The Little Giant: Finland Victorious in the Winter War

Very interesting. I know essentially nothing of Finnish politics of the time, but this is sounding like a fun ride.
 
Very interesting. I know essentially nothing of Finnish politics of the time, but this is sounding like a fun ride.

I didn't really know much about Finnish politics either, but I thought it would be the best place to start for a proper PoD.

More updates coming soon.
 
The update takes the Finnish political milieu well into consideration, and seems reasonable on the face of it. The sudden massive growth of the SDP is, IMO, more than a bit iffy, after such a short time since the beginning of the economic crisis, though. As it is, the party ITTL doubles its vote in the 1930 elections, making it bigger in parliament than it has ever been IOTL. I understand that a worse depression than IOTL could boost SDP support, but it is unlikely it would tilt the elections this much to the SDP's favor. It was still just a bit over a decade from the civil war, after all. There was a lot of distrust towards the SDP among the supporters of the "bourgeois" parties, in the countryside especially, and I simply can't see so many habitual voters of the bourgeois parties suddenly turning to the Social Democrats.

When we look at the OTL elections in the 30s, and even after the war, the changes in party support changed pretty slowly. The fault lines between the right and the left were too strong for such a massive, sudden shift. The political protest being directed at just the Agrarians is also unlikely. The SDP were the biggest party in parliament, and had been in the cabinet just recently in 26-27 as well. The growth the SDP saw IOTL in 30 and 33 can be well seen in the context of the far left being broken like the far right demanded - its voters turned to the Social Democrats instead. Namely, this means the voters of the STPV that was banned due to the OTL Communist Laws: the SDP gain in seats in between 1929-33 is pretty much exactly the same as what the STPV lost in 1930. On the other hand, by 1933, the Agrarians only lost what they had gained in 1929. What the OTL saw, therefore, can be understood as the fault lines between the Agrarians and the left returning to "normal" in 1933, after a brief rise in Agrarian support, on one hand, and the reorganization of the left so that the far left was subsumed by the SDP due to the general campaign against the far left, on the other. This is to say that the effects the Great Depression caused in the Finnish political system IOTL were pretty small in terms of the fault lines between the left and the bourgeois parties.

In the conditions of deepening depression and agitation in both the left and the right, it is hard to see that the elections would lead to a Social Democratic government. Quite the contrary, Relander would probably appoint an Agrarian minority cabinet, or perhaps a Agrarian-National Coalition joint cabinet. If the Finnish government goes Social Democrat at this point, the moderates in the bourgeois parties would fear that this will galvanize the right against a "perversion of the results of the civil war" and only strengthen the Lapua movement and make it likely that the Civil Guards and the military might move right as well. Under such circumstances, the bourgeois parties would close ranks for the presidential elections. So, Tanner winning the presidency is unlikely. As it was, even the possibility of the moderate Ståhlberg winning was seen as a likely spark to ignite a Lapuan rebellion. Have anyone even a bit more left win would be worse.

So - if Tanner won, putting down a Lapua Movement rebellion would be much harder than IOTL. As president, Svinhufvud could moot the Mäntsälä rebellion because he was trusted by the conservatives and much of the Civil Guards and the military as "their man". He had the authority to cowe the right wing as a believable anti-Communist leader. With a Social Democrat-controlled government in the early thirties, there would a real possibility of more of the Civil Guards and soldiers joining a far right coup attempt, due to a belief that the Social Democrats in charge would not be trustworthy or legitimate enough and that the country was sliding towards a new leftist takeover and Communism. Whether or not the majority of the armed troops in Finland would follow the orders of the legitimate national leadership would be touch and go in such a situation. Even if Tanner could control the situation, I can see it getting much worse than with Mäntsälä IOTL, to the point of actual fighting and loss of lives. And that would be very bad for the future of the Finnish society, any which way we look at it.

In the worst case scenario, the combination of a Social Democrat government and a Lapuan insurrection in the early thirties could lead into a civil war, and/or a militant far-right takeover of the government.
 
Last edited:
The update takes the Finnish political milieu well into consideration, and seems reasonable on the face of it. The sudden massive growth of the SDP is, IMO, more than a bit iffy, after such a short time since the beginning of the economic crisis, though. As it is, the party ITTL doubles its vote in the 1930 elections, making it bigger in parliament than it has ever been IOTL. I understand that a worse depression than IOTL could boost SDP support, but it is unlikely it would tilt the elections this much to the SDP's favor. It was still just a bit over a decade from the civil war, after all. There was a lot of distrust towards the SDP among the supporters of the "bourgeois" parties, in the countryside especially, and I simply can't see so many habitual voters of the bourgeois parties suddenly turning to the Social Democrats.

When we look at the OTL elections in the 30s, and even after the war, the changes in party support changed pretty slowly. The fault lines between the right and the left were too strong for such a massive, sudden shift. The political protest being directed at just the Agrarians is also unlikely. The SDP were the biggest party in parliament, and had been in the cabinet just recently in 26-27 as well. The growth the SDP saw IOTL in 30 and 33 can be well seen in the context of the far left being broken like the far right demanded - its voters turned to the Social Democrats instead. Namely, this means the voters of the STPV that was banned due to the OTL Communist Laws: the SDP gain in seats in between 1929-33 is pretty much exactly the same as what the STPV lost in 1930. On the other hand, by 1933, the Agrarians only lost what they had gained in 1929. What the OTL saw, therefore, can be understood as the fault lines between the Agrarians and the left returning to "normal" in 1933, after a brief rise in Agrarian support, on one hand, and the reorganization of the left so that the far left was subsumed by the SDP due to the general campaign against the far left, on the other. This is to say that the effects the Great Depression caused in the Finnish political system IOTL were pretty small in terms of the fault lines between the left and the bourgeois parties.

In the conditions of deepening depression and agitation in both the left and the right, it is hard to see that the elections would lead to a Social Democratic government. Quite the contrary, Relander would probably appoint an Agrarian minority cabinet, or perhaps a Agrarian-National Coalition joint cabinet. If the Finnish government goes Social Democrat at this point, the moderates in the bourgeois parties would fear that this will galvanize the right against a "perversion of the results of the civil war" and only strengthen the Lapua movement and make it likely that the Civil Guards and the military might move right as well. Under such circumstances, the bourgeois parties would close ranks for the presidential elections. So, Tanner winning the presidency is unlikely. As it was, even the possibility of the moderate Ståhlberg winning was seen as a likely spark to ignite a Lapuan rebellion. Have anyone even a bit more left win would be worse.

So - if Tanner won, putting down a Lapua Movement rebellion would be much harder than IOTL. As president, Svinhufvud could moot the Mäntsälä rebellion because he was trusted by the conservatives and much of the Civil Guards and the military as "their man". He had the authority to cowe the right wing as a believable anti-Communist leader. With a Social Democrat-controlled government in the early thirties, there would a real possibility of more of the Civil Guards and soldiers joining a far right coup attempt, due to a belief that the Social Democrats in charge would not be trustworthy or legitimate enough and that the country was sliding towards a new leftist takeover and Communism. Whether or not the majority of the armed troops in Finland would follow the orders of the legitimate national leadership would be touch and go in such a situation. Even if Tanner could control the situation, I can see it getting much worse than with Mäntsälä IOTL, to the point of actual fighting and loss of lives. And that would be very bad for the future of the Finnish society, any which way we look at it.

In the worst case scenario, the combination of a Social Democrat government and a Lapuan insurrection in the early thirties could lead into a civil war, and/or a militant far-right takeover of the government.

That is a possibility, but Tanner was a staunch anti-communist and in OTL, was the main reason why Finland jumped into the Continuation War with both feet. He practically united the nation against communism for the war. That being said, if he makes his anti-communist stance clear and go as far as to suppress the communist party (which will most likely happen ITTL), then the far right will have no big reason to rebel.

I have fixed the numbers for the SDP so the SDP has less seats. But I think around 80 or so seats is still a reasonable number, if the SDP do better and take seats away from some of the other left winged parties.
 
That is a possibility, but Tanner was a staunch anti-communist and in OTL, was the main reason why Finland jumped into the Continuation War with both feet. He practically united the nation against communism for the war. That being said, if he makes his anti-communist stance clear and go as far as to suppress the communist party (which will most likely happen ITTL), then the far right will have no big reason to rebel.

I have fixed the numbers for the SDP so the SDP has less seats. But I think around 80 or so seats is still a reasonable number, if the SDP do better and take seats away from some of the other left winged parties.

It is not a problem with Tanner - he was an anti-Communist and a safe pair of hands. One of the political giants of the early republic, and predominately for the good. The problem is with the far right, who are not exactly realistic, and the perceptions of those hovering in between the moderate right and the far right, who IOTL trusted Svinhufvud but would not trust Tanner. Many of them were armed and organized. There was a lot of agitation against "the Reds" and a fear of a Communist takeover in Finland at the time - think of the US electing a president who can be plausibly called a Socialist in the 50s. That would not be the half of it, as the Finnish political system was much more unstable less than 15 years into the independence than the US system ever was in the 20th century.

80 seats for the SDP is IMO much more realistic than 91. But still, under the circumstances, a SDP presidency is highly unlikely in the early 30s, due to the stigma the SDP was still suffering from in the eyes of the moderates and the right, and the significant position the "White warriors" of 1918 had in the Finnish society through their leadership in the Civil Guards and the defence establishment. I could see one after the Lapuans have been decisively slapped down and discredited somehow, but not while they still are powerful enough to seriously threaten constitutional order.

It is your TL, however, and you should write it the way you consider the best. I will provide criticism as early Finnish independence is a theme I am quite interested in, but don't let that deter you from telling the story you want.:) (You can also PM me if you want to ask my opinions on issues to do with the 30s in Finland).
 
Last edited:
It seems to me the actual drivibg POD is vaguely defined.
"This never happened". How about an setting it in motion. It could be a scandal involvibg the agrarian party, thus explaining some of the electoral changes?
Sorry, I know very little about Finnish politics so I cant offer anything specific.
Nice beginning btw
 
It is not a problem with Tanner - he was an anti-Communist and a safe pair of hands. One of the political giants of the early republic, and predominately for the good. The problem is with the far right, who are not exactly realistic, and the perceptions of those hovering in between the moderate right and the far right, who IOTL trusted Svinhufvud but would not trust Tanner. Many of them were armed and organized. There was a lot of agitation against "the Reds" and a fear of a Communist takeover in Finland at the time - think of the US electing a president who can be plausibly called a Socialist in the 50s. That would not be the half of it, as the Finnish political system was much more unstable less than 15 years into the independence than the US system ever was in the 20th century.

80 seats for the SDP is IMO much more realistic than 91. But still, under the circumstances, a SDP presidency is highly unlikely in the early 30s, due to the stigma the SDP was still suffering from in the eyes of the moderates and the right, and the significant position the "White warriors" of 1918 had in the Finnish society through their leadership in the Civil Guards and the defence establishment. I could see one after the Lapuans have been decisively slapped down and discredited somehow, but not while they still are powerful enough to seriously threaten constitutional order.

It is your TL, however, and you should write it the way you consider the best. I will provide criticism as early Finnish independence is a theme I am quite interested in, but don't let that deter you from telling the story you want.:) (You can also PM me if you want to ask my opinions on issues to do with the 30s in Finland).

Civil war is not out of the picture :)

In fact, it's pretty much definite. President Tanner can't and won't be able to root out all the right wing elements and the White Guard will certainly react accordingly. Even with his heavy handed policy on communists, he will face stiff opposition... Armed opposition is a likely.

If you can, can you PM me on the political and economical situation of Finland at the time? I've done research, but I would also like some additional perspectives.

It seems to me the actual drivibg POD is vaguely defined.
"This never happened". How about an setting it in motion. It could be a scandal involvibg the agrarian party, thus explaining some of the electoral changes?
Sorry, I know very little about Finnish politics so I cant offer anything specific.
Nice beginning btw

The PoD wasn't entirely clear (and I'll edit it that now), but the PoD at this point is the Lapua Movement never kidnapping Finland's first president and continuing their attacks of suspected communists and politicians. Without the kidnapping, the Agrarian League never full distances itself from the Lapua Movement, which angers the populace because the Lapua Movement is basically going around and killing and kidnapping anyone they deem is "communist." This along with the bigger economic downturn makes the SDP gain more seats in the Parliament, which is certainly feasible considering that they did achieve a victory in OTL, though certainly a narrower lead than ITTL.

With the public favor swinging towards the SDP, the SDP takes the presidency, since in OTL, the National Coalition's (with the backing of the Agrarian League) candidate squeaked a victory with 1 electoral vote over his opponent.
 
Ooh, a Finland wank!

I might see this working out (Finland benefitting from World War II but the Nazis eventually losing) if Hitler, seeing the soviets doing badly against Finland, senses blood in the water and puts all of German war effort into Barbarossa earlier, with similarly poor logistics as OTL if not worse due to troops designed to 'kick the crumbling edifice down' stuck in mud and starving and freezing to death. In a timeline with no Afrika Korps and no nazi armies in Greece due to the nazis being preoccupied in the east, Italy would see two disastrous defeats and give Churchill the soft underbelly he keeps talking about much sooner.

Bonus points if Rommel is given command of Army Group South, ignores nazi policies regarding how the cheering Ukrainian masses are to be treated and consequentially stumbles onto a populace eager to provide him with the necessary logistics to take Stalingrad before the soviets fully realize what's going on.
 
Top