Then again, we wouldn't have massive territorial adjustments. Japan wouldn't get the Kuril Islands, nor Finland Karelia.
About the territorial changes in Europe - we have to remember that Finland did not exactly want Karelia, outside a nationalist, revanchist fringe and many among the wartime evacuees. Annexing the bigger part of the Karelian ASSR was projected to be a very costly affair even when it happened - and reality has shown the problems and costs attached to the move to be even bigger than predicted, in retrospect. The thing is, though, that some leading people at the time, President Holkeri among them, saw that Finland truly needed Karelia as a buffer against the instability of the post-Soviet areas - better a border at the Ladoga to control the flow of Russian refugees and to keep the various Soviet/Russian military elements at an arms' length than to have to worry about a chaotic "Karelian Republic" next to the post-1944 border.
Now, Finland has a large Russian minority, according to some estimates bigger than the Swedish-speaking group in Finland, the Karelian areas keep eating up government funds in different ways and the Finnish military is in constant state of semi-war. Even I had to do the "emergency" 18 months in the military as a conscript back in 1999 and most Finnish reservists have two yearly bouts of refresher training now. But still I think things might well be a lot worse, all things considered. Just like in WWII, I think Finland has been very lucky through the Soviet collapse and all the chaos it brought with it.
Last edited: