian?
Palestinian is your creation. Now get to work fixing it.
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 2:02 am
winter—I was referring to Europe, in general. The most strategic place regarding America’s Cold War interests. Finland is part of Europe.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 2:02 am
Thomas in 133
Apparently this “garbage” preserved your independence.
Furthermore, do you know the “price” Finland paid for the material? I don’t. But, you apparently have already determined that some fair market value renumeration was made by Finland to buy the goods.
Actually, I doubt it was very much of a payment, if anything at all or just a token amount. Finland was broke after World War Two, and it was a miracle that Finlad were able to manage its Soviet reparations schedule without the hindrance of anything other than a minor token payment for these supplies.
Finally, despite the importance of this aid to Finland’s independence, the knowledge of it has not been widely divulged apparently for 50 years.
However, during these 50 years, how many times have Finns reminded the world that they were the only country to repay its earlier American aid from the 1920’s.
And, forgetting to mention, that a good portion of this Finnish repayment of the 1920’s aid was once again recycled to Finland’s benefit, I believe, in providing Fulbright and other scholarships to Finnish students in the post war era. See:
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/libraries_and_culture/v036/36.1makinen.html
Comment by Peter — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 2:02 am
“The most strategic place regarding America’s Cold War interests.”
Huh. When you are gearing up for a global conflict, Europe was just one small place. We had fleets in Japan, Hawaii, Pacific, and then in the European area.
You were just one small bump in the road.
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 2:46 am
Kristian in 138:
I cringe in supporting Winter, even as a “co-belligerent”.
But, for many years, when Finns traveled from Finland to say, Germany, they would indicate that they were “traveling to Europe”, since they themselves considered that they lived in a peripheral non-important non-strategic part of Europe.
Finland does however have a strategic importance in being close to Leningrad/St. Petersburg, but a largely unimportant position vis a vis the potentially crucial battlefields of Cold War Europe.
Finland, therefore, kept a low profile for those many Cold War decades and clearly tried not to be considered to be on the “front lines”. It did so by appearing to be as much as a non-threat as possible to the Soviet Union.
So, Finland was not so much one of the watch dogs of Western Europe (or potential cannon-fodder) instead you were more like the Soviet Union’s poodle, again, however fully against your will and inclination.
The Soviet leadership probably during those years determined that attacking Finland would only give them a temporary annoying sting from a bumblebee who would otherwise probably provide honey in the form of manufactured goods which would continue to support the Soviet economy, and help it to maintain it hegemony over Eastern Europe.
Incidentally, as a small country next to the Soviet Union, it is hard to criticise Finland’s action. I seriously don’t think Finland had much choice. However, to say that Western Europe should thank Finland for being on the front lines of the Cold War, I really don’t know if I support that assessment.
Comment by Peter — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 2:48 am
Peter—everything you mention has already been covered in this thread. Everything. Please read from the beginning and you will find all kinds of “crap” and “dribble” to address your posts. So please don’t perceive it as rudeness if I don’t answer your questions again.
By the way, neither I nor most Finns are anti-American. We’re still more pro-American than any other country in Europe and perhaps the world. I can even say that I like most Americans I meet.
And realize that Finland’s pro-Americanism is despite the destabilizing mess your current administration has made of the world. Fortunately for you, you are able to isolate yourselves from it. Unfortunately for us, we are not.
If you want to see why this thread is less than receptive to your demands for a Thank You, then just read post #1. It represents a common tone among a small- and decreasing- minority of Americans. And in most cases, these are the same Americans who’d like to blame us for not supporting their current administration’s debacle. Conincidence?
In any case, perhaps we shouldn’t have let post #1 set the tone for this thread. But, without a doubt, another poster would have eventually written something similar. So, maybe it was unavoidable.
Makes for a fun blog though. Thanks Phil
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 2:50 am
However, to say that Western Europe should thank Finland for being on the front lines of the Cold War, I really don’t know if I support that assessment.
Ok, that’s something we haven’t covered……
Again, my comment was meant in a more pan-western European sense. Not specifically about Finland. However, Finland does sit strategically along Russia’s only two westward ports, Murmansk and St. Petersburg. Unless you include the Black Sea.
If you don’t think it was strategic, that’s fine. But, I’m pretty sure you’d find that most American administrations would’ve disagreed with you.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 3:10 am
“And in most cases, these are the same Americans who’d like to blame us for not supporting their current administration’s debacle.”
Look. You missed the point again. Of course we blame you for non support, because you do nothing but mouth off.
Now if you actually did something for this world, other than the human shield work, you have from Iran, then you would have a point.
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 3:28 am
Ok, thanks for the explanation winter. Any good plans for the weekend?
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 3:39 am
“plans for the weekend?”
sure, the Celtic Fest, with a full round of Scottish Whisky to be had.
Had to put the run away, as go with the flow here.
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 16th, 2006 @ 3:44 am