As the site linked in this thread mentions, in World War 2, Finland was a democratic nation and in war with UK, another democratic nation. UK declared war against Finland when Finns refused to withdraw from their conquests in East Karelia, IIRC. UK bombed Finland a few times.
So the answer is, not exactly, but its close enough that we probably don’t have to worry about France and Finland starting WW3 anytime soon.
Hadn’t Finland already lost Karelia in the Winter War, back in early 1940? And I believe the Western Powers provided Finland with aid in that conflict, rather than bombing Finland.
The Finnish case, unless I’m forgetting something, was an extremely special case. Namely, the Finns sided with the Axis Powers because the alternative was to be run over by the Soviets. And given the Finns’ experience with the USSR in the Winter War (1939-40) and the ensuing Continuation War, the choice was an unfortunate yet necessary one. If England did in fact declare war on Finland, I would guess it was only a technicality to allow the Brits to bomb German installations in Finland. Perhaps it was the Germans who had made incursions into Russia?
Upon being driven out at the conclusion of the war, the Germans engaged in scorched earth tactics up north – not much of an ally. But by default, because Finland sided with the Axis and allowed Nazi troops on its soil, it was fated to be at loggerheads with Allied powers.
(All this info comes from reading The Winter War a few years ago, so I hope I’m remembering things correctly)
The problem with this platitude, which I have heard before, is that there are no quantifiers. Granted, there doesn’t seem to have been too many Western NATO nations shooting it out, but if you stretch history out enough, as seen above, you can make an argument that there have been democracys at war.
I was also very surprised to read that the UK had bombed Finland. I was aware that the UK had declared war (and I believe the US did not), but I thought the UK had been considering sending aid to the Finns (but were unable to).
The phrase “when Finns refused to withdraw from their conquests in East Karelia” is very misleading and quite surprising coming from a Finn.
One of the reasons Finland was Germany’s co-belligerent in WW2 was desire of taking back not only lost territories of Winter War, but also (roughly) the territory between Finland and Archangelsk, the East Karelia. While the fact that USSR had bullied us greatly in time between Winter War and Continuation War (not to forget that casus belli Finland had for declaring war to Soviet Union was Soviet bombers attacking Helsinki), and the fact that Germany was the only nation willing to provide supplies, and wish to take areas taken by Soviet Union all played their part, there were also those who wished to build a Greater Finland. One only needs to recall Marshall Mannerheim’s famous words about not sheathing his sword until Karelia was free.
In any case, sorry for not making it clear that I was talking about Continuation War, ie. 1941-1944, rather than Winter War. I wouldn’t really count Winter War as part of the Second World War - while there were links to it, it was a war between two nations that, at the moment, weren’t on either side.
UK’s participation in campaign against Finland really was very minimal. However, I’m rather sure that there were one or two bombing runs made by British against Finland.
During Continuation War, the areas in East Karelia Finland occupied definitely could be counted as conquests. Had German won, they’d have became parts of Finland.
Well, in WWII, Britian bombed San Marino, which was a democratic state (with a fascist majority party, though).
I can’t believe noone queried the Master on this one!
Depends upon who you ask.
Well, that page was linked to from my link, if you’d bothered to scroll to the end…
Thanks, doc. I’m sure Cece would be proud.
actually depends on who wins.
The Finland question prompted me to take another look at Marshal Gustav Mannerheim, an amazing guy who found himself allied to and opposed to just about every major military power of the first half of the Twentieth Century.
I remembered that he was once Regent of Finland. However, it turns out that was in late 1918, long before the Second World War. In WWII, Mannerheim, as President appointed by the Senate, tip-toed Finland’s way out of the fighting in 1944–a truly amazing trick.
Mannerheim was a heck of a guy, who saw it all as a warrior and who ought to be named among the great democratic leaders of all time. I know that this answers nothing, but I thought he might be worth mentioning.
I’ll trump you picayune trivia: Mannerheim always wore sealskin pants, which he had to shimmy in and out of since they were so form-fitting. He gets bonus points in my book for being able to pull off that look; I mean, seriously, can imagine FDR or DeGaulle sashaying around the town square wearing that?
I believe I’ve read there’s going to be internationally distributed movie production about life of Mannerheim coming out in near future. They apparently have got Jude Law to play Mannerheim. (No, seriously.)
Indeed.
Just a slight nitpick. I think the preferred form of his name is Carl Gustav (or Gustaf) Mannerheim.
Thank you for the correction, Floater.
As Cecil mentioned at the end of his column, a good predictor of warring is how poor the country is. A recent bellwether of countries willing to war against each other that has been suggested, is that if the two countries both have golf, they will not go to war.
What about the first Balkan Wars? (1912-1913)? Serbia had a fairly democratic government under the Karadjordjevic dynasty. On the other hand, the ones they were fighting, I’m not so sure about…
Well, that page was linked to from my link, if you’d bothered to scroll to the end…
Thanks, doc. I’m sure Cece would be proud.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I checked your link but not all the links in your link. Besides, it appeared after the appendix. I always stop at the appendix, 'cuz I’m used to taking them out and then closing things up.