Soviets sell territory to Japan in the 90s

There is no reliable evidence of this happening.


Very unlikely. Even Yeltsin had enough sense not to give up Russian populated territory.


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.
Consent of the residents is not enough. Territory is the ultimate drug of ultimate deugs to nationalists and their fixation on territory is stronger now than ever. Whereas in the past, major disputes were usually over major territories, now countries get deadlocked for decades over rocks and sandbars and are more than willing to sacrifice any amount trade, investment, travel and national security if over a tiny detail on a map. Even if the inhabitants of some place did agree with their territory's transfer, the rest of the country would still go completely berzerk over the idea. Independence is sometimes granted if a country no longer wishes to suppress a secession movement. But a transfer of territory to another, existing state is not acceptable in this day and age and is thus extremely rare. I know of only two cases where it has happened willingly in the last 30 years. One is Russia's cession of some small islands in the Ussuri River to China (for once, that kind of bullshit was solved reasonably). The other is the transfer of Tiran by Egypt to Saudi Arabia but that wasn't done democratically and the Egyptian people got extremely angry over this so I'm not sure if I'd call it a willing transfer.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Assuming Japanese do get all kuril islands
How does it impact Soviet pacific naval strategy? And safety of their fleet
 

trurle

Banned
Assuming Japanese do get all kuril islands
How does it impact Soviet pacific naval strategy? And safety of their fleet
Less Pacific fleet development, Soviet strategy in Pacific shifts even harder to "sea denial" with the inland missile bases and airbases. More development of Murmansk bases in Barents Sea.
 
Thanks. It is surprising that this was apparently not mentioned in Russian media, considering how unpopular Yeltsin was.

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.
A referendum is of course a different matter. From the way this plan of Yeltsin was described, I assumed that a referendum was not considered.
And while Finland certainly would be attractive to the inhabitants of Karelia in the 1990s, higher standards of living do not always mean that they would want to join another country. See above the example of the Kuril islands, where despite the much higher Japanese living standards, the population of the islands is overwhelmingly opposed to joining Japan. An important factor is whether the inhabitants think they would be treated well in the new country and the Kuril islanders obviously have good reasons to think otherwise. So it depends on how willing Finland is to welcome the Russians in their country.

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.
The population of the former Finnish territories (and I didn't check Sala and Petsamo) in 1989 was about 380 thousands. Just the Karelian isthmus was about 275 thousands. The area around Vyborg might be around 100 thousand. Though one would think that any Finnish leaders willing to reopen the border question would want more than just Viipuri.
As for how realistic such a scenario is, according to the article linked to by Karelian (and provided Google Translate is any good with Finnish) claimed that that the Russian group was in contact with the Finnish president, so it wasn't entirely hypothetical even in OTL. Provided that a Russian government actually did offer Karelia back (in my opinion, a more difficult prospect than Finland accepting Karelia) and the local population agreed, wouldn't it be at least politically difficult for any Finnish leadership to refuse the offer?
 
The population of the former Finnish territories (and I didn't check Sala and Petsamo) in 1989 was about 380 thousands. Just the Karelian isthmus was about 275 thousands. The area around Vyborg might be around 100 thousand. Though one would think that any Finnish leaders willing to reopen the border question would want more than just Viipuri.

As for how realistic such a scenario is, according to the article linked to by Karelian (and provided Google Translate is any good with Finnish) claimed that that the Russian group was in contact with the Finnish president, so it wasn't entirely hypothetical. Provided that a Russian government actually did offer Karelia back (in my opinion, a more difficult prospect than Finland accepting Karelia) and the local population agreed, wouldn't it be at least politically difficult for any Finnish leadership to refuse the offer?

Both Russia offering Finland all (or even most) of the areas lost in 1940 & 1944 and Finland going for such an offer would be, IMO, highly unlikely. I think Vyborg/Viipuri and surroundings would be the most realistic deal, if there was a deal to be had at all.

Looking at the OTL discussion about getting back Karelian areas in the early 90s, I'd say that there would have been opposition to such a plan as well, or at least a lot of hesitation because of the expected (and manifold) costs of it all. Regaining the lost areas has been a fringe issue in Finland for decades, no serious party has openly supported it since the 40s. It would therefore not be to be expected that the Finnish political establishment would be purely positive about the plan. Apart from those among the oldest generations who personally are Karelian evacuees, and some of their children, popular opinion would also be divided about the issue.
 
Assuming Japanese do get all kuril islands
How does it impact Soviet pacific naval strategy? And safety of their fleet
Japan doesn't want all of the Kuril islands. To do so would mean revising the San Francisco treaty, which would cause immense diplomatic problems for Japan in their relations with many Asian countries. The Japanese claim has rested instead on the (dubious) assertion that the four southern islands are not really part of the Kuril islands chain.
 
Both Russia offering Finland all (or even most) of the areas lost in 1940 & 1944 and Finland going for such an offer would be, IMO, highly unlikely. I think Vyborg/Viipuri and surroundings would be the most realistic deal, if there was a deal to be had at all.

Looking at the OTL discussion about getting back Karelian areas in the early 90s, I'd say that there would have been opposition to such a plan as well, or at least a lot of hesitation because of the expected (and manifold) costs of it all. Regaining the lost areas has been a fringe issue in Finland for decades, no serious party has openly supported it since the 40s. It would therefore not be to be expected that the Finnish political establishment would be purely positive about the plan. Apart from those among the oldest generations who personally are Karelian evacuees, and some of their children, popular opinion would also be divided about the issue.
Of course it could be argued that it was a fringe position because it was so utterly unrealistic (and dangerous, considering Finland's delicate position in relation to the Soviet Union). But if the Russians were so accommodating as to offer the land back...
Weren't there also estimates that the territory could be profitable once they were brought to Finnish standards?
 
Of course it could be argued that it was a fringe position because it was so utterly unrealistic (and dangerous, considering Finland's delicate position in relation to the Soviet Union). But if the Russians were so accommodating as to offer the land back...
Weren't there also estimates that the territory could be profitable once they were brought to Finnish standards?

I'd argue that by the 90s, the passage of time had eaten away most of the allure of getting the lost areas back. People were starting to realize that what those Karelian areas had changed to in reality was quite different from what they still were in the nostalgic memories of the older (evacuee) generations. In the 50s and 60s most Finnish people saw Finland losing land to the USSR as a tragedy and an insult, but most did not openly support reclaiming the lost territories back due to a need to be politically prudent in conditions where Finland was in a precarious position vis-a-vis Moscow. But by the 80s and 90s, the realistic understanding that the Karelian lands were lost for good had started to become the mainstream, especially among people who had not been adults during the war, and Finns also started to understand that trying to reintegrate those areas to Finland after four decades of Soviet rule (during which they become inhabited by a predominately ethnically Russian population) might well be more trouble than it would be worth. Simply put, real support for actual irredentist policies had been reduced significantly (and crucially) since 1945.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that by the 90s, the passage of time had eaten away most of the allure of getting the lost areas back. People were starting to realize that what those Karelian areas had changed to in reality was quite different from what they still were in the nostalgic memories of the older (evacuee) generations. In the 50s and 60s most Finnish people saw Finland losing land to the USSR as a tragedy and an insult, but most did not openly support reclaiming the lost territories back due to a need to be politically prudent in conditions where Finland was in a precarious position vis-a-vis Moscow. But by the 80s and 90s, the realistic understanding that the Karelian lands were lost for good had started to become the mainstream, especially among people who had not been adults during the war, and Finns also started to understand that trying to reintegrate those areas to Finland after four decades of Soviet rule (during which they become inhabited by a predominately ethnically Russian population) might well be more trouble than it would be worth. Simply put, real support for actual irredentist policies had been reduced significantly (and crucially) since 1945.
Here is an interesting master thesis about the topic: http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_nbn_fi_uef-20141189/urn_nbn_fi_uef-20141189.pdf

And the most serious plans to alter the post-Paris borders, both projects of Kekkonen, were all focused on Viipuri and rest of former Säkkijärvi, west of the Saimaa Channel.
 
Top