Soviets sell territory to Japan in the 90s

There was a floated idea in the 90s for the Soviets to sell Kaliningrad back to the Germans. The Germans weren't big on the idea of regaining lands full of Russians that would cost billions to modernize when they were about to absorb their relatively poor eastern brethren back into the nation.

What if the Soviets had approached Japan about something similar? Russia and Japan have a territorial dispute over the southernmost Kuril islands and I would think Japan would be happy to regain those territories. For even more money, perhaps a reversion to the pre-1945 boundary on Sakhalin could be in order.
 
There was a floated idea in the 90s for the Soviets to sell Kaliningrad back to the Germans. The Germans weren't big on the idea of regaining lands full of Russians that would cost billions to modernize when they were about to absorb their relatively poor eastern brethren back into the nation.

What if the Soviets had approached Japan about something similar? Russia and Japan have a territorial dispute over the southernmost Kuril islands and I would think Japan would be happy to regain those territories. For even more money, perhaps a reversion to the pre-1945 boundary on Sakhalin could be in order.
I swear I remember the Russians offering the Kurils and Russian citizens did NOT approve causing the deal to fall through. Even now, Russians aren't interested.
 
I was thinking of that idea at end of the cold war, USSR knows that they need money fast or they will collapse, they "sell" the Kuril Islands to Japan. They word it as if it Japanese war reparations and return of land.
 
There was a floated idea in the 90s for the Soviets to sell Kaliningrad back to the Germans. The Germans weren't big on the idea of regaining lands full of Russians that would cost billions to modernize when they were about to absorb their relatively poor eastern brethren back into the nation.
There is no reliable evidence of this happening.

What if the Soviets had approached Japan about something similar? Russia and Japan have a territorial dispute over the southernmost Kuril islands and I would think Japan would be happy to regain those territories. For even more money, perhaps a reversion to the pre-1945 boundary on Sakhalin could be in order.
Very unlikely. Even Yeltsin had enough sense not to give up Russian populated territory.

I swear I remember the Russians offering the Kurils and Russian citizens did NOT approve causing the deal to fall through. Even now, Russians aren't interested.
Opposition to giving up the islands is overwhelming. Especially on the Kuril islands. No normal country can give up populated territory without the consent of the inhabitants.
 
Andrej Vladimirovič Fëdorov has claimed in an interview that Yeltsin had a team that calculated a draft plan for selling Finland the lands from the Karelian Isthmus for 15 billion USD($) in the same time when the independence of Baltic States would be reaffirmed.

The Finnish authorities reportedly had their own secret committee, established by President Koivisto, that came to the conclusion that a reconstrucion of Isthmus and other parts of former Finnish Karelia would cost over 64 billion Finnish markkas (c. 15 b. 730 million euros in 2019 course).

The relevancy of the Karelian Question had pretty much faded from postwar Finnish politics by early 1990s, but it is not totally implausible that a different president than Koivisto might have sought to officially negotiate with the issue. IMO recent events in Ukraine have shown that Koivisto was wise to leave the matter be back then, but it is an interesting what-if regardless.
 
Andrej Vladimirovič Fëdorov has claimed in an interview that Yeltsin had a team that calculated a draft plan for selling Finland the lands from the Karelian Isthmus for 15 billion USD($) in the same time when the independence of Baltic States would be reaffirmed.

The Finnish authorities reportedly had their own secret committee, established by President Koivisto, that came to the conclusion that a reconstrucion of Isthmus and other parts of former Finnish Karelia would cost over 64 billion Finnish markkas (c. 15 b. 730 million euros in 2019 course).

The relevancy of the Karelian Question had pretty much faded from postwar Finnish politics by early 1990s, but it is not totally implausible that a different president than Koivisto might have sought to officially negotiate with the issue. IMO recent events in Ukraine have shown that Koivisto was wise to leave the matter be back then, but it is an interesting what-if regardless.

Let's also remember that when the USSR fell, the Soviet debt to Finland was something to the tune of 3,5 billion marks. Some other Finnish leadership might have plausibly tried to gain Viipuri and surroundings in return for writing off this debt, plus some additional payments and considerations from the Finnish side.

In general, though, I think most realistic Finnish presidents and cabinets would have been too careful at the time to jump to even a bona fide Russian proposal for land in Karelia. In the light of the Finnish postwar political history and tradition it would have been a very bold move in the early 1990s to actually try to "take a bite of Russia". Also, like IOTL, most politicians at the time would have balked at the projected cost of reconstruction/redevelopment of such Karelian lands that the Russians would have been ready to part with, also considering the state of the Finnish finances at the time.
 
Kekkonen had a real fixation to the subject, and his plans for "leasing" Viipuri and areas west from Saimaa Channel were perhaps the last, most credible attempt for border revisions from the Finnish side.

Un-demented 92 -year old UKK negotiating with Yeltsin?
 
Kekkonen had a real fixation to the subject, and his plans for "leasing" Viipuri and areas west from Saimaa Channel were perhaps the last, most credible attempt for border revisions from the Finnish side.

Un-demented 92 -year old UKK negotiating with Yeltsin?

Perhaps we could butterfly Ahti Karjalainen and have Kekkonen raise someone actually competent and suitable as a "heir apparent", so successfully that UKK himself considers the Republic to be in safe hands, so that he can retire sometime in the late 70s? It is a tall order, of course. It would have to be someone with nearly the same political acumen, opportunism and abilities as Urkki himself to stay in power (so Väyrynen is probably out of the question). This "Kekkonen, Vol. 2" could then be a likely candidate to continue a Kekkonian line about Karelia in (and after) 1991.
 
Perhaps we could butterfly Ahti Karjalainen and have Kekkonen raise someone actually competent and suitable as a "heir apparent", so successfully that UKK himself considers the Republic to be in safe hands, so that he can retire sometime in the late 70s? It is a tall order, of course. It would have to be someone with nearly the same political acumen, opportunism and abilities as Urkki himself to stay in power (so Väyrynen is probably out of the question). This "Kekkonen, Vol. 2" could then be a likely candidate to continue a Kekkonian line about Karelia in (and after) 1991.
Hmm, wasn't Karjalainen actually a functional politician before Kekkonen sidelined him after the 1971 election gaffe? The problem is finding a politician who is acceptable to Kekkonen, has proper KGB credentials and a will of his own to challenge the status quo when the opportunity presents itself.
 
Hmm, wasn't Karjalainen actually a functional politician before Kekkonen sidelined him after the 1971 election gaffe? The problem is finding a politician who is acceptable to Kekkonen, has proper KGB credentials and a will of his own to challenge the status quo when the opportunity presents itself.

I think Karjalainen would have always been weighed down by his difficulties in handling high political pressure, which very likely triggered (and worsened) his drinking problem. Finding a suitable person to be Kekkonen's successor would be a hard task. Maybe we could look at people who went into high-profile business careers IOTL (thus proving that they could operate effectively in demanding conditions) and posit that they became an Agrarian/Centre politician (and Kekkonen's apprentice) instead? Maybe someone like, say, Gunnar Korhonen, born in 1918, Finnair's longtime CEO until 1987, and also a minister in several cabinets.
 
Maybe we could look at people who went into high-profile business careers IOTL (thus proving that they could operate effectively in demanding conditions) and posit that they became an Agrarian/Centre politician (and Kekkonen's apprentice) instead? Maybe someone like, say, Gunnar Korhonen, born in 1918, Finnair's longtime CEO until 1987, and also a minister in several cabinets.
Kauko Rastas?
 
He checks most of the boxes needed, though I am not sure he had the party-political ambitions required for the job, and support among the political elite. But then with a POD early enough...
Kekkonen could both raise and strike down political careers. As for Rastas, an easy way to politically activate him early enough would be worse treatment for his family during early evakko years.
 
Andrej Vladimirovič Fëdorov has claimed in an interview that Yeltsin had a team that calculated a draft plan for selling Finland the lands from the Karelian Isthmus for 15 billion USD($) in the same time when the independence of Baltic States would be reaffirmed.
Really? What's the source for this? I couldn't find any such claim.
But even if true, there's a huge gap between drafting a plan and actually selling land without the consent of the people living there, especially considering Yeltsin's claims of being a fighter for democracy. Not to mention the precedent of giving up territory and revising the post-WWII treaties.

In general, though, I think most realistic Finnish presidents and cabinets would have been too careful at the time to jump to even a bona fide Russian proposal for land in Karelia. In the light of the Finnish postwar political history and tradition it would have been a very bold move in the early 1990s to actually try to "take a bite of Russia". Also, like IOTL, most politicians at the time would have balked at the projected cost of reconstruction/redevelopment of such Karelian lands that the Russians would have been ready to part with, also considering the state of the Finnish finances at the time.
There's also the question of the population, which would have made Russians the largest minority in Finland. I doubt that any realistic Finnish leader would have been willing (or considered it possible) to try to integrate them.
 
Andrej Vladimirovič Fëdorov has claimed in an interview that Yeltsin had a team that calculated a draft plan for selling Finland the lands from the Karelian Isthmus for 15 billion USD($) in the same time when the independence of Baltic States would be reaffirmed.

The Finnish authorities reportedly had their own secret committee, established by President Koivisto, that came to the conclusion that a reconstrucion of Isthmus and other parts of former Finnish Karelia would cost over 64 billion Finnish markkas (c. 15 b. 730 million euros in 2019 course).

I still cannot understand how Russia can be that powerfull and that poor at the same time.
 
I like how a thread about “WI USSR sells territory to Japan?” became a discussion on “WI USSR sells territory to Finland?” for some reason.
The relevancy of the Karelian Question had pretty much faded from postwar Finnish politics by early 1990s, but it is not totally implausible that a different president than Koivisto might have sought to officially negotiate with the issue. IMO recent events in Ukraine have shown that Koivisto was wise to leave the matter be back then,
You should look at the Baltic states which don’t suffer from secession movements despite having ethnic Russian & Russian-speaking populations that are treated as 2nd-class citizens and face objective discrimination. It is no coincidence that the pay & standard of living is better in the Baltic states vs Russia and is objectively lower when comparing Ukraine vs Russia.

This article sums up the economic roots of the Ukrainian Civil War.
There's also the question of the population, which would have made Russians the largest minority in Finland. I doubt that any realistic Finnish leader would have been willing (or considered it possible) to try to integrate them.
FYI, OTL Russians are the 2nd largest* minority in Finland.

* - at 0.1% of the country’s population.
 
Last edited:
Really? What's the source for this? I couldn't find any such claim.
But even if true, there's a huge gap between drafting a plan and actually selling land without the consent of the people living there, especially considering Yeltsin's claims of being a fighter for democracy. Not to mention the precedent of giving up territory and revising the post-WWII treaties.

If they did set up a referendum in the area at the time (c. 1993 or 1993), it would not have been at all sure that the majority would have voted for staying as a part of Russia. Karelia is not a terribly affluent area even in the Russian context, and many people might have felt that becoming a part of Finland would be the better choice in economic terms.


There's also the question of the population, which would have made Russians the largest minority in Finland. I doubt that any realistic Finnish leader would have been willing (or considered it possible) to try to integrate them.

The number of Russians depends on what area we are talking about. Finland gaining just Viipuri/Vyborg and immediate surroundings would still only make Russians the second-largest minority. It would be a big minority to be certain, and naturally this matter would be something the Finnish leadership would have to take into very serious consideration.

In actual fact, though, like I have said above, it would be unlikely for a realistic Finnish leadership to push for annexing a part of Russia. Post-1944 Finland is very careful about these things, certainly a lot more careful than Putin's Russia is about annexing parts of neighbouring states.
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
What if the Soviets had approached Japan about something similar? Russia and Japan have a territorial dispute over the southernmost Kuril islands and I would think Japan would be happy to regain those territories. For even more money, perhaps a reversion to the pre-1945 boundary on Sakhalin could be in order.
The guess is incorrect. Japanese government would be extremely unhappy to regain Kuril Islands (or southern Kuril as officially claimed by Japan).
The root problem is simply lack of trust. Absolute majority of Japanese politicians view Soviet Union and its Russian successor state as untrustworthy, therefore territorial dispute is just a convenient excuse to avoid signing a permanent peace treaty. Any Soviet/Russian offer resolving Kuril Islands dispute will be therefore rejected.
Also, US will also place a heavy pressure on Japan to prevent the end of Kuril Islands dispute.
 
There's also the question of the population, which would have made Russians the largest minority in Finland. I doubt that any realistic Finnish leader would have been willing (or considered it possible) to try to integrate them.
Well, there's already an Orthodox Church - even with its adoption of the Gregorian calendar, for some reason - and integrating more Russians can't be any more or less difficult than with the Swedish-speaking Finns and the Sámi peoples, all of which are part and parcel of Finnish society today. So it could be possible to have Russian-speaking Finns alongside Karelian speakers (which leaves some possibilities open as to linguistic development) even considering Finland's state at the time.
 
Top